Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.

Date: November 22, 2024 Fri

Time: 11:58 am

Results for drug treatment

116 results found

Author: Shanahan, Marian

Title: Estimating the Cost-Savings of Reduced Crime While in Methadone Treatment

Summary: The aim of this study was to assess if there was evidence of cost-savings due to crimes averted while individuals were engaged in methadone maintenance as a treatment for heroin use. Two sets of analyses are presented in this paper, and they were produced over a four year period for a population-based sample of New South Wales methadone clients. The first analysis is descriptive and presents the total number of treatment days and crimes committed on and off methadone, and the costs of treatment, gaol and crimes for the sample over the four year study period. The second analysis reports the results of the use of a regression analysis to explore whether methadone treatment impacts upon the costs of crime and gaol.

Details: Sydney: National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, University of New South Wales, 2007. 41p.

Source: NDARC Technical Report No. 264: accessed May 8, 2018 at: https://ndarc.med.unsw.edu.au/resource/estimating-cost-savings-reduced-crime-while-methadone-treatment

Year: 2007

Country: Australia

URL: https://ndarc.med.unsw.edu.au/resource/estimating-cost-savings-reduced-crime-while-methadone-treatment

Shelf Number: 116657

Keywords:
Drug Abuse and Crime
Drug Abuse Treatment
Drug Offenders
Drug Treatment
Heroin
Methadone

Author: Amon, Joe

Title: Where Darkness Knows No Limits: Incarceration, Ill-treatment, and Forced Labor as Drug Rehabilitation in China

Summary: This report details the abusive conditions suffered by detainees in China's drug detention centers, the failure of the Chinese government to deliver on its avowed commitment to a medical-based approach to its illicit drug use and addiction problems, and the human rights violations associated with the Anti-Drug Law. The report calls on the Chinese government to immediately close these centers and develop genuinely therapeutic, voluntary, community-based, outpatient drug dependency treatment alternatives.

Details: New York: Human Rights Watch, 2010. 37p.

Source: Internet Resource

Year: 2010

Country: China

URL:

Shelf Number: 117824

Keywords:
Detention
Drug Abuse and Addiction
Drug Offenders
Drug Treatment
Forced Labor
Human Rights Abuses

Author: Passey, Megan

Title: Evaluation of the Lismore MERIT Pilot Program: Final Report

Summary: The Lismore Magistrates Early Referral into Treatment (MERIT) Pilot Program is a pre-plea early court intervention. The target population of the program were adult defendants at Lismore and surrounding Local Courts, who had a demonstrable drug problem, were elegible for bail, and who were motivated to engage in treatment for their illicit drug problems. This report presents a formal evaluation of the impact and effectiveness of the program. It includes the following sections: program and participant profiles; court outcomes and recidivism; health and social functioning outcomes; economic assessment; review of legal issues; implementation review; and participant perspectives and satisfaction.

Details: Sydney: Attorney General's Department, 2003. 133p.

Source: Internet Resource

Year: 2003

Country: Australia

URL:

Shelf Number: 118760

Keywords:
Court Intervention
Drug Offenders
Drug Treatment

Author: Corman, Hope

Title: Effects of Welfare Reform on Illicit Drug Use of Adult Women

Summary: Exploiting changes in welfare policy across states and over time and comparing relevant population subgroups within an economietric difference-in-differences framework, this study estimates the causal effects of welfare reform on adult women's illicit drug use from 1992 to 2002, the period during which welfare reform unfolded in the U.S.

Details: Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research, 2010. 52p.

Source: Internet Resource; NBER Working Paper Series, Working Paper 16072

Year: 2010

Country: United States

URL:

Shelf Number: 119108

Keywords:
Drug Abuse and Addiction
Drug Offenders
Drug Treatment
Welfare

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 Courts
Drug Treatment
Mental Health Courts

Author: European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction

Title: Serbia: Country Overview 2009

Summary: This country overview provides a structured synopsis of the trends and characteristics of national drug problems in Serbia in 2009. It consists of a summary of the national drug situation presenting brief information in key areas - drug prevalence, prevention, harm reduction, drug laws, etc.

Details: Luxembourg: Publications Office for the European Union, 2009. 16p.

Source: Internet Resource

Year: 2009

Country: Serbia and Montenegro

URL:

Shelf Number: 119126

Keywords:
Drug Abuse and Addiction
Drug Policy
Drug Prevention
Drug Treatment
Drugs (Serbia)

Author: European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction

Title: Bosnia and Herzegovina: County Overview 2009

Summary: This country overview provides a structured synopsis of the trends and characteristics of national drug problems in Bosnia and Herzegovina in 2009. It consists of a summary of the national drug situation presenting brief information in key areas - drug prevalence, prevention, harm reduction, drug laws, etc.

Details: Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2009. 39p.

Source: Internet Resource

Year: 2009

Country: Bosnia and Herzegovina

URL:

Shelf Number: 119125

Keywords:
Drug Abuse and Addiction
Drug Policy
Drug Treatment
Drugs

Author: Great Britain. National Audit Office

Title: Tackling Problem Drug Use

Summary: This report by the U.K. National Audit Office into government action to tackle problem drug use has concluded that there has been good progress in a number of areas, including an increasing number of problem drug users in effective treatment and an increasing number leaving treatment free from dependency.

Details: London: The Stationery Office, 2010. 38p.

Source: Internet Resource; HC 297 Session 2009-2010

Year: 2010

Country: United Kingdom

URL:

Shelf Number: 118558

Keywords:
Drug Abuse and Addiction
Drug Treatment

Author: European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction

Title: Cocaine and Crack Cocaine: A Growing Public Health Issue

Summary: This report shows that, in some European countries, there has been a marked increase in recent years in the use of cocaine, in treatment demands for cocaine problems and in seizures of the drug. The potential for cocaine use to have a major impact on public health is examined and special attention given to the health consequences of cocaine use, which are often not well recognised in existing reporting systems. Also examined are the challenges to providing effective treatment for cocaine and crack cocaine dependence.

Details: Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 2007. 30p.

Source: Internet Resource' EMCDDA 2007 Selected Issue

Year: 2007

Country: Europe

URL:

Shelf Number: 118622

Keywords:
Cocaine
Drug Abuse and Addiction
Drug Treatment
Drugs

Author: Arizona. Attorney General's Office

Title: Addressing the Meth Crisis in Arizona: Arizona Methamphetamine Conference Report 2006

Summary: This report presents the findings from a conference held on Februay 13 & 14, 2006, which addressed the issue of methamphetamine abuse in Arizona, and includes reommendations about the impact of methamphetamine and what is working nationwide in the areas of prvention, treatment and law enforcement.

Details: Phoenix: Attorney General's Office, 2006. 44p.

Source: Internet Resource

Year: 2006

Country: United States

URL:

Shelf Number: 119280

Keywords:
Drug Control
Drug Treatment
Methamphetamine (Arizona)
Narcotics

Author: Keaton, Sandy

Title: Families as Healers: Phoenix House San Diego's Family Services Enhancement Program

Summary: The goal of the Families as Healers (FAH) program is to strengthen and expand Phoenix House San Diego’s Family Services programming to improve the quality and access of services while enhancing a program that promotes healthy behaviors. The project, which received initial funding from The California Endowment, aimed to provide services to approximately 50 unduplicated youths between August 1, 2006, and July 31, 2008. This funding was extended with a grant from the Alliance Healthcare Foundation to enhance the specialized health and mental services as well as extend the follow-up period through September 2009. During this period the program exceeded its goal to serve 50 youth and their families, with a total of 320 youth enrolled and agreeing to participate in the evaluation. The Criminal Justice Research Division of SANDAG conducted the impact evaluation of the FAH program by analyzing data on participants at intake, exit, and six months post exit. Data showed that FAH clients were dealing with multiple issues including severe substance use, mental health symptoms, and delinquent behavior. Additionally, compared to outpatient clients, residential clients were at higher risk in most categories. Exit and data follow-up data exit showed that youth made positive gains in substance use, school/employment participation, and delinquency. This is the sixth and final report.

Details: San Diego: SANDAG (San Diego Association of Governments), 2009. 27p.

Source: Internet Resource

Year: 2009

Country: United States

URL:

Shelf Number: 118764

Keywords:
Drug Treatment
Family Interventions
Juvenile Offenders (San Diego)
Mental Health Services
Recidivism
Rehabilitation, Juveniles
Substance Abuse

Author: Lennox, Charlotte

Title: Offender Health: Scoping Review and Research Priorities within the UK

Summary: This report is a scoping review of the literature surrounding health of people in contact with police custody, court, and probation settings. The aim of this report is: 1) to conduct a review of the current literature the health of people in police custody, courts and probations; 2)to discuss and evaluate the implications of the literature; and 3) to provide research priorities based on the knowledge gaps.

Details: Liverpool: Offender Health Research Network, 2009. 71p.

Source: Internet Resource

Year: 2009

Country: United Kingdom

URL:

Shelf Number: 117360

Keywords:
Drug Treatment
Health Care, Offenders
Medical Care
Mental Health Services
Rehabilitation

Author: McBride, Duane C.

Title: The Drugs-Crime Wars: Past, Present and Future Directions in Theory, Policy and Program Interventions

Summary: Research into the relationship between drug use and crime has generated a substantial body of literature. While these efforts have not established a causal link between the two behaviors, they do confirm a high correlation between drug use and many types of criminal behavior in a) the general population, b) populations of drug users, and c) arrested populations. The literature also shows that the drugs-crime relationship occurs within the framework of societal policies toward drug use that have ranged from regulated commercial approaches to strict prohibition. There is considerable debate about the strength and continuity of the relationship between drug use and crime. It is suggested that research focusing on the relationship would benefit from the application of theoretical models such as Ecosystems Theory and/or Social Capital. These models may help sort out the nature and complexity of the relationship as well as suggest more appropriate interventions. A review of programmatic approaches that have been used to break the drugs-crime relationship is presented that suggests the most successful approaches include a comprehensive range of services from assessment, implementation of services to meet assessed needs, and aftercare within the framework of graduated sanctions and comprehensive case management. In order to further examine the drugs-crime relationship, it is suggested that future research should use an interdisciplinary approach to evaluate the differential impact of state policies as well as and examine the effectiveness of specific treatment program elements.

Details: Chicago: ImpacTeen, 2001. 116p.

Source: Internet Resource; Research Paper Series, No. 14

Year: 2001

Country: United States

URL:

Shelf Number: 119462

Keywords:
Drug Abuse and Crime
Drug Policy
Drug Treatment
Drugs

Author: Lloyd, Charlie

Title: Drugs Research: An Overview of Evidence and Questions for Policy

Summary: In 2001 the Joseph Rowntree Foundation embarked upon a programme of research that explored the problem of illicit drugs in the UK. The research addressed many questions that were often too sensitive for the government to tackle. In many cases, these studies represented the first research on these issues. This study gives an overview of the projects in the programme. The topics covered include: The policing of drug possession; The domestic cultivation, purchasing and heavy use of cannabis; Non-problematic heroin use, heroin prescription and Drug Consumption Rooms; The impact of drugs on the family; and Drug testing in schools and in the workplace.

Details: York, UK: Joseph Rowntree Foundation, 2010. 70p.

Source: Internet Resource

Year: 2010

Country: United Kingdom

URL:

Shelf Number: 119469

Keywords:
Drug Abuse and Addiction
Drug Testing
Drug Treatment
Drugs
Narcotics
Substance Abuse

Author: Dekker, Joula

Title: An Evaluation of the Compulsory Drug Treatment Program (CDTP)

Summary: The Compulsory Drug Treatment Correctional Centre (CDTCC) is a purpose-built facility erected for the CDTP. The CDTP began in August 2006 and operates as a five-stage post-sentencing program for males. Drug treatment and rehabilitation is provided in Stages 1-3 primarily from the CDTCC, followed by Stage 4 (parole) and Stage 5 (voluntary case management0 in the community where appropriate. It was beyond the scope of the study to investigate the impact of Stages 4 and 5. Stage 1 involves closed detention, and participants are kept in full-time custody at the CDTCC. This stage aims to stabilise participants and to address physical and mental health needs, while providing adult education, work readiness and skills programs, and therapeutic programs that target dynamic risk factors for drug-related offending. Stage 2 involves semi-open detention, whereby participants are permitted to leave the CDTCC to attend employment, training and approved social activities. Stage 2 involves therapeutic programs to maintain positive behaviour change and other training to assist in effective re-integration into the community. Stage 3 involves community custody, where participants reside outside of the CDTCC but under intensive supervision from CDTCC staff. Stage 3 aims to support community re-integration and to strengthen changes made in Stages 1 and 2. Participants should stay in each stage of the program for a period of at least six months. Following successful completion of Stage 3 of the program, offenders are released into the community once the period of the sentence has been completed. The research involved a series of face-to-face interviews with CDTP participants. Baseline interviews were conducted with 95 participants at the commencement of their time on the program. Three follow-up interviews were conducted as close to the time that participants finished Stages 1, 2 and 3, as was practicable. By the time data collection ceased, 78 per cent of the baseline sample (74 participants) had completed Stage 1 and participated in one follow-up interview (end of Stage 1), and 41 per cent of the baseline sample (39 participants; for some measures information is missing for one participant so N = 38) had completed both Stages 1 and 2 and participated in two follow-up interviews (end of Stages 1 and 2). Of the baseline sample, 13.5 per cent (13 participants) had completed all three follow-up interviews (end of Stages 1, 2, and 3). Due to the small number of participants who had completed Stages 1, 2 and 3 and participated in all three follow-up interviews, changes from baseline through to the end of Stage 3 were not investigated. The evaluation also included analysis of the regular urine samples provided by CDTP participants as a condition of the program. Due to the lack of a comparison group it is difficult to draw any firm conclusions about the effectiveness of the program. Nevertheless, there are some promising aspects to the program. Participants' health and wellbeing appeared to improve over time on the program. Although the program was coercive, the vast majority of participants felt that their participation in the CDTP was voluntary. Participants made positive comments about the program and consistently expressed their desire to be in the program regardless of what stage they were in. This is encouraging evidence that offenders in the program genuinely wanted to change their behaviour. These positive findings, however, have to be set against the fact that illegal and non-prescribed drug use was detected in at least one of the drug tests for the majority of participants, despite 'positive' tests accounting for only a very small proportion of all tests conducted.

Details: Sydney: NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, 2010. 90p.

Source: Internet Resource

Year: 2010

Country: Australia

URL:

Shelf Number: 119479

Keywords:
Drug Offenders
Drug Treatment
Rehabilitation

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 Addiction
Drug Courts
Drug Offenders
Drug Treatment

Author: World Health Organization, Europe

Title: Psychoactive Substance Use in Kosovo: Rapid Assessment and Response with Youth, Injecting Drug Users and Prisoners

Summary: "The report analyses the level of psychoactive substance use with youth, injecting drug users and prisoners in Kosovo. The aim of the report is to document the situation on psychoactive substance use in Kosovo and to provide recommendations which should be taken into consideration when designing evidence-based interventions and programmes at the institutional and community level."

Details: Pristina, Kosovo: UNICEF, 2010.

Source: Internet Resource; Accessed August 16, 2010 at:http://www.unicef.org/ceecis/RAR_psychoactive_substance_use_eng_09.pdf

Year: 2010

Country: International

URL: http://www.unicef.org/ceecis/RAR_psychoactive_substance_use_eng_09.pdf

Shelf Number: 119608

Keywords:
Drug Abuse and Addiction
Drug Offenders
Drug Treatment
Psychoactive Drugs (Kosovo)

Author: Fitzgerald, Jacqueline

Title: Trands in Property and Illicit Drug Crime Around the Medically Supervised Injecting Centre in Kings Cross: An Update

Summary: The Medically Supervised Injecting Centre (MSIC) opened in Kings Cross in May 2001. This paper examines whether there have been (a) increases in the volume of robbery, property crime and drug offences in Kings Cross Local Area Command, or (b) increases in the proportion of Kings Cross drug offences occurring in the immediate vicinity of the MSIC, which could be attributed to the MSIC. The volume of crime was indicated by the number of criminal incidents of robbery, property crime and selected drug offences recorded by NSW Police between January 1999 and March 2010. We computed the trends in these offences in Kings Cross LAC from May 2001 to March 2010 and compared the results to the equivalent trends for the rest of Sydney SD. Spatial analyses were used to determine whether drug arrests were concentrated around the MSIC site. Police recorded incidents of possession and dealing of narcotics, cocaine and amphetamines were geocoded and mapped with the results inferred by descriptive statistics and visual inspection. With a few minor exceptions the incidence of robbery and property offences have fallen in the Kings Cross Local Area Command since 2001. This pattern is consistent with the rest of Sydney. Of the six drug offences considered, five have been stable in Kings Cross since 2001. The exception was cocaine possession which increased in both Kings Cross and the rest of Sydney. The spatial analyses showed no pattern of increased drug offences around the MSIC. No evidence was found that the MSIC has had a negative impact on robbery, property crime or drug offences in Kings Cross LAC.

Details: Sydney: New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, 2010. 6p.

Source: Internet Resource: Crime and Justice Statistics Bureau Brief, Issue Paper no. 51: Accessed September 6, 2010 at: http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/bocsar/ll_bocsar.nsf/vwFiles/bb51.pdf/$file/bb51.pdf

Year: 2010

Country: Australia

URL: http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/bocsar/ll_bocsar.nsf/vwFiles/bb51.pdf/$file/bb51.pdf

Shelf Number: 119745

Keywords:
Drug Abuse and Crime
Drug Offences
Drug Treatment
Property Crime
Robbery

Author: Mejia, Daniel

Title: The War on Illegal Drugs in Producer and Consumer Countries: A Simple Analytical Framework

Summary: This paper develops a model of the war against illegal drugs in both producer and consumer countries. The paper studies the trade-off faced by the government of the drug consumer country between prevention policies (aimed at reducing the demand for drugs) and enforcement policies (aimed at reducing the production and trafficking of drugs), and shows how the optimal allocation of resources between these two alternatives depends on the key parameters of the model. We use available data for the war on drugs in Colombia, and against consumption in the U.S., to calibrate the unobservable parameters of the model, such as the price elasticity of demand for cocaine; the effectiveness of prevention and treatment policies; and the relative effectiveness of interdiction efforts.

Details: Munich: CESifo, 2008. 23p.

Source: Internet Resource: CESifo Working Paper, No. 2459: Accessed September 14, 2010 at: http://www.cesifo.de/DocCIDL/cesifo1_wp2459.pdf

Year: 2008

Country: International

URL: http://www.cesifo.de/DocCIDL/cesifo1_wp2459.pdf

Shelf Number: 119800

Keywords:
Drug Enforcement
Drug Policy
Drug Prevention
Drug Trafficking
Drug Treatment
Plan Colombia
War on Drugs

Author: Patel, Professor Lord Patel of Bradford

Title: The Patel Report: Reducing Drug-Related Crime and Rehabilitating Offenders

Summary: The report focuses on drug treatment and interventions for people in prison, people moving between prisons and the continuity of care for people on release from prison. The report outlines the evidence gathered and work carried out by the Review Group and summarises their conclusions and recommendations.

Details: London: UK Department of Health, 2010. 216p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 2, 2010 at: http://www.dh.gov.uk/prod_consum_dh/groups/dh_digitalassets/@dh/@en/@ps/documents/digitalasset/dh_119850.pdf

Year: 2010

Country: United Kingdom

URL: http://www.dh.gov.uk/prod_consum_dh/groups/dh_digitalassets/@dh/@en/@ps/documents/digitalasset/dh_119850.pdf

Shelf Number: 120153

Keywords:
Drug Abuse and Addiction
Drug Abuse and Crime
Drug Offenders
Drug Treatment
Rehabilitation

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 Incarceration
Drug Abuse and Crime
Drug Courts
Drug Offenders
Drug Treatment

Author: New Jersey Commission to Review Criminal Sentencing

Title: New Jersey's Drug Courts, Special Probation and Proposal for Reform

Summary: This report presents a concise summary of the key findings and recommendations of the New Jersey Commission to Review Criminal Sentencing concerning N.J.S.A. 2C:3514, commonly referred to as the special probation statute. The special probation statute was enacted as part of the Comprehensive Drug Reform Act of 1986 and provides for rehabilitative treatment and intensive supervision for nonviolent, drug-dependent offenders. The special probation statute was intended by the Legislature to divert appropriate offenders subject to state imprisonment to a five-year period of intensive supervision conditioned upon a mandatory six-month period of inpatient drug treatment. The special probation statute predated by several years the establishment of drug courts in New Jersey and serves as a mechanism pursuant to which otherwise prison-bound offenders are admitted into New Jersey's Drug Court Program. The special probation statute and the New Jersey Adult Drug Court Program are not synonymous. The New Jersey Drug Court program is administered by the Administrative Office of the Courts and involves a collaborative relationship between representatives of the criminal justice system, including judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys and probation officers, and drug treatment professionals. The special probation statute defines with particularity which prisonbound defendants, i.e., those who are subject to a presumption of imprisonment or a mandatory minimum term of incarceration, may gain entry into the Drug Court Program. The provision also enumerates specific conditions that must be adhered to by these offenders while participating in the Drug Court Program. There exists compelling evidence that individuals who use illicit drugs are more likely to engage in criminal behavior, and that many offenses are commonly committed by individu als who had used drugs or alcohol during or just prior to committing their crimes. The drug court model was developed in response to a widespread recognition that the conventional criminal justice process had little impact on the rehabilitative prospects of drug-dependent offenders. The principal goal of drug courts is to reduce drug use and associated criminal behavior by engaging and retaining drug-involved offenders in coerced treatment. At the center of the collaborative approach embodied by the drug court model is the trial judge. The investment of judicial resources in drug court programs has been validated by a study reflecting that “highrisk” offenders perform better in drug court when subject to biweekly status hearings. While acknowledging the methodological flaws in a substantial number of studies, the New Jersey Commission to Review Criminal Sentencing (Commission) has nonetheless reviewed recent literature on the impact of drug courts and concluded there is substantial and empirically reliable evidence that drug courts are indeed effective in reducing recidivism among offenders who have successfully completed drug court programs. Although more comprehensive and methodologically rigorous studies are certainly warranted, the available outcome data for offenders sentenced under N.J.S.A. 2C:3514 compares favorably to the data on outcomes for nondrug court state prison offenders.

Details: Trenton: New Jersey Commission to Review Criminal Sentencing, 2007. 50p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 3, 2010 at: http://www.sentencing.nj.gov/downloads/special_probation_report_April_2007.pdf

Year: 2007

Country: United States

URL: http://www.sentencing.nj.gov/downloads/special_probation_report_April_2007.pdf

Shelf Number: 120374

Keywords:
Drug Courts (New Jersey)
Drug Offenders
Drug Treatment
Intensive Supervision
Probation

Author: South Australia. Attorney-General's Department. Office of Crime Statistics and Research

Title: Youth CARDS Final Evaluation Report

Summary: This report presents findings of the evaluation of the Youth Court Assessment and Referral Drug Scheme (CARDS). The evaluation of CARDS was undertaken from July 2005 to December 2006. As far as is possible within the timeframe, the evaluation focused on both process and outcomes. The process evaluation sought to monitor and record key aspects of the implementaion, coordination and operation of Youth CARDS. The outcome evaluation sought to establish the extent to which the aims and intended outcomes of Youth CARDS had been achieved in its pilot period. The evaluation was based on a mixed methods approach incorporating qualitative and quantitative techniques using a range of data collection methods.

Details: Adelaide: Office of Crime Statistics and Research, 2008. 45p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 6, 2010 at: http://www.ocsar.sa.gov.au/docs/evaluation_reports/YouthCARDSFinalEvaluationReport.pdf

Year: 2008

Country: Australia

URL: http://www.ocsar.sa.gov.au/docs/evaluation_reports/YouthCARDSFinalEvaluationReport.pdf

Shelf Number: 120394

Keywords:
Drug Offenders
Drug Treatment
Juvenile Diversion
Juvenile Offenders (Australia)
Recidivism

Author: Picard-Fritsche, Sarah

Title: Expanding Access to Drug Court: An Evaluation of Brooklyn's Centralized Drug Screening and Referral Initiative

Summary: This report presents an evaluation of the comprehensive drug screening and referral system launched by the Brooklyn Criminal Court in 2003. The system was designed to expand access to court-mandated treatment for drug-addicted criminal defendants throughout a large urban courthouse. The evaluation found that the initiative led to a significantly larger and more diverse pool of defendants to be screened, referred, and enrolled in treatment. However, it was also the case that large numbers of legally eligible defendants were not referred, despite meeting expanded criteria. Lessons learned are discussed both for Brooklyn and other jurisdictions nationwide.

Details: New York: Center for Court Innovation, 2010. 43p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 9, 2010 at: http://www.communitycourts.org/_uploads/documents/Expanding_Access.pdf

Year: 2010

Country: United States

URL: http://www.communitycourts.org/_uploads/documents/Expanding_Access.pdf

Shelf Number: 120417

Keywords:
Drug Courts (New York City)
Drug Offenders
Drug Treatment

Author: Florida. Supreme Court Task Force on Treatment-Based Drug Courts

Title: Report on Florida's Drug Courts

Summary: This report explores the evolution of drug courts in Florida and its contribution not only to the justice system, but to Florida as a whole. It will also recommend how the process can be expanded to contribute to a better Florida. Specifically, this report set out to accomplish the following objectives: 􀂾 identify the problems caused by substance abuse within the justice system; 􀂾 trace the history and current status of drug courts in Florida; 􀂾 reference legislation relating to drug courts; 􀂾 describe how the creation and development of the drug court has improved the justice system and society as a whole through lower recidivism and cost savings in jail and prison beds; 􀂾 explain the current funding structure and identify future needs; and 􀂾 provide recommendations on the steps to be taken to integrate drug court into mainstream judicial processing.

Details: Tallahassee, FL: Office of the State Courts Administrator, 2004. 52p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 11, 2011 at: http://www.flcourts.org/gen_public/family/bin/dcreport.pdf

Year: 2004

Country: United States

URL: http://www.flcourts.org/gen_public/family/bin/dcreport.pdf

Shelf Number: 121295

Keywords:
Drug Courts (Florida)
Drug Offenders
Drug Treatment

Author: 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 Offenders
Drug Treatment

Author: Watson, Lanette

Title: Process and Outcome Evaluation of the STAR (Sisters Together Achieving Recovery) Program

Summary: This report presents a process and outcome evaluation of the STAR (Sisters Together Achieving Recovery) program housed at the Iowa Correctional Institution for Women (ICIW) in Mitchellville, Iowa. The STAR Program is a licensed inpatient substance abuse treatment program that utilizes a Therapeutic Community model (TC). All offenders exiting the STAR program between October 1, 2004 and June 30, 2008 were included in the study (n=173). A comparison sample was drawn of offenders exiting the ICIW during the same release time frame with identified but untreated substance abuse needs (n= 173). March 31, 2010 was designated as the cut-off date for the study. This yielded an average post-program follow-up time of 3.1 years. The STAR group was further divided into two groups by time of program exit. Participants exiting the program between October 1, 2004 and June 30, 2006 were designated as STAR 1 (n=78) and those exiting the program between July 1, 2006 and June 30, 2008 were designated as STAR 2 (n=95). In order to have comparable tracking time between STAR groups, tracking time for STAR 1 concluded July 31, 2008. This yielded an average post release follow-up time of 2.4 years for both groups. Demographic, Program, Intervention, and Outcome data were examined. Comparisons were made between groups as well as categories of participation.

Details: Des Moines, IA: Iowa Department of Human Rights, Division of Criminal and Juvenile Justice Planning, Statistical Analysis Center, 2010. 77p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 20, 2011 at: http://www.humanrights.iowa.gov/cjjp/images/pdf/STAR_Evaluation_Report.pdf

Year: 2010

Country: United States

URL: http://www.humanrights.iowa.gov/cjjp/images/pdf/STAR_Evaluation_Report.pdf

Shelf Number: 121449

Keywords:
Correctional Programs
Drug Offenders
Drug Treatment
Female Inmates (Iowa)
Female Offenders
Recidivism

Author: Olson, David E.

Title: A Process and Impact Evaluation of the Southwestern Illinois Correctional Center Therapeutic Community Program During Fiscal Years 2007 through 2010

Summary: In response to increases in Illinois’ prison population during the late 1980s and early 1990s, low rates of access to substance abuse treatment services while in prison, and high rates of recidivism, in August 1995, the Illinois Department of Corrections opened the Southwestern Illinois Correctional Center (SWICC) as a dedicated substance abuse treatment facility operating under a modified therapeutic community philosophy. The 600-bed minimum security facility for incarcerated adult male inmates operated since 1995 as a prison-based drug treatment program, and was modified and enhanced beginning in October 2006 to include more extensive vocational training, a specialized methamphetamine treatment unit, more sophisticated pre-release planning and mandatory post-release aftercare. This evaluation examines the implementation of these enhanced services and the impact of this new enhanced treatment model at SWICC on recidivism since July 2006, and is the result of a collaborative effort between researchers from Loyola University Chicago, the Illinois Department of Corrections, the Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority, Treatment Accountability for Safe Communities (TASC), the Safer Foundation, and Community Education Centers (CEC). After four years of operation, covering the period from July 1, 2006 through the end of State Fiscal Year 2010 (June 30, 2010), the evaluation has found the following:  The pre-operational target population identified for the program is being served, with those admitted to SWICC having extensive criminal and substance abuse histories, and a substantial unmet need for treatment, vocational and educational programming;  As a result of strong support from IDOC executive staff, the SWICC program has been allowed to evolve and be implemented in a manner that has ensured the clinical integrity of the program and the availability of sufficient resources for needed services;  During the past four years, the following significant accomplishments and improvements to the operation of the Southwestern Illinois Correctional Center have been experienced: o A consistently low rate of inmates being referred to SWICC who are subsequently determined to not meet the eligibility criteria, and quicker identification and removal of these inmates from SWICC. Overall, less than 5 percent of all inmates admitted to SWICC during the period examined were determined to not meet the eligibility criteria. o A consistently low rate of inmates being removed from SWICC due to disciplinary reasons, despite the serious criminal histories of the population. For every SWICC inmate removed for disciplinary reasons, more than 4 inmates successfully complete the prison-phase of the program; o During the course of program participation, inmates at the Southwestern Illinois Correctional Center improved their levels of psychological and social functioning, and reduced their criminal thinking patterns; and, o The implementation of enhanced pre-release planning for SWICC releasees, including the involvement of a multidisciplinary case staffing team representing the institutional staff, parole and aftercare staff and the inmate. In response to increases in Illinois’ prison population during the late 1980s and early 1990s, low rates of access to substance abuse treatment services while in prison, and high rates of recidivism, in August 1995, the Illinois Department of Corrections opened the Southwestern Illinois Correctional Center (SWICC) as a dedicated substance abuse treatment facility operating under a modified therapeutic community philosophy. The 600-bed minimum security facility for incarcerated adult male inmates operated since 1995 as a prison-based drug treatment program, and was modified and enhanced beginning in October 2006 to include more extensive vocational training, a specialized methamphetamine treatment unit, more sophisticated pre-release planning and mandatory post-release aftercare. This evaluation examines the implementation of these enhanced services and the impact of this new enhanced treatment model at SWICC on recidivism since July 2006, and is the result of a collaborative effort between researchers from Loyola University Chicago, the Illinois Department of Corrections, the Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority, Treatment Accountability for Safe Communities (TASC), the Safer Foundation, and Community Education Centers (CEC). After four years of operation, covering the period from July 1, 2006 through the end of State Fiscal Year 2010 (June 30, 2010), the evaluation has found the following:  The pre-operational target population identified for the program is being served, with those admitted to SWICC having extensive criminal and substance abuse histories, and a substantial unmet need for treatment, vocational and educational programming;  As a result of strong support from IDOC executive staff, the SWICC program has been allowed to evolve and be implemented in a manner that has ensured the clinical integrity of the program and the availability of sufficient resources for needed services;  During the past four years, the following significant accomplishments and improvements to the operation of the Southwestern Illinois Correctional Center have been experienced: o A consistently low rate of inmates being referred to SWICC who are subsequently determined to not meet the eligibility criteria, and quicker identification and removal of these inmates from SWICC. Overall, less than 5 percent of all inmates admitted to SWICC during the period examined were determined to not meet the eligibility criteria. o A consistently low rate of inmates being removed from SWICC due to disciplinary reasons, despite the serious criminal histories of the population. For every SWICC inmate removed for disciplinary reasons, more than 4 inmates successfully complete the prison-phase of the program; o During the course of program participation, inmates at the Southwestern Illinois Correctional Center improved their levels of psychological and social functioning, and reduced their criminal thinking patterns; and, o The implementation of enhanced pre-release planning for SWICC releasees, including the involvement of a multidisciplinary case staffing team representing the institutional staff, parole and aftercare staff and the inmate.In response to increases in Illinois’ prison population during the late 1980s and early 1990s, low rates of access to substance abuse treatment services while in prison, and high rates of recidivism, in August 1995, the Illinois Department of Corrections opened the Southwestern Illinois Correctional Center (SWICC) as a dedicated substance abuse treatment facility operating under a modified therapeutic community philosophy. The 600-bed minimum security facility for incarcerated adult male inmates operated since 1995 as a prison-based drug treatment program, and was modified and enhanced beginning in October 2006 to include more extensive vocational training, a specialized methamphetamine treatment unit, more sophisticated pre-release planning and mandatory post-release aftercare. This evaluation examines the implementation of these enhanced services and the impact of this new enhanced treatment model at SWICC on recidivism since July 2006, and is the result of a collaborative effort between researchers from Loyola University Chicago, the Illinois Department of Corrections, the Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority, Treatment Accountability for Safe Communities (TASC), the Safer Foundation, and Community Education Centers (CEC). After four years of operation, covering the period from July 1, 2006 through the end of State Fiscal Year 2010 (June 30, 2010), the evaluation has found the following:  The pre-operational target population identified for the program is being served, with those admitted to SWICC having extensive criminal and substance abuse histories, and a substantial unmet need for treatment, vocational and educational programming;  As a result of strong support from IDOC executive staff, the SWICC program has been allowed to evolve and be implemented in a manner that has ensured the clinical integrity of the program and the availability of sufficient resources for needed services;  During the past four years, the following significant accomplishments and improvements to the operation of the Southwestern Illinois Correctional Center have been experienced: o A consistently low rate of inmates being referred to SWICC who are subsequently determined to not meet the eligibility criteria, and quicker identification and removal of these inmates from SWICC. Overall, less than 5 percent of all inmates admitted to SWICC during the period examined were determined to not meet the eligibility criteria. o A consistently low rate of inmates being removed from SWICC due to disciplinary reasons, despite the serious criminal histories of the population. For every SWICC inmate removed for disciplinary reasons, more than 4 inmates successfully complete the prison-phase of the program; o During the course of program participation, inmates at the Southwestern Illinois Correctional Center improved their levels of psychological and social functioning, and reduced their criminal thinking patterns; and, o The implementation of enhanced pre-release planning for SWICC releasees, including the involvement of a multidisciplinary case staffing team representing the institutional staff, parole and aftercare staff and the inmate. In addition to these enhancements at the Southwestern Illinois Correctional Center, significant accomplishments, enhancements and improvements to the post-release phase of the program have also been evident during the four years of program operation examined in this report, including: o A pattern of aftercare referrals consistent with the pre-operational expectations, with nearly all SWICC releasees receiving referrals to either outpatient or residential treatment services; o A high rate of successful treatment admission among the SWICC releasees, fewer releasees failing to show up for aftercare referrals, and a short length of time between an inmate’s release and placement into aftercare treatment; and, o A high, and increasing rate of successful aftercare treatment completion among the SWICC releasees. Between SFY 2007 and 2010, the proportion of SWICC releasees successfully completing aftercare increased from roughly 58 percent to 71 percent.  As a result of the successful implementation of the prison-phase of the Southwestern Illinois Correctional Center, coupled with the post-release aftercare component, the SWICC program has produced the following outcomes: o The earned good conduct credits many of the inmates received at SWICC for their participation in treatment during the first four state fiscal years of operation (SFY 2007-2010) translates into a savings of 376 years of incarceration, which equates to $8.8 million, or $2.2 million per year, in reduced incarceration costs; o As a result of the treatment services and aftercare received, those inmates released from SWICC had a 15 percent lower likelihood of being returned to prison after two years in the community than a statistically similar comparison group of inmates released from Illinois’ other prisons during the same time period. o The largest reductions in recidivism were evident among those SWICC releasees who successfully completed aftercare treatment. Those SWICC graduates who also completed aftercare had a 48 percent lower likelihood of being returned to prison after two years in the community than a statistically similar comparison group.

Details: Chicago: Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority, 2011. 105p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 22, 2011 at: http://www.icjia.state.il.us/public/pdf/ResearchReports/SWICC_Year_3_Evaluations_Report_March_2011.pdf

Year: 2011

Country: United States

URL: http://www.icjia.state.il.us/public/pdf/ResearchReports/SWICC_Year_3_Evaluations_Report_March_2011.pdf

Shelf Number: 121390

Keywords:
Correctional Programs (Illinois)
Drug Offenders
Drug Treatment
Substance Abuse Treatment
Vocational Education and Training

Author: Idaho State Police. Statistical Analysis Center, Planning, Grants, and Research

Title: Evaluation of the Lemhi County/City of Salmon Integrated Community Based Problem Solving Initiative

Summary: In 2005, the Idaho Criminal Justice Grant Review Board requested proposals for a comprehensive community project that would involve partnerships from many supporting agencies, creating a significant and enduring impact upon substance abuse within one community. A Byrne/JAG request for proposal (RFP) was created with the expectation of one community receiving approximately $250,000 for a collaborative, multi-agency effort. In October 2005, Lemhi County and the City of Salmon were awarded funding for the Lemhi/ Salmon Integrated Community Based Problem Solving Initiative (CBPSI). The project combines efforts of drug enforcement, prosecution, offender accountability/treatment, prevention and education to form a comprehensive community project within a rural area. .

Details: Meridian, ID: Idaho Statistical Analysis Center, 2011. 26p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 9, 2011 at: http://www.isp.idaho.gov/pgr/Research/documents/lemhi4.pdf

Year: 2011

Country: United States

URL: http://www.isp.idaho.gov/pgr/Research/documents/lemhi4.pdf

Shelf Number: 121682

Keywords:
Community-Based Programs
Drug Offenders
Drug Treatment
Substance Abuse Treatment

Author: 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 Offenders
Drug 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 Offenders
Drug Treatment

Author: Kirven, Mary Beth

Title: Kansas Drug Court Feasibility Study

Summary: The Kansas Supreme Court contracted with the National Center for State Courts (NCSC) to research the feasibility and practicality of instituting state-wide level management over drug courts within the state. To date, there has been no centralized, statewide effort to encourage the growth of drug courts or exercise any state-level administration and oversight of traditional drug courts within the state. Seven drug courts are currently operating in Kansas – all of them homegrown by court personnel who sought to meet the needs of their individual jurisdictions. Some of these drug courts operate in conjunction with state mandated Senate Bill 123 (SB 123) programs. Kansas has institutionalized the SB 123 programs which provide treatment to adults convicted of a first or second drug possession offense. The question now facing Kansas is whether it should support and institutionalize, at the state level, the development of traditional drug courts. Research accumulated over the last two decades when drug courts first started clearly supports the conclusion that drug courts are effective for high-risk/high needs offenders. Drug courts have been shown to reduce recidivism, reduce costs, and help individuals maintain sobriety. Long term cost reductions are achieved through the avoidance of law enforcement efforts, judicial case processing, and victimization resulting from re-offending. Short-term cost reductions are achieved because individuals are diverted from jail or prison at least for the time that they are in the program. Utilization of traditional drug court models have benefited a significant number of offenders who enter the criminal justice system with serious substance abuse problems and have lowered prison and jail costs by closing the revolving door that seems to trap so many addicts in the cycle of drug abuse and criminal behavior. Drug courts seem to strike the proper balance between the need to protect community safety and the need to improve public health and well being; between the need for treatment and the need to hold people accountable for their actions; between hope and redemption on the one hand and good citizenship on the other. Drug courts keep nonviolent drug-addicted individuals in treatment for long periods of time and supervise them closely, which is the cornerstone of their success. The challenge facing many drug courts now is how can they be sustained and become integrated into the criminal justice system. If drug courts are to be a long term answer to the problem of drug addiction and crime, drug courts must be institutionalized by the state. Institutionalization has been described as “the process by which individual drug courts evolve from separate experimental entities to a statewide network that is stable, far-reaching, reliably funded and closely monitored.”1 Drug courts usually start with an initial grant from the Department of Justice which generally runs for three to five years. After that period the drug court has to find other resources either at the local level or the state level to sustain it. The most precarious time for drug courts is when they have to shift from guaranteed federal funding to local or state funding. More and more, states are stepping up to fund drug courts because drug courts have been shown to effectively reduce recidivism thereby reducing jail and prison bed costs. Whether drug courts should be institutionalized in Kansas is the question before the Supreme Court and the Kansas Sentencing Commission. So far drug courts have developed in Kansas without concerted state assistance and are very limited in the number of people they can serve because of limited resources. If drug courts are institutionalized in Kansas then more with less concern about sustainability because in addition to local and federal funding, state funds would be made available

Details: Denver, CO: National Center for State Courts, 2011. 55p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 19, 2011 at: http://www.sji.gov/PDF/KS_Drug_Court_Feasibility_Study.pdf

Year: 2011

Country: United States

URL: http://www.sji.gov/PDF/KS_Drug_Court_Feasibility_Study.pdf

Shelf Number: 122108

Keywords:
Drug Abuse and Crime
Drug Courts (Kansas)
Drug Offenders
Drug Treatment

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 Offenders
Drug Treatment
Problem-Solving Courts

Author: Minnesota. Department of Corrections

Title: Prison-Based Chemical Dependency Treatment in Minnesota: An Outcome Evaluation

Summary: Using a retrospective quasi-experimental design, this study evaluates the effectiveness of CD treatment provided within the Minnesota Department of Corrections (DOC) by comparing recidivism outcomes between treated and untreated offenders released from prison in 2005. As discussed later in more detail, propensity score matching (PSM) was used to individually match the untreated offenders with those who received CD treatment. Similar to the instrumental variable and Heckman approaches used by Pelissier and colleagues (2001), PSM is a method designed to control for selection bias. More specifically, PSM minimizes the threat of selection bias by creating a comparison group whose probability of entering treatment was similar to that of the treatment group. Although PSM has been used in at least one recent study on community-based CD treatment (Krebs, Strom, Koetse, and Lattimore, 2008), this study is one of the first to use it in a prison-based treatment evaluation. In addition to PSM, this study attempts to further control for rival causal factors by analyzing the data with Cox regression, which is widely regarded as the most appropriate multivariate statistical technique for recidivism analyses. Moreover, by comparing 926 treated offenders with a matched group of 926 untreated offenders, the sample size used for this study (N = 1,852) is one of the larger prison-based CD treatment studies to date. Finally, to achieve a more complete understanding of the effects of prison-based treatment, multiple treatment and recidivism measures were used. Despite these strengths, there are several limitations worth noting. First, in measuring the effectiveness of CD treatment, the two most common outcome measures are substance abstention and criminal recidivism. Although abstention is an important and arguably more sensitive measure of CD treatment effectiveness, data on post-release substance use were not IV criteria for substance abuse. Among the criteria for abuse are problems at work or school, not taking care of personal responsibilities, financial problems, engaging in dangerous behavior while intoxicated, legal problems, problems at home or in relationships, and continued use despite experiencing problems. The criteria for dependence, meanwhile, include increased tolerance; withdrawal symptoms; greater use than intended over a relatively long period of time, inability to cut down or quit; a lot of time spent acquiring, using, or recovering from use; missing important family, work, or social activities; and knowledge that continued use would exacerbate a serious medical or psychological condition. Although the vast majority of newly-admitted offenders are considered to be CD abusive or dependent, not all treatment-directed offenders have the opportunity to participate in prison-based treatment since the number of treatment-directed offenders (nearly 3,000 annually) exceeds the number of treatment beds available (about 1,800 annually). The DOC currently uses information relating to offender needs and recidivism risk in prioritizing inmates for treatment. This information, however, was not routinely considered from 2002-2005, the period of time covered in this study. Rather, among offenders directed to treatment, prioritization decisions were based primarily on the amount of time remaining to serve. Offenders with shorter lengths of time until their release from prison were often selected over those with more time to serve. During the 2002-2005 period, the DOC provided CD programming to both male and female offenders in six of the ten state facilities that house adult inmates. Although there are variations among the different programs provided at each facility, all of the CD treatment offered by the DOC is modeled on TC concepts. Housed separately from the rest of the prison population, offenders admitted to treatment were involved in 15-25 hours of programming per week. The CD programs, which maintained a staff-to-inmate ratio of 1:15, emphasized each offender’s personal responsibility for identifying and acknowledging criminal and addictive thinking and behavior. Moreover, the CD programming generally included educational material that addressed the signs and symptoms of CD, the effects of drug use on the body, the effects of chemical use on family and relationships, and the dangers of drug abuse. In addition to completing an autobiography that focused on prior chemical use, program participants completed work relating to relapse prevention. The DOC offered short-term (90 days), medium-term (180 days), and long-term (365 days) CD programming during the 2002-2005 period. The short-term programs, which were primarily psycho-educational with minimal individual counseling, emphasized the relationship between substance abuse issues and criminal behavior. Participants in these programs were expected to increase their level of active participation as they progressed through the program. The medium- and long-term programs, on the other hand, included education, individual counseling, and group counseling components. Therefore, aside from program duration, the main distinction between the short-term programs and the medium- and longterm programs was that the former contained little emphasis on individual or group counseling, primarily due to the relatively short period of time over which to deliver the programming. In 2006, the DOC refocused its CD programs to long-term treatment of at least six months or more. The decision to discontinue the short-term programming was due, in part, to evidence which seemed to suggest that short-term programs are not as effective as ones that are longer in duration (Minnesota Office of the Legislative Auditor, 2006). More specifically, in its report on substance abuse treatment across the state, the Minnesota Office of the Legislative Auditor found that recidivism rates for short-term program participants were higher than those for offenders who participated in medium- and long-term programs. However, the simple bivariate analyses performed by the Minnesota Office of the Legislative Auditor did not control for factors known to affect recidivism (e.g., criminal history, age at release, institutional disciplinary history, type of offense, etc.). Therefore, rather than demonstrating that short-term treatment is less effective, the higher recidivism rates for short-term participants may simply reflect that they had, in comparison to the medium- and long-term participants, a greater risk of reoffense prior to entering treatment.

Details: St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Department of Corrections, 2010. 40p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 12, 2011 at: http://www.doc.state.mn.us/publications/documents/03-10CDTXEvaluationReport_Revised.pdf

Year: 2010

Country: United States

URL: http://www.doc.state.mn.us/publications/documents/03-10CDTXEvaluationReport_Revised.pdf

Shelf Number: 122374

Keywords:
Correctional Programs
Drug Offenders (Minnesota)
Drug Treatment
Recidivism

Author: European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction

Title: 2010 Annual Report on the State of the Drugs Problem in Europe

Summary: This report on the state of the drugs problem in Europe presents the EMCDDA's yearly overview of the drug phenomenon. This is an essential reference book for policymakers, specialists and practitioners in the drugs field or indeed anyone seeking the latest findings on drugs in Europe. Published every autumn, the report contains non-confidential data supported by an extensive range of figures.

Details: Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2010. 108p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 16, 2011 at: http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/attachements.cfm/att_120104_EN_EMCDDA_AR2010_EN.pdf

Year: 2010

Country: Europe

URL: http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/attachements.cfm/att_120104_EN_EMCDDA_AR2010_EN.pdf

Shelf Number: 122401

Keywords:
Drug Abuse and Addiction (Europe)
Drug Treatment
Substance Abuse

Author: Tanguay, Pascal

Title: Policy Responses to Drug Issues in Malaysia

Summary: The development of drug policies in Malaysia has historically relied on harsh punitive measures, including widespread arrest and incarceration of users, and the continuing use of the death penalty for trafficking offences. However, since 2005, the introduction of harm reduction services as well as the more recent initiation of a process to transform compulsory drug treatment centres into voluntary needs-based services for people who use drugs indicates that Malaysia’s response to drug-related issues has become increasingly health focused. This paper provides an insight into Malaysian drug policies and the environment in which the national response to drugs has been developing in terms of harm reduction, prisons, drug treatment, law enforcement responses and civil society participation. An analysis of the situation concludes with recommendations for further drug policy development.

Details: London: International Drug Policy Consortium , 2011. 10p.

Source: Internet Resource: IDPC Briefing Paper: Accessed September 12, 2011 at: www.idpc.net

Year: 2011

Country: Malaysia

URL:

Shelf Number: 122721

Keywords:
Drug Control
Drug Offenders
Drug Policy (Malaysia)
Drug Treatment

Author: Farabee, David

Title: Implementation of the CYA-RSAT Programs: A Process Evaluation of the California Youth Authority’s Residential Substance Abuse Treatment (RSAT) Programs (Year 1)

Summary: This report summarizes findings of a process evaluation of the Residential Substance Treatment (RSAT) Program of the California Department of the Youth Authority (CYA). Funded by the Office of Criminal Justice Planning, the CYA-RSAT program is operated at three institutional sites: (1) the Karl Holton Drug and Alcohol Abuse Treatment Center in Stockton, (2) the Heman G. Stark Youth Correctional Facility in Chino, and (3) the Ventura School in Camarillo. As a result of the RSAT funds, each of these institutions has been able to enhance the treatment components of its existing Formalized Drug Programs (FPDs). The goal of CYA-RSAT as articulated in the original proposal is to provide a safe and chemical-free environment in which participants can: · Discover the thinking errors and faulty belief systems they use to justify their chemical-dependent behavior. · Acquire the skills necessary to modify these beliefs and behaviors which will enable them to adopt a sober lifestyle. In 1943, CYA began to provide training and parole supervision to youthful offenders. In an effort to reform these offenders, CYA moved quickly to establish camps and institutions which would house and provide education and training to youths formerly detained in state reformatories, county jails, detention homes, and army camps. Camps were established throughout the state as were institutions, including those that would accommodate older youths. In 1960, the Youth Training School opened in Chino, California. Known today as the Heman G. Stark Youth Correctional Facility (YCF), this institution was named after the CYA’s longest acting director who served from 1952 to 1968. Shortly thereafter, in 1968, the Karl Holton School for Boys was opened in Stockton, California. This school was part of a general population facility which housed male offenders ages 17 to 24, but, in 1994, was converted to the Drug and Alcohol Abuse Treatment Center. Today this institution is known as the Karl Holton Drug Abuse Treatment Youth Correctional Facility, a facility devoted exclusively to the provision of substance abuse treatment. In 1970, due to declines in the number of female commitments, the Ventura School for Girls (founded in 1913 and acquired by CYA in 1942) became a coeducational facility. Thus it is now referred to as the Ventura School. Earlier, in 1964, this facility became the site of the reception clinic for all girls entering CYA, and it remains so today. The process evaluation of CYA-RSAT sought to determine the extent to which program activities and services have achieved this goal and to assess the effectiveness of each program with respect to implementation. The evaluation was conducted by the UCLA Drug Abuse Research Center (DARC) located in Los Angeles.

Details: Los Angeles: UCLA Drug Abuse Research Center University of California, Los Angeles, 1998. 102p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 17, 2011 at: http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Reports_Research/docs/rsat_rep.pdf

Year: 1998

Country: United States

URL: http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Reports_Research/docs/rsat_rep.pdf

Shelf Number: 122772

Keywords:
Drug Abuse and Addiction
Drug Offenders
Drug Treatment
Juvenile Corrections
Substance Abuse Treatment (California)
Youth Adult Offenders

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 Courts
Drug Offenders
Drug Treatment
Family Courts (Oregon)
Problem-Solving Courts

Author: Windsor, Liliane Cambraia

Title: Substance Use and Treatment in Newark: Voices from African-American Distressed Communities

Summary: Community distress and substance abuse are often conjoined social problems. An exemplar where this exists is Newark, a large city located in Essex County, New Jersey. The average annual income in Newark is $13,009; 42% of residents 24 and older do not complete high school; and 54% are African-American. Newark’s African-American residents consistently show poorer health and socio-economic outcomes when compared to the neighboring areas. Newark has the highest prevalence rates for substance use and HIV/AIDS in the State of New Jersey. Heroin represents the most significant narcotic problem in Newark and accounts for more admissions to treatment centers than all other substances combined. The Newark Eligible Metropolitan Areas HIV Planning Council in a 2005 survey of 221 substance abusers reported that as many as 44% of the sample was HIV positive. African-Americans represent 78% of persons living with HIV/AIDS in Newark. Young adults abuse heroin at a rate twice as high as the national average, and heroin accounts for 90% of substance abuse intervention admissions. Unlike New York State, syringe exchange programs are scarce, underfunded, and stigmatized in New Jersey, creating significant barriers to clean syringes without a prescription. Such barriers have significant implications for HIV and Hepatitis infection risks. In fact, HIV and Hepatitis infection rates among injection drug users (IDU) are substantially greater in Newark than in New York City. In light of the harmful and disproportionate consequences of substance abuse in Newark’s distressed neighborhoods, it is important to understand community views regarding substance use and treatment when developing policies and culturally-tailored interventions to reduce substance use and HIV risk behaviors. The current study, supported by the Center on Behavioral Health Science & Criminal Justice Research, proposed to engage individuals from low-income African-American communities in Newark (from here on “Newark” refers to Newark’s distressed neighborhoods) to develop a framework that can inform the development and/or adaptation of substance abuse treatment and HIV prevention programs in ways that are culturally relevant for low-income African-Americans. In this study distress means high poverty levels, low educational attainment, large numbers of liquor stores in the neighborhood, presence of a significant street drug market, high drug related violence, and presence of dilapidated buildings. The study aimed to: (1) examine the role of alcohol and other drug use among Newark’s distressed neighborhoods and (2) identify these communities’ needs related to alcohol and drug treatment.

Details: New Brunswick, NJ: Center for Behavioral Health Services & Criminal Justice Research, Rutgers University, 2010. 4p.

Source: Internet Resource: Policy Brief: Accessed October 5, 2011 at: http://cbhs.rutgers.edu/pdfs/Policy_Brief_Sept_2010.pdf

Year: 2010

Country: United States

URL: http://cbhs.rutgers.edu/pdfs/Policy_Brief_Sept_2010.pdf

Shelf Number: 122989

Keywords:
African Americans
Drug Addiction and Abuse
Drug Treatment
Socio-Economic Conditions
Substance Use and Abuse (New Jersey)
Urban Neighborhoods

Author: Belfast Drug and Alcohol Working Group

Title: Scoping Report on Drugs and Alcohol Services in Belfast

Summary: This report presents a substantial insight into the current situation in relation to drugs and alcohol use and more importantly, it gives an overview of service provision currently in place to tackle substance misuse in the Belfast area. The drive behind this scoping report began in late 2009 when a number of community and statutory sector individuals came together to voice their concerns, especially in a North Belfast context, around drug and alcohol issues impacting on local communities and the need for a more Belfast-focussed co-ordinated approach. This small group felt it was timely to take an innovative Belfast-wide approach to this area of work. Initial meetings were held with John McGeown, Assistant Director of Mental Health Services in the Belfast Health and Social Care Trust; Billy Hutchinson of Mount Vernon Community Development Association; Frances Black and Brian Allen of the RISE Foundation and Mary Black, Assistant Director of Public Health, Health and Social Wellbeing Improvement in the Public Health Agency along with Irene Sherry from the Bridge of Hope in order to consider the issues facing agencies in Belfast. However, it soon became clear that more stakeholders should be invited to participate in order to ensure a fully inclusive collective approach was adopted. Throughout 2010 representatives from a number of key statutory organisations and community/ voluntary providers met to undertake an initial scoping exercise. From this initial analysis, it was clear that there was a lot of work being funded or commissioned but that awareness of services and, more importantly, linking up of service provision was not always in place or as effective as it needed to be. With this in mind the group agreed that it would be worthwhile to spend some time looking at the gaps and issues locally and analyse the situation with a view to creating an overview report with recommendations for consideration, primarily by the Public Health Agency and the Eastern Drugs and Alcohol Coordination Team, but also by other statutory agencies with a responsibility for, or interest in, addressing drugs and alcohol misuse. Our recommendations focus on longer term planning and more cohesive partnership working as well as simplifying access to and participation in existing service provision. It is acknowledged that whilst many agencies are delivering services in this area, there is a lack of awareness of provision both within the health and social care sector itself and outside in the wider community/voluntary sector. Our recommendations focus on longer term planning and more cohesive partnership working as well as simplifying access to and participation in existing service provision. It is acknowledged that whilst many agencies are delivering services in this area, there is a lack of awareness of provision both within the health and social care sector itself and outside in the wider community/voluntary sector.

Details: Belfast: Public Health Agency, 2011. 96p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 29, 2011 at: http://www.drugsandalcohol.ie/16010/1/Scoping_Belfast.pdf

Year: 2011

Country: United Kingdom

URL: http://www.drugsandalcohol.ie/16010/1/Scoping_Belfast.pdf

Shelf Number: 123172

Keywords:
Alcohol Abuse (Belfast)
Alcohol Related Crime, Disorder
Alcohol Treatment Programs
Drug Abuse
Drug Treatment
Health Care

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 Analysis
Drug Courts
Drug Offenders
Drug Treatment
Problem-Solving Courts (Maryland)
Recidivism
Substance Abuse Treatment

Author: Malloch, Margaret

Title: Interventions for Drug Users in the Criminal Justice System: Scottish Review

Summary: The purpose of this review was to examine the available research evidence on criminal justice interventions in Scotland in terms of „effectiveness‟, (measured by rates of reconviction/reoffending, and reductions in drug use) and costs. The review also recognises the current policy emphasis on „recovery‟, which requires a wider acknowledgement of the possible mechanisms for measuring „success‟ and a wider vision for the process of recovery itself. The review was undertaken between August and November 2010. This review found that there are a number of difficulties in determining effectiveness in the area of drug interventions - sample numbers within evaluations are often small, the nature of interventions make it difficult to identify control groups and therefore to isolate factors making an impact or indeed, to measure the overall impact of the intervention itself; change often comes from a number of different factors; different methods are often used to measure different outcomes over different periods of time making it impossible to compare effectiveness across interventions. The existence of major gaps in the evidence base for drug interventions is acknowledged internationally. In spite of these limitations, some broad observations can be made from the evidence currently available and which has been considered as part of this review. The rationale for providing drug interventions through the criminal justice system is to fast-track individuals whose criminal activity is directly related to problem drug use into treatment. Evidence on treatment outcomes suggests that the benefit-cost ratio for structured interventions makes such intervention cost-effective (ranging from 2.5:1 to 9.5:1 depending on methods used) making drug treatment in general an economically viable option in terms of costs and benefits. Evidence from Scotland suggests that the total social and economic cost of illicit drug use is just under £3.56 billion (around £61,000 per problem drug user). Estimated costs of crime are reduced significantly for individuals in treatment (from £12,713 for individuals with no intervention in place; to £1,536 for those in treatment for more than one year). Reductions in re-offending appear to be consistent features of evaluations of interventions (where this outcome is available) along with reductions in drug use for individuals who engage with the interventions. Where re-offending continues, evidence suggests that there is a reduction in the rate of re-offending from levels of re-offending prior to the intervention. There is evidence to indicate that retention in treatment and a consequent „good‟ outcome is consistently predicted by the relationship between readiness for treatment and change, motivation and commitment, and the therapeutic relationship. There does not appear to be any significant difference in outcome between those who access treatment through the criminal justice system and those who access it voluntarily. While this highlights the viability of coerced treatment, it would equally suggest that diverting individuals into treatment may be as effective as intervening through the criminal justice system. In order to avoid „net-widening‟, it is important that intensive interventions are used for „high tariff‟ individuals and ensuring that community resources can be accessed outside the criminal justice system. Qualitative evidence, gathered from both professional respondents and service users, provides some positive elements from the Scottish evaluations of criminal justice interventions for drug users; however in terms of outcome and cost effectiveness, there is limited data from which conclusions of overall effectiveness can be drawn: There is currently no evidence to indicate that mandatory drug testing of arrestees provides any benefits, although it does provide some indication of the incidence of drug use among those tested and can provide a basis for directing individuals to appropriate services. Evaluations of arrest referral schemes are unable to provide evidence of benefits beyond the immediacy of the intervention, largely due to lack of evidence on longer-term outcomes including take-up of onward referrals. However, the recent evaluation of the arrest referral intervention for persistent offenders in Glasgow does provide some evidence of reductions in reconviction rates and benefits in terms of cost when individuals engage with services. Drug Treatment and Testing Orders (DTTOs) and Drug Courts are both associated with reductions in drug use and reoffending, with improved outcomes for those who complete Orders. Drug Courts appear to be slightly more successful in terms of reconviction rates than DTTOs. Evidence on the effectiveness of lower tariff DTTOs (DTTO IIs) is inconclusive, however international literature on the use of intensive interventions mitigates against the use of intensive interventions for individuals who are low tariff offenders. Combined residential and community-based interventions such as the 218 Centre and Turnaround have much to offer in promoting recovery, given the holistic nature of the intervention; however although cost data is available there is currently no corresponding data on rates of reoffending/reconviction with which to measure cost-effectiveness. While prison may be an effective point of intervention for some problem drug users, evidence from Scotland is limited, with no reconviction analysis of prison-based drug related interventions currently available. Levels of re-offending on release from prison appear to be directly related to the availability of aftercare provision.

Details: Edinburgh: Scottish Centre for Crime & Justice Research, 2011. 48p.

Source: Internet Resource: Research Report No. 05/2011: Accessed November 19, 2011 at: http://www.sccjr.ac.uk/documents/SCCJR%20REVIEW%20OF%20EFFECTIVENESS.pdf

Year: 2011

Country: United Kingdom

URL: http://www.sccjr.ac.uk/documents/SCCJR%20REVIEW%20OF%20EFFECTIVENESS.pdf

Shelf Number: 123364

Keywords:
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Costs of Criminal Justice
Drug Abuse and Crime
Drug Offenders (Scotland)
Drug Treatment
Substance Abuse 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 Offenders
Drug Treatment
Problem-Oriented Courts
Recidivism

Author: Wiest, Katharina L.

Title: Indiana Drug Courts: St. Joseph County Drug Court Program: Process, Outcome and Cost Evaluation Final Report

Summary: Drug treatment courts are one of the fastest growing programs designed to reduce drug abuse and criminality in nonviolent offenders in the United States. The first drug court was implemented in Miami, Florida, in 1989. As of 2007, there were more than 1700 adult and juvenile drug courts operating in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Northern Marina Islands, Puerto Rico, and Guam (BJA, 2006). Drug courts use the coercive authority of the criminal justice system to offer treatment to nonviolent addicts in lieu of incarceration. This model of linking the resources of the criminal justice system and substance treatment programs has proven to be effective for increasing treatment participation and decreasing criminal recidivism. Indiana’s drug court movement began in 1996 with two drug courts that hoped to mirror the successes of the Court Alcohol and Drug Programs. As the number of drug courts grew in Indiana, a subcommittee was formed to consider the possibility of developing a certification program for drug courts. In 2002, the Indiana General Assembly enacted drug court legislation. By 2003, drug court rules were adopted which provided a framework for certification of drug courts operating under state statute. The St. Joseph County Drug Court Program (SJCDC) began operations in February 1997 for nonviolent, substance-abusing offenders and was fully certified in October 2004 by the Indiana Judicial Center (IJC). Since inception, 465 individuals have enrolled in the drug court program; 56% of these participants graduated, 39% are terminated or have withdrawn, and 5% are active. The program serves an annual average of 52 participants. For all drug court participants, the primary drug of choice is marijuana (56%), followed by crack/cocaine (24%) and alcohol (13%). In 2006, NPC Research (NPC), under contract with the IJC began process, outcome and cost studies of five adult drug courts in Indiana, including the SJCDC. This report contains the process, outcome and cost evaluation for the SJCDC. Information was acquired from several sources, including observations of court sessions and team meetings during site visits, key informant interviews, focus groups, Court Substance Abuse Program (CSAP) records which includes drug court data, plus arrest records. The methods used to gather this information are described in detail in the main report. This evaluation was designed to answer key policy questions that are of interest to program practitioners, policymakers and researchers: 1. Has the SJCDC program been implemented as intended and are they delivering planned services to the target population? 2. Does the SJCDC reduce recidivism? 3. Does the SJCDC reduce substance use? 4. Is there a cost-savings to the taxpayer due to drug court participation?

Details: Portland, OR: NPC Research, 2007. 90p.

Source: Internet Resource. Accessed on January 15, 2012 at http://www.npcresearch.com/Files/St._Joseph_Adult_Eval_Final.pdf

Year: 2007

Country: United States

URL: http://www.npcresearch.com/Files/St._Joseph_Adult_Eval_Final.pdf

Shelf Number: 123618

Keywords:
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Drug Courts (Indiana)
Drug Offenders
Drug Treatment
Recidivism

Author: Wiest, Katharina L.

Title: Indiana Drug Courts: Vigo County Drug Court: Process, Outcome and Cost Evaluation Final Report

Summary: Drug treatment courts are one of the fastest growing programs designed to reduce drug abuse and criminality in nonviolent offenders in the United States. The first drug court was implemented in Miami, Florida, in 1989. As of 2007, there were more than 1700 adult and juvenile drug courts operating in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Northern Marina Islands, Puerto Rico, and Guam (BJA, 2006). Drug courts use the coercive authority of the criminal justice system to offer treatment to nonviolent addicts in lieu of incarceration. This model of linking the resources of the criminal justice system and substance treatment programs has proven to be effective for increasing treatment participation and decreasing criminal recidivism. Indiana’s drug court movement began in 1996 with two drug courts that hoped to mirror the successes of the Court Alcohol and Drug Programs. As the number of drug courts grew in Indiana, a subcommittee was formed to consider the possibility of developing a certification program for drug courts. In 2002, the Indiana General Assembly enacted drug court legislation. By 2003, drug court rules were adopted which provided a framework for certification of drug courts operating under state statute. The Vigo County Drug Court (VCDC) was one of the first drug courts in Indiana. It began operations in 1996 and was officially certified in May 2004 by the Indiana Judicial Center (IJC). The VCDC targets nonviolent, non-dealing, substance-abusing OVWI and felony offenders. As of March 2006, 697 people have been enrolled in the program and 39% have graduated. The program serves approximately 100 participants annually. The mean age of participants is 33 years with a range of 18 to 56 years. For all drug court participants, the primary drugs of choice are methamphetamine (38%), alcohol (31%) and marijuana (18%). In 2006, NPC Research (“NPC”), under contract with the IJC began process, outcome and cost studies of five adult drug courts in Indiana, including the VCDC. This report contains the process, outcome and cost evaluation results for the VCDC program. Information was acquired from several sources, including observations of court sessions and team meetings during site visits, key informant interviews, focus groups, drug court database, plus state and county records. The methods used to gather this information are described in detail in the main report. This evaluation was designed to answer key policy questions that are of interest to program practitioners, policymakers and researchers: 1. Has the VCDC program been implemented as intended and are they delivering planned services to the target population? 2. Does the VCDC reduce recidivism? 3. Does the VCDC reduce substance use? 4. Is there a cost-savings to the taxpayer due to drug court participation?

Details: Portland, OR: NPC Research, 2007. 81p.

Source: Internet Resource. Accessed on January 15, 2012 at http://www.npcresearch.com/Files/Vigo_Adult_Eval_Final.pdf

Year: 2007

Country: United States

URL: http://www.npcresearch.com/Files/Vigo_Adult_Eval_Final.pdf

Shelf Number: 123619

Keywords:
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Drug Courts (Indiana)
Drug Offenders
Drug Treatment
Recidivism

Author: Wiest, Katharina L.

Title: Indiana Drug Courts: Monroe County Drug Treatment Court: Process, Outcome and Cost Evaluation Final Report

Summary: Drug treatment courts are one of the fastest growing programs designed to reduce drug abuse and criminality in non-violent offenders in the United States. The first drug court was implemented in Miami, Florida, in 1989. As of 2007, there were more than 1700 adult and juvenile drug courts operating in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Northern Marina Islands, Puerto Rico, and Guam (BJA, 2006). Drug courts use the coercive authority of the criminal justice system to offer treatment to nonviolent addicts in lieu of incarceration. This model of linking the resources of the criminal justice system and substance treatment programs has proven to be effective for increasing treatment participation and decreasing criminal recidivism. Indiana’s drug court movement began in 1996 with two drug courts that hoped to mirror the successes of the Court Alcohol and Drug Programs. As the number of drug courts grew in Indiana, a subcommittee was formed to consider the possibility of developing a certification program for drug courts. In 2002, the Indiana General Assembly enacted drug court legislation. By 2003, drug court rules were adopted which provided a framework for certification of drug courts operating under state statute. The Monroe County Drug Treatment Court (MCDTC) began operations in November 1999 and was officially certified in May 2005 by the Indiana Judicial Center (IJC). The MCDTC targets non-violent, non-dealing felony offenders. It is estimated that 200 individuals, with a mean age of 33 years, have enrolled in the drug court since inception: 38% (76) graduated and 26% (52) were terminated. The primary drugs of choice are alcohol (60%), followed by benzodiazepine (8%) and marijuana (8%). In 2006, NPC Research (“NPC”), under contract with the IJC began process, outcome and cost studies of five adult drug courts in Indiana, including the MCDTC. This report contains the process, outcome and cost evaluation results for the MCDTC program. Information was acquired from several sources, including observations of court sessions and team meetings during site visits, key informant interviews, focus groups, drug court database, plus state and county records. The methods used to gather this information are described in detail in the main report. This evaluation was designed to answer key policy questions that are of interest to program practitioners, policymakers and researchers: 1. Has the MCDTC program been implemented as intended and are they delivering planned services to the target population? 2. Does the MCDTC reduce recidivism? 3. Does the MCDTC reduce substance use? 4. Is there a cost-savings to the taxpayer due to drug court participation?

Details: Portland, OR: NPC Research, 2007. 99p.

Source: Internet Resource. Accessed on January 15, 2012 at http://www.npcresearch.com/Files/Monroe_Adult_Eval_Final.pdf

Year: 2007

Country: United States

URL: http://www.npcresearch.com/Files/Monroe_Adult_Eval_Final.pdf

Shelf Number: 123620

Keywords:
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Drug Courts (Indiana)
Drug Offenders
Drug Treatment
Recidivism

Author: Wiest, Katharina L.

Title: Indiana Drug Courts: Vanderburgh County Day Reporting Drug Court: Process, Outcome and Cost Evaluation Final Report

Summary: Drug treatment courts are one of the fastest growing programs designed to reduce drug abuse and criminality in nonviolent offenders in the United States. The first drug court was implemented in Miami, Florida, in 1989. As of 2007, there were more than 1700 adult and juvenile drug courts operating in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Northern Marina Islands, Puerto Rico, and Guam (BJA, 2006). Drug courts use the coercive authority of the criminal justice system to offer treatment to nonviolent addicts in lieu of incarceration. This model of linking the resources of the criminal justice system and substance treatment programs has proven to be effective for increasing treatment participation and decreasing criminal recidivism. Indiana’s drug court movement began in 1996 with two drug courts that hoped to mirror the successes of the Court Alcohol and Drug Programs. As the number of drug courts grew in Indiana, a subcommittee was formed to consider the possibility of developing a certification program for drug courts. In 2002, the Indiana General Assembly enacted drug court legislation. By 2003, drug court rules were adopted which provided a framework for certification of drug courts operating under state statute. The Vanderburgh County Day Reporting Drug Court (VCDRDC) began operations in April 2001 and was given provisional certification in February 2003 and was later officially certified in March 2005 by the IJC. The VCDRDC targets nonviolent, substance-abusing offenders. As of March 2006, 153 people have been enrolled in the program and 45% have graduated. The program serves approximately 48 to 60 participants annually. For all drug court participants, the primary drug of choice is marijuana (32%), followed by methamphetamines (26%) and cocaine (21%). In 2006, NPC Research (“NPC”), under contract with the Indiana Judicial began process, outcome and cost studies of five adult drug courts in Indiana, including the VCDRDC. This report contains the process, outcome and cost evaluation results for the VCDRDC program. Information was acquired from several sources, including observations of court sessions and team meetings during site visits, key informant interviews, focus groups, drug court database, plus state and county records. The methods used to gather this information are described in detail in the main report. This evaluation was designed to answer key policy questions that are of interest to program practitioners, policymakers and researchers: 1. Has the VCDRDC program been implemented as intended and are they delivering planned services to the target population? 2. Does the VCDRDC reduce recidivism? 3. Does the VCDRDC reduce substance use? 4. Is there a cost-savings to the taxpayer due to drug court participation?

Details: Portland, OR: NPC Research, 2007.

Source: Internet Resource. Accessed on January 15, 2012 at http://www.npcresearch.com/Files/Vanderburgh_Adult_Eval_Final.pdf

Year: 2007

Country: United States

URL: http://www.npcresearch.com/Files/Vanderburgh_Adult_Eval_Final.pdf

Shelf Number: 123621

Keywords:
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Drug Courts (Indiana)
Drug Offenders
Drug Treatment
Recidivism

Author: Carey, Shannon M.

Title: California Drug Courts: Costs and Benefits. Phase III: DC-CSET Statewide Launch Superior Court of Sacramento County Sacramento Drug Court Site-Specific Report

Summary: This report contains the site-specific cost-benefit results for the Sacramento Drug Court. These results are part of a multi-part of Phase III, the statewide launch phase, of this research effort to develop a statewide methodology for assessing the benefits and costs of drug courts in the State of California. The aim of this effort is to produce a validated methodology to conduct inexpensive cost-benefit studies on an ongoing basis of drug courts throughout the state. This methodology, when fully implemented, will enable NPC Research and the California State Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) to answer important public policy questions from a cost-benefit perspective. These questions include the following: 1. Are adult drug courts cost beneficial? 2. What adult drug court practices appear most promising and cost-beneficial? As a part of this effort, a web-based tool was created the Drug Court Cost Self-Evaluation Tool (DCCSET) that drug courts statewide can use to help determine their own costs and benefits. This tool has been piloted in four drug court program sites. The results of the pilot, and in particular feedback from the pilot sites, were used to adjust the web-tool in preparation for the statewide launch. This report is the result of the statewide launch. This report contains the site-specific results for the Sacramento Drug Court in Sacramento County, California.

Details: Portland, OR: NPC Research, 2008. 25p.

Source: Internet Resource. Accessed on January 15, 2012 at http://www.npcresearch.com/Files/California_Drug_Courts_%20Sacramento_full_site_cost_report_1208.pdf

Year: 2008

Country: United States

URL: http://www.npcresearch.com/Files/California_Drug_Courts_%20Sacramento_full_site_cost_report_1208.pdf

Shelf Number: 123622

Keywords:
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Drug Courts (California)
Drug Offenders
Drug Treatment
Recidivism
Sacramento Drug Courts

Author: Dandan, Doria Nour

Title: Sex, drug courts, and recidivism

Summary: Research studies have identified gender differences in the drug abusing patterns and treatment needs of men and women. Even so, studies on the drug court model have not assessed drug court effectiveness across sex. Using secondary data collected from the Ada County Drug Court, the recidivism rates of drug court participants (n=259) and probationers (n=235) were analyzed. Drug court participants were found to be less likely to recidivate compared to probationers, which supports previous research on drug court effectiveness. Regression analyses failed to find an interaction between group membership and sex, thereby indicating that the effect of the drug court did not differ across sex. These findings suggest that, despite differences in drug abuse patterns, the treatment needs of both men and women were being addressed in the drug court.

Details: Las Vegas, NV: University of Nevada, Las Vegas, 2010. 46p.

Source: Thesis. Internet accessed on January 15, 2012 at

Year: 2010

Country: United States

URL:

Shelf Number: 123623

Keywords:
Drug Courts (Idaho)
Drug Offenders
Drug Treatment
Female Offenders
Male Offenders
Recidivism

Author: Ferguson, Andrew

Title: A Process and Site-Specific Outcome Evaluation of Maine's Adult Drug Treatment Court Programs

Summary: The high correlation between crime and the abuse of drugs and alcohol is well documented. Individuals with substance abuse problems are significantly more likely to commit crimes, to commit a wider range of crimes and to be convicted of more violent and serious offenses. Drug courts were developed as a means to respond to problems posed by substance abusing offenders involved in the revolving door of the criminal justice system. As such, they represent a nexus between criminal justice and substance abuse treatment systems that is intended to reduce prison populations by reducing crimes of drug involved offenders by changing their drug using habits. Through comprehensive supervision, drug testing, integrated substance abuse treatment services and frequent court appearances before a designated program judge, drug courts attempt to motivate offenders to engage and participate in a program of behavioral change. Across the United States, there are more than 1,600 drug courts in operation and it is estimated that over 400,000 drug-using offenders have participated in these programs. The vast body of research literature on drug courts indicates positive outcomes – that drug courts are helping to improve the lives of difficult to reach populations. According to the United States Government Accountability Office (2005), drug court programs have demonstrated the ability to reduce recidivism and generate other positive outcomes. Maine’s Adult Drug Treatment Court was created by statute in August 2000 and currently operates in five of Maine’s sixteen counties. As of November 30, 2005, there were a total of 1,365 offenders referred to these programs and 540 offenders were admitted. Maine’s drug courts are intensive and challenging programs to successfully complete. The overall completion rate in Maine (60%) exceeds completion rates across drug court programs nationally (48%). The current study contributes to ongoing discussions about the effectiveness of drug court programs. Consistent with the national literature, this study shows that Maine’s Adult Drug Court program is not only effective in reducing crime but cost effective as well.

Details: Augusta, ME: Department of Health and Human Services, 2006. 36p.

Source: Internet Resource. Accessed on January 15, 2012 at http://www.maine.gov/dhhs/osa/pubs/correct/2006/adultdc06.pdf

Year: 2006

Country: United States

URL: http://www.maine.gov/dhhs/osa/pubs/correct/2006/adultdc06.pdf

Shelf Number: 123624

Keywords:
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Drug Abuse Prevention
Drug Courts (Maine)
Drug Offenders
Drug Treatment

Author: Reichert, Jessica

Title: Community Re-entry After Prison Drug Treatment: Learning from Sheridan Therapeutic Community Program Participants

Summary: The Sheridan Correctional Center National Model Drug Prison and Reentry Program is a drug treatment program providing in-prison substance abuse treatment as well as substance abuse treatment upon release. Prior research has shown reductions in recidivism among Sheridan participants compared to other prisoners. This study examined a group of 50 re-incarcerated men who successfully completed the in-prison phase of the Sheridan program and what led to their re-incarceration. Among this sample, positive findings about the Sheridan program and its participants include: • Sixty-two percent stated they were Very engaged in the Sheridan program. • Slightly more than half (60 percent) felt Sheridan prepared them for success after release. • Over three-fourths (76 percent) indicated they had a job at some point after graduating Sheridan and before their re-incarceration. • A majority (84 percent) reported having little difficulty in finding housing. • Most (86 percent) said Sheridan helped them more than a traditional prison. Other notable findings include: • On average, Sheridan graduates in this study spent 738 days (about two years) in the community before returning to IDOC. The range was 40 to 2,096 days (over five-and-a-half years). • A majority of the men in our sample (90 percent) relapsed into drug or alcohol use after their release from Sheridan. • Slightly more than half (56 percent) of the sample reported they had illegal sources of income. • Sixty-eight 68 percent stated drug dealing was common in the neighborhood they lived in after release. This study found many factors associated with length of time to relapse to drug or alcohol use and recidivism (self-reported criminal activity or re-incarceration) including: • Younger participants engaged in criminal activity and relapsed sooner than older participants. Younger participants also reported being less engaged in the Sheridan program than older participants. • After prison, those who returned to their original neighborhood relapsed sooner than those who did not return to their original neighborhood. • Unemployed participants engaged in criminal activity sooner than employed participants. • Those living in neighborhoods that were perceived as unsafe and/or where drug dealing was common relapsed sooner than those living in safer, lower-risk neighborhoods. • Those who reported spending time with persons who engage in risky activities—substance use and/or criminal activity—relapsed sooner than those who did not spend time with persons engaging in risky activities. • Those with gang involvement engaged in criminal activity and relapsed sooner. • Those who did not complete aftercare engaged in criminal activity and relapsed sooner than those who did complete aftercare.

Details: Chicago: Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority, 2012. 87p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 19, 2012 at: http://www.icjia.org/public/pdf/ResearchReports/Reentry_Sheridan_Report_012012.pdf

Year: 2012

Country: United States

URL: http://www.icjia.org/public/pdf/ResearchReports/Reentry_Sheridan_Report_012012.pdf

Shelf Number: 123667

Keywords:
Aftercare
Correctional Programs
Drug Offenders
Drug Treatment
Prisoner Reentry (Illinois)
Recidivism
Rehabilitation

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 Analysis
Drug Courts
Drug Offenders
Drug Treatment
Problem-Solving Courts
Recidivism

Author: Van Vleet, Russell K.

Title: Evaluation of the Salt Lake County Adult Felony Drug Court Final Report

Summary: The general effectiveness of drug courts on reducing recidivism has been consistently established (Belenko, 2001). The Government Accountability Office’s (GAO) review of adult drug court evaluations (2005) found that most studies have shown both during program and post-program (up to one year) reductions in recidivism. The evaluation of the Salt Lake County Drug Court is consistent with that overall finding. In the 12 months following drug court exit, 19.7% of graduates had a new arrest, compared to 29.8% of the probationer comparison group and 46.5% of terminated clients. Drug court graduates had more pre-intervention arrests on average than the probationer comparison group and pre-intervention arrests were the most consistent predictor of post-intervention recidivism; however, a smaller proportion of drug court graduates than probationers recidivated during the follow-up period, suggesting that drug court may have lessened the detrimental effects of prior criminal history for this group of graduates. Terminated clients are three times more likely than graduates to recidivate in the first year after exiting drug court. However, even terminated clients had a significant decrease in offending from one year prior to drug court to one year following drug court (3.63 offenses on average in year prior to drug court; 0.81 on average in the year following drug court exit). Program compliance was significantly related to post-program recidivism, with those who recidivated in the 12-months after exiting drug court having about 31.8% of their urinalysis tests (UAs) positive or missed on average, compared to 19.5% for those who did not. Those who re-offended after exiting drug court had significantly fewer treatment sessions on average (26.6) than those who did not (59.5). Time in drug court also varied significantly for those who recidivated (200 days in drug court on average) and those who did not (356). The cost-benefit return for the drug court based on the Utah cost-benefit model (Fowles, et al., 2005) is approximately $4.29 return on every dollar invested in the program. This benefit takes into account both the explicit reduced costs to the taxpayer due to lowered recidivism and also the implicit reduced costs to potential victims due to lowered recidivism. Client satisfaction with the drug court staff and professionals was overwhelmingly positive. Most clients felt that the judges, case managers, treatment staff, and other professionals both respected them and helped them to remain drug free. Even terminated clients had mostly positive reviews of the drug court components and the program overall. Key informant interviews with those professionals conducting drug court included judges, prosecutors, therapists and case managers. While overwhelmingly supportive of drug court, concerns were expressed regarding the need to retain program fidelity if the court is to continue to experience the success indicated in this and other evaluations. Specifically, respondents recognized the role of the judge in drug court success and the concern that the judicial role would be compromised if the court becomes too large. Secondly respondents brought up the compatibility of the legal team, therapists, and case managers, as their roles have potential for conflict. Methodological limitations of the recidivism analyses, such as sample size, follow-up length, and probation end-date calculations, may impact the results of these tests. Additional analysis of the three recidivism studies included in this report should be conducted after the follow-up period for both participants and the probation group have been extended to 24 months (the length of time required to capture 75-80% of adult recidivism events; Barnoski, 1997), to see if the differences among the groups are durable across a longer period of time. Larger samples of graduates and terminated clients should be included in the recidivism analyses, as the follow-up period allows.

Details: Salt Lake City, UT: Criminal and Juvenile Justice Consortium, College of Social Work, University of Utah, 2005. 139p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed on January 20, 2012 at http://ucjc.law.utah.edu/wp-content/uploads/1.pdf

Year: 2005

Country: United States

URL: http://ucjc.law.utah.edu/wp-content/uploads/1.pdf

Shelf Number: 123704

Keywords:
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Drug Courts (Utah)
Drug Offenders
Drug Treatment
Recidivism
Repeat Offenders

Author: Shaffer, Deborah K.

Title: Evaluation of Ohio's Drug Courts: A Cost Benefit Analysis

Summary: In 1995, researchers in the Center for Criminal Justice Research at the University of Cincinnati began an evaluation of Ohio’s first drug court (Hamilton County). Since that time, numerous other drug courts have been implemented throughout the State of Ohio. The University of Cincinnati has completed outcome evaluations on juvenile, felony, and misdemeanor drug courts throughout the State. While these studies have suggested that Ohio’s drug courts are reducing recidivism, none of them have included a cost-benefit analysis. In 2003, the Ohio Office of Criminal Justice Services contracted with the University of Cincinnati to extend the previous research. Specifically, this project seeks to assess whether drug courts save taxpayer dollars as either a less expensive sentencing option or through reductions in recidivism.

Details: Cincinatti, OH: Center for Criminal Justice Research, University of Cincinnati, 2005. 44p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed on January 20, 2012 at http://www.publicsafety.ohio.gov/links/ocjs_CostBenefitAnalysisofOhiosDrugCourts2005.pdf

Year: 2005

Country: United States

URL: http://www.publicsafety.ohio.gov/links/ocjs_CostBenefitAnalysisofOhiosDrugCourts2005.pdf

Shelf Number: 123705

Keywords:
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Drug Courts (Ohio)
Drug Offenders
Drug Treatment
Problem-Solving Courts
Recidivism

Author: Rhodes, William

Title: Suffolk County Drug Court Evaluation

Summary: This report documents an evaluation of four adult treatment drug court programs located in Suffolk County, Massachusetts. The evaluation incorporates both process and impact analyses conducted by Abt Associates Inc. The process evaluation examines program caseflow and participant characteristics to describe program intake, retention, and graduation. Using a comparison group of matched probationers who did not enter drug court, the impact analysis studies the receipt of alcohol and other drug treatment services following entry into drug court; and it studies probation revocations, criminal recidivism (new arrests and new convictions), and incarceration (Houses of Correction or jails) during a follow-up period beginning one year after the probationer entered drug court.

Details: Cambridge, MA: Abt Associates Inc., 2006. 55p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed on January 20, 2012 at http://www.abtassociates.com/reports/MASSDRUGCT_Report_FINAL061406.pdf

Year: 2006

Country: United States

URL: http://www.abtassociates.com/reports/MASSDRUGCT_Report_FINAL061406.pdf

Shelf Number: 123706

Keywords:
Drug Courts (Massachusetts)
Drug Offenders
Drug Treatment
Recidivism
Substance Abuse

Author: Rhyne, Charlene

Title: Clean Court Outcome Study

Summary: In July 2001, Multnomah County Department of Community Justice was awarded a Targeted Capacity Expansion grant. SAMHSA and the Multnomah County Board of County Commissioners provided support for this post-adjudication drug court named Clean Court. The main thrust of this model was to improve offender referral to and completion of alcohol and drug treatment. The outcome study produced at grant end explores the impact of this endeavor on offender criminal, drug taking, stability and treatment outcomes. The outcome study utilized a quasi-experimental design with 130 research participants enrolled in Clean Court and 130 comparison group offenders who would have been eligible for Clean Court had it been in place in 2001. The research sample data included baseline and 12 month follow-up interviews that asked about social, stability, drug taking, criminal and health issues. Both groups had treatment and arrest data included in the analyses.

Details: Portland, OR: Multnomah County Department of Community Justice, 2004. 36p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed on January 20, 2012 at http://web.multco.us/sites/default/files/dcj/documents/clean_court_outcome_summary.pdf

Year: 2004

Country: United States

URL: http://web.multco.us/sites/default/files/dcj/documents/clean_court_outcome_summary.pdf

Shelf Number: 123707

Keywords:
Alcohol Treatment
Drug Courts (Oregon)
Drug Treatment
Drug Treatment Programs
Recidivism

Author: Loman, Anthony L.

Title: A Cost-Benefit Analysis of the St. Louis City Adult Felony Drug Court

Summary: The St. Louis Adult Felony Drug Court in the City of St. Louis is a pre-plea drug court that accepts individuals charged with drug crimes shortly after arrest. The program is voluntary. Participants must submit to regular breath testing for alcohol and urinalysis for drugs, make regular court appearances, find and maintain employment, and participate in prescribed drug and alcohol treatment. If they successfully complete the program, which averages nearly a year and a half in length, their original charges are dismissed. The St. Louis Adult Felony Drug Court began operating on April 7, 1997 in the City of St. Louis (22nd Judicial Circuit). The graduates selected for this study were the first 219 to successfully complete the program. A number of reforms, including a special program for youthful defendants, have been introduced since that time that are designed to enhance drug court outcomes. This group of graduates predates most of those reforms. Research indicating the benefits of drug courts has accumulated during the previous decade. However, there have been few controlled studies designed to demonstrate whether the value of those benefits to the community offset the costs of operating the programs. The primary goal of the present study was a cost-benefit analysis of the St. Louis Adult Felony Drug Court that compared the first 219 drug court graduates, who had completed drug court before 2001, with a carefully matched group of other individuals charged with drug crimes who were not offered drug court but completed probation. This is the final report of the cost-benefit analysis of the St. Louis Adult Felony Drug Court in the City of St. Louis. The drug court is a voluntary program designed to provide drug treatment and other services to individuals charged with felony drug or drug-related offenses within a program that involves close supervision and monitoring by drug court officials. The primary focus of the report is a comparison in monetary terms of the costs of such services with the benefits to participants who successfully complete the program and to the community as a whole.

Details: St. Louis, MO: Institute for Applied Research, 2004. 69p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed on January 20, 2012 at http://www.iarstl.org/papers/SLFDCcostbenefit.pdf

Year: 2004

Country: United States

URL: http://www.iarstl.org/papers/SLFDCcostbenefit.pdf

Shelf Number: 123708

Keywords:
Alcohol Treatment
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Drug Courts (Missouri)
Drug Treatment
Drug Treatment Programs

Author: Gilbertson, Troy

Title: 2008 DWI Court Evaluation Report - Ninth Judicial District Minnesota

Summary: An evaluation of the DWI Courts in the Minnesota 9th Judicial District was conducted. The individual courts include; Aitkin County DWI Court, Beltrami County DWI Court, Cass County/ Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe Wellness Court, Crow Wing County DWI Couty, Koochiching County DWI Court, Lake of the Woods County DWI Court, and Roseau County DWI Court. The evaluation is based on data collected from participants active in the above referenced DWI courts between January 1, 2008 and December 31, 2008. The analysis was focused on four main criteria: recidivism, sobriety, community functioning, and jail cost avoidance.

Details: Bemidji, MN: Criminal Justice Department, Bemidji State University, undated. 65p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed on January 20, 2012 at http://www.american.edu/spa/jpo/customcf/get.cfm?jpo_collection=1&doc=2008-DWI-Court-Evaluation-Report--Ninth-Judicial-District-MN-Executive-Summary & at: http://www.american.edu/spa/jpo/customcf/get.cfm?jpo_collection=1&doc=2008-DWI-Court-Evaluation-Report-Ninth-Judicial-District-MN1

Year: 0

Country: United States

URL: http://www.american.edu/spa/jpo/customcf/get.cfm?jpo_collection=1&doc=2008-DWI-Court-Evaluation-Report--Ninth-Judicial-District-MN-Executive-Summary & at: http://www.american.edu/spa/jpo/customcf/get.cfm?jpo_collection=1&do

Shelf Number: 123709

Keywords:
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Drug Courts (Minnesota)
Drug Offenders
Drug Treatment
Problem-Solving Courts
Recidivism

Author: innovation Research & Training, Inc.

Title: Rowan County Juvenile Drug Treatment Court Process Evaluation Report

Summary: The primary purpose of this process evaluation report is to provide a description of the structure, organization, and operations of the Rowan County Juvenile Drug Treatment Court (RCJDTC), as well as to identify the strengths and barriers of the court. Process evaluations are required by North Carolina’s Administrative Office of the Courts and the Bureau of Justice Assistance, and are supported by the North Carolina Governor’s Crime Commission. The North Carolina Drug Treatment Court Advisory Committee is “established to develop and recommend to the Director of the AOC guidelines for the DTC and to monitor local courts wherever they are implemented” (N.C. Gen. Stat. §7A-795). A drug court process evaluation documents and describes the current operation, strengths, and areas in need of improvement in the functioning of a court. A process evaluation differs from an outcome evaluation in that it does not examine and evaluate the effectiveness of the Drug Treatment Court in terms of its effectiveness in reducing recidivism, substance abuse, and addiction. This report describes the results of the process evaluation conducted on the functioning of the RCJDTC. At various points within this report, excerpts from program materials and from interviews are reported verbatim in order to retain the exact language and nuances intended by the Drug Court Team or by the interviewee.

Details: Durham, NC: innovation Research & Training, Inc., 2005. 81p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed on January 22, 2012 at http://www.dtcintranet.nccourts.org/Documents/Resources/Rowan/Youth/processevaluation.pdf

Year: 2005

Country: United States

URL: http://www.dtcintranet.nccourts.org/Documents/Resources/Rowan/Youth/processevaluation.pdf

Shelf Number: 123722

Keywords:
Drug Courts (North Carolina)
Drug Treatment
Juvenile Offenders
Problem-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 Offenders
Drug Treatment
Problem-Solving Courts

Author: Merkinaite, Simona

Title: A War Against Peopole Who Use Drugs: The Costs

Summary: This report aims to assess whether national funding allocated for drug-related measures achieves the goals of slowing down or reversing drug epidemics and protecting society from drug-related harms. It is based on comparing costs associated with both – law enforcement activities and public health measures such as harm reduction and drug treatment. The report draws on country costs assessments done in Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, Romania and Russia as well as analysis of data from other countries of the region, including Ukraine and Tajikistan. Key findings: • Punishment for petty, non-violent drug crimes—mainly but not solely limited to criminalization of people who use drugs—results in stigma and discrimination, and creates a political climate in which human rights norms are not applied in relation to people who use drugs. • Such policies lead to police harassment, misuse of power and extortion of money from drug users and/or their relatives. • In most countries of Eastern Europe and Central Asia (EECA), governments’ unwillingness to allocate funds for harm reduction, opioid substitution therapy (OST), HIV and hepatitis C treatment is determined not by insufficiency of national funding, but by prioritization of enforcement over health approaches. • Such misguided priorities also have significant (and negative) financial consequences. For example: – The Kyrgyzstan government spends around $1.25 million per year to enforce Article 246 of the Criminal Code (regarding possession of drugs with no intent to supply). By comparison, the budget for OST programs is $500,000, and is currently covered exclusively by external donors. OST costs $500 per patient a year, while punishment costs at least $625 per each person convicted for drug possession. – In 2010 alone, the prosecution of drug offenders (for use and supply) cost at least $100 million in Russia. In comparison, under the Budget Law for 2011, HIV prevention programming is to receive less than 3% of the total $640 million to be allocated in 2012 through the Federal Budget Law for HIV, hepatitis B and C, and the government continues to prohibit internationally accepted drug treatment interventions such as OST. The government therefore will spend millions more treating people infected with HIV than it would have in protecting their health and reducing transmission. – Georgia spends around $10.5 million annually on random street drug testing and an additional $4.7 million on imprisonment of drug offenders. This not only fails to deter people from using drugs (as eventually the majority return to drug use) but also increases criminality, social isolation and stigma. Only about 10% of the estimated 40,000 people who inject drugs are currently receiving harm reduction services, yet even that small share means that up to 1,000 new HIV infections have been averted. • Despite vast investment in law enforcement interventions, neither drug use nor the HIV epidemic has been contained. Across EECA there are an estimated 3.4 million to 3.8 million people who inject drugs, which represents the highest regional prevalence of injecting drug use worldwide. One in four injectors is believed to be living with HIV in the region, accounting for 57% of all infections. • In countries where the drugs of the choice become unavailable, people are switching to other, potentially more harmful substances. Such developments indicate that punitive drug laws (prohibition of certain substances) have, at best, marginal impacts on the overall level of drug use, and have negative impacts on health. • Prosecution and incarceration for drug-related offences is one of the key reasons behind the increase in prison populations across the region. Yet maintaining prisons is expensive, and many prison systems are chronically underfunded. Among the consequences are increased HIV transmission—because drugs are easily available in most prisons, but preventive commodities such as clean needles are not—and an increase in involvement in criminal gangs as prisoners seek ways to improve their food and safety position in penitentiaries.

Details: Vilnius, Lithuania: Eurasian Harm Reduction Network (EHRN), 2012. 36p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 6, 2012 at: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/64663568/library/a-war-against-people-who-use-drugs-the-costs.pdf

Year: 2012

Country: International

URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/64663568/library/a-war-against-people-who-use-drugs-the-costs.pdf

Shelf Number: 124881

Keywords:
Drug Abuse and Addiction
Drug Abuse Policy
Drug Enforcement
Drug Treatment
War on Drugs (Europe and Asia)

Author: Khanom, Husnara

Title: A Missed Opportunity? Community Sentences and the Mental Health Treatment Requirement

Summary: The Mental Health Treatment Requirement (MHTR) is one of 12 options (‘requirements’) available to sentencers when constructing a Community Order or a Suspended Sentence Order. The MHTR can be given to an offender with mental health problems who does not require immediate compulsory hospital admission under the Mental Health Act. If they give their consent, the MHTR requires them to receive mental health treatment for a specified period. At least 40% of offenders on Community Orders are thought to have a diagnosable mental health problem. Yet there has been very little uptake of the MHTR in England and Wales since its introduction in 2005. Only 686 MHTRs commenced in the year to 30 June 2008 out of a total of 221,700 requirements issued with Community Orders across the country. This compares with 12,347 requirements for drug rehabilitation and 3,846 for alcohol treatment. This report is based on an exploratory research project; the first to examine the way in which the Mental Health Treatment Requirement is issued and the processes involved. We interviewed 56 professionals working in the courts, in probation and in health services about their experiences and knowledge of the MHTR. Appropriate use of the MHTR depends on probation officers, defence solicitors and psychiatrists all being both familiar with and confident in using it. Our interviews have indicated that this is far from being the case in practice. Many professionals lacked direct experience of the MHTR, and some were not aware of it at all. Court and probation professionals varied widely in their knowledge of mental health issues and their confidence in dealing with them. Many did not feel the courts should get involved in mental health issues. Professionals had varied views about the purpose of the MHTR. Some felt it should help offenders who had fallen out of touch with mental health services to get back into contact. Others thought this was inappropriate, or that the MHTR should only be considered where mental illness had led the person to commit the offence of which they had been convicted. The criteria for who should receive an MHTR were not clear to the professionals we interviewed. Many felt that the MHTR was not suitable for people with personality disorders or those with depression or anxiety. The biggest barrier to the creation of an MHTR is the need for a formal psychiatric report. These are subject to lengthy delays as well as difficulties with costs. Some psychiatric reports do not provide the offer of treatment from local mental health services that is vital for the creation of an MHTR. Once an MHTR has begun, the main concern among professionals is about how to determine when an offender has breached the requirement and how to manage this. Missed appointments were widely held to constitute a breach of the MHTR, but non-compliance with treatment was more contested. Many court professionals were concerned about the impact of making an MHTR more onerous if it was breached. The MHTR relies on good communication between the courts, probation and health services. Poor communication between health and probation services can hinder its effectiveness. Yet the court diversion and liaison teams that we encountered rarely played an active role in the operation of the MHTR. For offenders with a dual diagnosis of drug misuse and mental health problems, the courts were much more likely to make a Drug Rehabilitation Requirement (DRR) than an MHTR. This is because they are more familiar with the DRR, it has a dedicated staff team and the process for making and managing a DRR is clearer. Despite the challenges presented by the MHTR, we conclude that it has unfulfilled potential to offer offenders with mental health problems a robust alternative to a short prison sentence. That potential can be harnessed through practical improvements to the way the MHTR works on the ground and through improved communication between health and criminal justice agencies. Our recommendations include: Central government should provide practical guidance for criminal justice and health professionals on how to construct and manage MHTRs. Primary care trusts should commission services that enable the courts to issue MHTRs. The National Offender Management Service should provide detailed information for probation officers on how to manage the MHTR. Protocols need to be developed between the courts, probation and health services to enable the appropriate use of the MHTR. Diversion and liaison schemes should be involved in the MHTR to organise timely psychiatric reports and make sentencing recommendations.

Details: London: Sainsbury Centre for Mental health, 2009. 46p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 1, 2012 at: http://www.centreformentalhealth.org.uk/pdfs/Missed_Opportunity.pdf

Year: 2009

Country: United Kingdom

URL: http://www.centreformentalhealth.org.uk/pdfs/Missed_Opportunity.pdf

Shelf Number: 113925

Keywords:
Drug Treatment
Mental Health Treatment
Mentally Ill Offenders (U.K.)
Sentencing, Mentally Ill Offenders

Author: Virginia. Secretary of Public Safety

Title: Report on the Status and Effectiveness of Offender Drug Screening, Assessment and Treatment - 2011

Summary: In 1998, Virginia’s General Assembly passed House Bill 664 and Senate Bill 317 (HB664/SB317) enacting the Drug Offender Screening, Assessment, and Treatment (DSAT) Initiative. The DSAT legislation, subsequently amended in 1999, outlined specific substance abuse screening and assessment provisions that became effective for offenses committed on or after January 1, 2000. These provisions, contained in §§ 16.1-273, 18.2-251.01, 19.2-299, 19.2-299.2 and 19.2-123(B), of the Code of Virginia, target three offender groups: juveniles, adult felons, and adult misdemeanants. Because several different types of offenders are subject to the Code mandates, the Initiative affects staff and clients of numerous agencies, including the Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ), the Department of Corrections (DOC), local community-based probation and pretrial services agencies administered by the Department of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS), the Commission on Virginia Alcohol Safety Action Program (VASAP), and the Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental Services (DBHDS). The Interagency Drug Offender Screening and Assessment Committee (the Committee) was created by § 2.2-223 (formerly § 2.1-51.18:3) to oversee the screening and assessment provisions contained in the Code of Virginia. The Committee, with representation from all affected agencies and the Virginia Criminal Sentencing Commission, is charged with ensuring the quality and consistency of the screening and assessment process across the Commonwealth. Significant budget and staff reductions have affected each of the principal agencies. In response to cuts in funding since 2001, particularly the elimination of Substance Abuse Reduction Effort (SABRE) funds, agencies involved in screening and assessment activities have re-examined protocols and developed alternative strategies to maximize the use of remaining resources. Despite the elimination of a substantial number of staff positions formerly devoted to this task, agencies have continued their efforts to address offenders’ substance abuse needs by streamlining the process utilizing other screening instruments and otherwise attempting to make this task manageable for the fewer number of staff involved. The number and type of services available have decreased significantly. The lack of resources has also greatly limited the ability to coordinate services across agencies. Thus, the Committee, or workgroup have evaluated the effectiveness of offender screening, assessment, and treatment independently and within in their own agency. It is recommended that due to budget cuts, legislation surrounding the DSAT Initiative (§§ 16.1-273, 18.2-251.01, 19.2-123(B), 19.2-299, and 19.2-299.2 of the Code of Virginia) should be eliminated from the Code of Virginia.

Details: Richmond, VA: Virginia Office of the Secretary of Public Safety, 2012. 25p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 16, 2012 at: http://leg2.state.va.us/dls/h&sdocs.nsf/4d54200d7e28716385256ec1004f3130/e2da8bbfc675ce80852577ee0066fc2e?OpenDocument

Year: 2012

Country: United States

URL: http://leg2.state.va.us/dls/h&sdocs.nsf/4d54200d7e28716385256ec1004f3130/e2da8bbfc675ce80852577ee0066fc2e?OpenDocument

Shelf Number: 125316

Keywords:
Drug Abuse and Crime
Drug Addiction and Abuse
Drug Offenders (Virginia)
Drug Treatment

Author: Wicklund, Peter

Title: Windsor County Sparrow Project: Outcome Evaluation

Summary: The Sparrow Project was initiated in the spring of 2009 when it was awarded an H.859 Justice Reinvestment Pilot Project grant from the Vermont Court Administrator’s office (CAO). The grant application was submitted by Health Care and Rehabilitation Services of Southeastern Vermont (HCRS) in collaboration with the Windsor District Court, the Windsor County State’s Attorneys Office, a group of Windsor County public defenders, Probation & Parole for the Springfield and Hartford Districts, and the Field Service Division of the Agency of Human Services for the Springfield and Hartford districts. Bill H.859 was passed during the 2007/2008 Legislative session. The Sparrow Project was designed to address a critical need in the community to meet the challenges facing defendants with substance abuse and/or mental health issues. The Sparrow Project offers effective alternatives to incarceration through a viable community-based treatment plan. Through clinical case management services, the Sparrow Project is focused on increasing the availability of therapeutic services to defendants and veterans in Windsor County charged with non-violent property felonies, drug felonies, and other charges. The Sparrow Project is designed to help improve the quality of life for these individuals by decreasing recidivism, helping them develop the skills they need to make healthy decisions, and moving them towards recovery, in order to become successful participants in our community. During the study period 58% of Sparrow Project participants (56 of 97) completed the Project. An outcome evaluation attempts to determine the effects that a program has on participants. In the case of the Sparrow Project the objective of this outcome evaluation was to determine the extent to which participation in the Sparrow Project reduced recidivism among program participants. An indicator of post-program criminal behavior that is commonly used in outcome evaluations of criminal justice programs is the number of participants who recidivate -- that is, are convicted of a crime after they complete the program or, in the case of this study, while they are in the program or after they are dis-enrolled from the program. An analysis of the criminal history records of the 103 subjects who were referred to and accepted into the Sparrow Project from March 30, 2009 to October 28, 2011 was conducted using the Vermont criminal history record of participants as provided by the Vermont Criminal Information Center at the Department of Public Safety. The Vermont criminal history record on which the recidivism analysis was based included all charges and convictions prosecuted in a Vermont District Court that were available as of January 23, 2012. The criminal records on which the study was based do not contain Federal prosecutions, out-of-state prosecutions, or traffic tickets. MAJOR CONCLUSIONS 1. The Sparrow Project appears to be a promising approach for reducing recidivism among Project participants who completed the Project. Participants who successfully completed the Project had a reconviction rate of 17.9% which is substantially less than the 29.3% recidivism rate for those participants who were dis-enrolled from the Project. 2. Participants who successfully completed the Sparrow Project recidivated at the same pace as did participants who were dis-enrolled from the Project. For the recidivists who successfully completed the Sparrow Project, 100% of those reconvictions for any new crime occurred in less than one year. For the recidivists who were unsuccessful in completing the Project, 91.7% (11 of 12) of reconvictions for any new crime occurred in less than one year, and only one occurred during the first year after being dis-enrolled from the Project. Further analysis indicated that though the vast majority of recidivism occurs within the first year, it is unlikely that recidivism will increase substantially as post-Project elapsed time continues to increase for participants. 3. The Sparrow Project appears to be a promising approach for reducing the number of post-Project reconvictions for participants who completed the Project. The reconviction rate for those participants who completed the Project was 39 reconvictions per 100 participants versus 66 reconvictions per 100 participants for the dis-enrolled group. There were no felony reconvictions for participants who successfully completed the Project, whereas there were four felony reconvictions for the dis-enrolled group. For both groups approximately 85% of their reconvictions involved (listed in order of frequency) motor vehicle charges violations of conditions of release, drug crimes, theft, false information to a law enforcement officer, and violation of probation. There was only one reconviction for a violent crime (Domestic Assault); it involved a participant from the “successful completion” group.

Details: Northfield Falls, VT: Vermont Center for Justice Research, 2012. 35p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 19, 2012 at: http://www.vcjr.org/reports/reportscrimjust/reports/sparrowreport_files/SparrowRpt_6-20-12.pdf

Year: 2012

Country: United States

URL: http://www.vcjr.org/reports/reportscrimjust/reports/sparrowreport_files/SparrowRpt_6-20-12.pdf

Shelf Number: 126748

Keywords:
Alternatives to Incarceration
Drug Abuse and Addiction (Vermont)
Drug Abuse and Crime
Drug Offenders
Drug Treatment
Mental Health Services
Recidivism

Author: Nicholas, Roger

Title: Breaking the Silence: Addressing Family and Domestic Violence Problems in Alcohol and Other Drug Treatment Practice in Australia

Summary: This literature review examines the relationships between alcohol and other drug (AOD) use and “family and domestic violence” (FDV) in the context of AOD treatment settings. It focuses on strategies that may be developed to enhance the responses of alcohol and other drug (AOD) treatment providers to FDV issues affecting clients and their children.

Details: Adelaide, South Australia: National Centre for Education and Training on Addiction (NCETA), Flinders University, 2012. 36p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 24, 2012 at: http://nceta.flinders.edu.au/files/6513/5285/7437/EN469_Nicholas_2012.pdf

Year: 2012

Country: Australia

URL: http://nceta.flinders.edu.au/files/6513/5285/7437/EN469_Nicholas_2012.pdf

Shelf Number: 126989

Keywords:
Alcohol Abuse
Alcohol Treatment Programs
Child Abuse and Neglect
Domestic Violence
Drug Abuse and Addiction
Drug Treatment
Family Violence (Australia)

Author: Ritter, Alison

Title: Evaluating Drug Law Enforcement Interventions Directed Towards Methamphetamine in Australia

Summary: Methamphetamine belongs in the class of stimulant drugs referred to as Amphetamine Type Stimulants (ATS). The category of ATS includes ecstasy, amphetamine and methamphetamine. This research project concerned itself with the amphetamine and methamphetamine class and excluded ecstasy (and henceforth we use the generic term methamphetamine). In Australia, methamphetamine is available in three forms—powder, base and crystal. Methamphetamine is associated with significant harms and is an important drug policy priority. The National Amphetamine-Type Stimulants Strategy (2008–2011) (Ministerial Council on Drug Strategy, 2008) articulates the following priority areas in relation to methamphetamine: • improve community awareness and understanding of amphetamine-type stimulant use and related problems; • reduce the supply of amphetamine-type stimulants; • develop specific strategies to prevent and reduce amphetamine type stimulant use; and • develop organisational and system capacity to prevent and respond to amphetamine-type stimulant problems This research concerns the second priority area—reducing the supply of methamphetamine. The specific aims of the research were twofold: • to provide a rich description of the Australian methamphetamine supply chains in order to inform drug law enforcement interventions; and • to conduct an initial economic evaluation comparing law enforcement interventions directed at the methamphetamine market. The work focused on the methamphetamine market(s) and supply chains in Australia above the retail level. Previous research (eg McKetin, McLaren, & Kelly, 2005) has examined retail methamphetamine markets in Australia. Governments and policymakers are interested in determining which interventions are more or less effective than others, such that the scarce funding resources can be allocated in the most efficient manner possible. There is scant research available to law enforcement to guide such decisions. The main impediments to such research are the fundamental methodological challenges inherent in such an undertaking. This project is an attempt to conduct a preliminary analysis comparing the costs and impacts of different types of law enforcement. It is a ground-breaking study as this has not been previously attempted and it should be seen as the initial development of a methodological approach that can be improved upon with subsequent research. The project aimed to determine the relative cost-to-impact ratios of different law enforcement strategies aimed at reducing methamphetamine production and distribution. In an environment focused on efficiency in resource allocation, it is hoped that this research will provide the impetus for further research on the effectiveness of drug law enforcement. As the results of such research accumulate, it is hoped that policymakers will be able to use the information to improve decision making on law enforcement investment. As with all research, this study has limitations, which we hope will be addressed in future research. The economic results should be read with these limitations in mind. • This study assessed the difference between four drug law enforcement interventions in terms of the impact (value of seized drugs) against expenditure (government costs). It is not a cost-effectiveness or a cost– benefit study. The results are reported in terms of the ranking of the interventions against each other. This study does not allow one to draw conclusions about the overall efficiency or value for money represented by drug law enforcement. Future research, which builds on this work, could include a cost-effectiveness analysis, between drug law enforcement interventions and across drug law enforcement and other interventions which reduce methamphetamine use (such as drug treatment). • In this evaluation, the measure of policing impact was the monetary value of seized methamphetamine (or precursor). This is an imperfect impact measure. Drug law enforcement that results in seized product can also impact on the overall capacity of a criminal network. • This study used the value of seized drugs as the measure to compare law enforcement interventions. However, drug law enforcement may change other financial aspects for drug criminals, such as increase the costs of manufacture and distribution (by seizing assets), increase the risks of arrest and imprisonment (opportunity costs) and increase the operational costs of running a business (costs of new avoidance strategies adopted against drug law enforcement). The aggregate costs are the losses to illicit drug enterprises due to drug law enforcement activities. A comprehensive analysis would include each of these aspects and calculate ‘total loss’ due to drug law enforcement. However, in this preliminary work, we were not able to cost each of these components and hence used only replacement costs (seizures) to represent the loss. • There are other important impacts of drug law enforcement interventions—deterrence, public safety and public amenity, and disruptions on other crimes that criminal networks are engaged in that have not been included in this study; future research could adopt the broader, taxpayer (societal) perspective, rather than policing agency perspective. • In this study, we evaluate the relative impact of discrete law enforcement interventions. However, in reality, law enforcement interventions are likely to exert synergistic effects such that the combined impact of a suite of interventions is likely to be greater than the sum of the impact of individual interventions. Thus, an important caveat to our results relates to the cumulative impact of law enforcement interventions. The current project did not examine the impact of cumulative or multi-pronged interventions. • There is a substantial lack of data across many areas of illicit drug markets. We had difficulty obtaining methamphetamine price data, information about market structure, police agency budgets and detailed seizure data. Some of these data, such as information about markets, involves ethnographic research. For quantitative data, consideration should be given to the development of data collection systems which would facilitate illicit drug market and law enforcement effectiveness research (eg collection of data which connects price and purity of seizures). • Our study did not include the relative impact of precursor regulations and the enforcement of these regulations, nor did it include source country interventions conducted by Australian law enforcement. There is currently very little empirical evidence to guide policy decisions about drug enforcement interventions directed to methamphetamine. In fact, the paucity of research on the effectiveness of law enforcement across all illicit drugs ‘continues to pose a major barrier to applying these policies effectively’ (Babor, et al., 2010 p. 258.) Decisions about which methamphetamine supply control policy to fund, which policies should receive increased funding, or how to derive the most effective balance of priorities, are currently uninformed by the results of research. There is a clear and pressing need for further research that examines the effectiveness of law enforcement interventions directed at methamphetamine. The current study aims to begin to fill this gap.

Details: Canberra: National Drug Law Enforcement Research Fund, 2012. 133p.

Source: Internet Resource: Monograph Series No. 44: Accessed November 24, 2012 at: http://www.ndlerf.gov.au/pub/Monograph_44.pdf

Year: 2012

Country: Australia

URL: http://www.ndlerf.gov.au/pub/Monograph_44.pdf

Shelf Number: 126990

Keywords:
Amphetamines
Drug Abuse and Crime
Drug Enforcement
Drug Markets
Drug Offenders
Drug Treatment
Illegal Drugs
Methamphetamine (Australia)

Author: Riskiyani, Shanti

Title: Barriers to Health and Other Services for Ex-Prisoners

Summary: The National Survey of Drug Abuse Development reported that the police had caught 1 of 5 abusers; even 1 of 2 injection addicts had dealt with police. Furthermore, there was 1 of 7 respondents in the survey admitted that had been in prison, especially the injection addicts group. One of the strongest lessons from the end of the last century is that public health can no longer afford to ignore the prisoner health. The rise and rapid spread of HIV infection and AIDS, the resurgence of other serious communicable diseases such as tuberculosis and hepatitis and the increasing recognition that prisons are inappropriate receptacles for people with dependence and mental health problems have thrust prison health high on the public health agenda (WHO, 2007). Substance use disorders among inmates are at epidemic proportions. Almost twothirds (64.5 percent) of the inmate population in the U.S. (1.5 million) met medical criteria for an alcohol or other drug use disorder. Prison and jail inmates are seven times likelier than are individuals in the general population to have a substance use disorder (Califano et.al, 2010). This activity was carried out as an advocacy tool, as an important part of the strategy in implementing Harm Reduction Network in raising the issue of drug user’s especially former prisoners. Particulary to explore the information about health services accessed by former prisoners narcotics, to explore the availabality of health services for the former prisoners and exploring accessed of former prisoners to the health services. By taking samples in seven provincial cities, the recording process is done by an objective and conducted by the research team. We’re collecting data using a qualitative method, data collection through in-depth interviews and focus group discussions. The instrument used in this study had previously been tested in two provinces, Medan –a city as the representation of western region- and Bali, for the eastern region. The results of this trial had then been discussed in a meeting attended by FHI staff, NGO staff of Charisma, Ministry of Health officials, Directorate General of Corrections and UNODC, to get feedback on improving the instrument. The results of this meeting was followed by a Data Collecting Team workshop and delivered new instrument that was then used in the farther data collection. Our workshops were conducted to similize perceptions of the reseracher members in the process of data collection in the field.

Details: Indonesian Harm Reduction Federal; United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, 2012. 97p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 31, 2013 at: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/64663568/library/Final-Rep-UNODC-Eng.pdf

Year: 2012

Country: Asia

URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/64663568/library/Final-Rep-UNODC-Eng.pdf

Shelf Number: 127459

Keywords:
Drug Addiction
Drug Treatment
Ex-Offenders
Ex-Prisoners
Health Care
Mental Health Services

Author: Dunklee, Caitlin

Title: Effective Approaches to Drug Crimes In Texas: Strategies to Reduce Crime, Save Money, and Treat Addiction

Summary: During the past 30 years, Texas has enacted laws and policies meant to enhance public safety, resulting in crowded prisons and jails, and a corrections budget that comprises a huge slice of the state budget. Laws that focus on incarcerating men and women have been founded in genuine concern. However, a considerable percentage of the people arrested, charged, and incarcerated have been low-level drug users. Since 1999, arrests for drug possession in Texas have skyrocketed. In fact, almost all drug arrests in Texas are not for delivery or distribution, but for possession of a controlled substance. These numbers include people arrested for possession of illicit drugs, as well as the increasing number of Texans who have become addicted to prescription drugs. Both of these groups share a common thread: their substance abuse problems are often rooted in addiction. A proper response to this public health issue is treatment, not incarceration. Many people prosecuted for low-level drug crimes battle other obstacles, including mental illness, homelessness, joblessness, and poverty. Prosecuting and incarcerating Texans whose addictions push them into using illicit drugs or abusing prescription drugs burdens them with the collateral consequences associated with conviction and incarceration; it (further) limits their housing options, employment opportunities, and access to educational and medical programs, and it ultimately lessens the likelihood that they will become healthy, contributing members of their communities. Incarceration-driven policies are also egregiously expensive: treatment is a fraction of the cost of imprisoning an individual in Texas. Finally, our prisons and jails are simply not equipped with staff or resources to adequately combat the root causes of substance abuse and addiction, which means that untreated individuals are much more likely to commit other crimes after release, threatening public safety and creating a continual drain on limited coffers. For those with addiction, drug treatment is a more effective strategy to treat the individual, reduce recidivism, and lower costs to the state. Texas should take steps to aggressively and proactively address drug addiction, and thereby decrease associated crime, by promoting medical and public health responses to this issue. Specifically, policy-makers must support the efforts of practitioners, including probation departments and judges, who are seeking to effectively treat those with substance abuse problems by improving and making more widely available community-based rehabilitation and treatment diversion alternatives.

Details: Austin, TX: Texas Criminal Justice Coalition, 2013. 28p.

Source: Internet Resource: accessed February 4, 2013 at: http://www.texascjc.org/sites/default/files/uploads/TCJC%20Addiction%20Primer%20(Jan%202013).pdf

Year: 2013

Country: United States

URL: http://www.texascjc.org/sites/default/files/uploads/TCJC%20Addiction%20Primer%20(Jan%202013).pdf

Shelf Number: 127469

Keywords:
Alternative to Incarceration
Costs of Criminal Justice
Drug Abuse and Addiction (Texas, U.S.)
Drug Offenders
Drug Treatment

Author: Wicklund, Peter

Title: Rutland County Treatment Court: Outcome Evaluation

Summary: In 2002, under Act 128 the Vermont legislature established a pilot project to create drug court initiatives and begin implementing drug courts in three Vermont counties: Rutland, Chittenden, and Bennington. The Rutland County Treatment Court (hereafter, the “RTC”) was one of the drug courts established by Act 128, and began operating in January 2004. It was established as a pilot program for combating drug crimes, not just possession, but drug-related crimes such as retail theft, burglaries, grand larceny – both misdemeanors and felonies. Offenders identified as drug-addicted are referred to the court by law enforcement, probation officers, and attorneys and put into a treatment program that will reduce drug dependency and improve the quality of life for themselves and their families. In most cases, after their successful completion of drug court, the original charges are dismissed or charges are reduced. The benefits to society include reduced recidivism by the drug court participants, leading to increased public safety and reduced costs to taxpayers. An outcome evaluation attempts to determine the effects that a program has on participants. In the case of RTC, the objective of this outcome evaluation was to determine the extent to which the RTC reduced recidivism among program participants. An indicator of post-program criminal behavior that is commonly used in outcome evaluations of criminal justice programs is the number of participants who recidivate -- that is, are convicted of a crime after they complete the program. An analysis of the criminal history records of the 165 subjects who were referred to and accepted into the RTC from January 6, 2004 to February 7, 2012, was conducted using the Vermont criminal history record of participants as provided by the Vermont Criminal Information Center at the Department of Public Safety. The Vermont criminal history record on which the recidivism analysis was based included all charges and convictions prosecuted in a Vermont Superior Court – Criminal Division that were available as of April 24, 2012. The criminal records on which the study was based do not contain Federal prosecutions, out-of-state prosecutions, or traffic tickets. SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS 1. The RTC appears to be a promising approach for reducing recidivism among participants who completed the program. People who graduated from the RTC had a recidivism rate of 35.4% which is significantly less than the recidivism rate of 54.0% for participants who were terminated or withdrew from the RTC. 2. The research showed that significantly more graduates of the RTC (84.6%) remained conviction-free for the first year after leaving the program, compared to the subjects who were unsuccessful in completing the RTC (69%). 3. The RTC appears to be a promising approach for reducing the number and severity of post-RTC reconvictions for participants who complete the RTC. The reconviction rate for the successful RTC participants was almost half the rate for the participants that were unsuccessful (109 compared to 226 reconvictions per 100, respectively). RTC graduates also had significantly fewer felony reconvictions than did the subjects that did not complete the RTC. 4. The RTC recidivists tended to commit post-project crime in Rutland County. For the total study group, 84% of new convictions were prosecuted in Rutland County. 5. The reduced recidivism rates observed for the graduates of the RTC compared with the subjects who were unsuccessful in completing the program were most likely due to the benefits of the RTC rather than due to differences in demographic, criminal history, or base charge characteristics of the study segments. 6. An investigation into the demographic and criminal history characteristics of the RTC participants showed correlations between base docket sentencing severity and type, and tendency to recidivate. However, the correlations were not strong enough to result in a useful model that could be used as a predictor of recidivism.

Details: Northfield Falls, VT: Vermont Center for Justice Research, 2013. 39p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 2, 2013 at: http://www.vcjr.org/reports/reportscrimjust/reports/RTCreport_files/RTC%20Outcome%20Eval%20Rpt.pdf

Year: 2013

Country: United States

URL: http://www.vcjr.org/reports/reportscrimjust/reports/RTCreport_files/RTC%20Outcome%20Eval%20Rpt.pdf

Shelf Number: 128189

Keywords:
Drug Courts (Vermont, U.S.)
Drug Offenders
Drug Treatment
Problem-Solving Courts
Recidivism

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 Offenders
Drug Treatment
Problem Solving Courts

Author: Plaku, Erlind

Title: Drugs, Harms and Youth: The State of Drug Use and Harm Reduction Amongst Youth in European Countries

Summary: This paper was created by young professionals and activists working in the fields of harm reduction, drug treatment, public health, social policy and human rights in various European countries: United Kingdom, Italy, Poland, Montenegro, Serbia, Albania and Romania. We are all members of Youth Organisations for Drug Action, a network that connects and supports young people who are working to reform drug policies in Europe, towards a model based on the principles of scientific evidence, human rights and cost-effectiveness. All contributors have both some educational background and work experience in areas related to the topic of this paper. In this paper we aim to discuss the current situation regarding drug use in Europe among young people (aged 15-30, with variation in definition across countries) and the availability of services aimed at young drug users or potential users. We will also compare approaches adopted in examined countries to show which has proven to be to be most effective at reducing overall drug prevalence among young people as well as related risky behaviours and harms. Regional differences in drug culture, historical context and developing trends will also be taken into account.

Details: Youth Organisations for Drug Action, 2014. 61p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 20, 2014 at: http://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/64663568/library/Drugs-harms-and-youth.pdf

Year: 2014

Country: Europe

URL: http://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/64663568/library/Drugs-harms-and-youth.pdf

Shelf Number: 131996

Keywords:
Drug Abuse and Addiction
Drug Policy
Drug Treatment

Author: DrugScope

Title: State of the Sector 2013

Summary: The report, State of the Sector 2013 (1), contains the findings from a survey of nearly 170 drug and alcohol services, from across England's four Public Health England regions. It finds the drug and alcohol sector in a period of flux and facing a number of challenges: - Respondents highlighted significant problems in their ability to offer clients support to improve recovery capital, particularly employment, housing and mental and physical wellbeing; - The picture on engagement with Health and Wellbeing Boards (HWBs) and Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs) is mixed, with positive examples, but other services reporting a lack of engagement; - 35 per cent of drug and alcohol services surveyed reported a decrease in funding, against 20 per cent reporting an increase and 33 per cent no change; - Just over half reported a large increase in caseloads in the last year, against 27 per cent reporting a decrease; - Almost half reported that they were employing fewer frontline staff and 6 out of 10 services reported an increase in the use of volunteers. The research comprised an online survey, a series of regional summits and telephone interviews with chief executives of treatment providers. It was carried out in the autumn of 2013, nearing the end of a pivotal year for drug and alcohol services in which many funding and commissioning structures were replaced with new and in some cases substantially different organisations. It is intended that further research will be carried out in 2014 to investigate how services are coping with these changes, using these findings as a baseline.

Details: London: DrugScope, 2014. 96p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 19, 2014 at: http://www.drugscope.org.uk/Resources/Drugscope/Documents/PDF/Policy/SOS2013_Main.pdf

Year: 2013

Country: United Kingdom

URL: http://www.drugscope.org.uk/Resources/Drugscope/Documents/PDF/Policy/SOS2013_Main.pdf

Shelf Number: 132076

Keywords:
Alcohol Abuse
Drug Abuse and Addiction
Drug Treatment
Substance Abuse Treatment

Author: Pew Research Center

Title: America's New Drug Policy Landscape: Two-Thirds Favor Treatment, Not Jail, for Use of Heroin, Cocaine

Summary: The public appears ready for a truce in the long-running war on drugs. A national survey by the Pew Research Center finds that 67% of Americans say that the government should focus more on providing treatment for those who use illegal drugs such as heroin and cocaine. Just 26% think the government's focus should be on prosecuting users of such hard drugs. Support for a treatment-based approach to illegal drug use spans nearly all demographic groups. And while Republicans are less supportive of the treatment option than are Democrats or independents, about half of Republicans (51%) say the government should focus more on treatment than prosecution in dealing with illegal drug users. As a growing number of states ease penalties for drug possession, the public expresses increasingly positive views of the move away from mandatory sentences for non-violent drug crimes. By nearly two-to-one (63% to 32%), more say it is a good thing than a bad thing that some states have moved away from mandatory sentences for non-violent drug offenders. In 2001, Americans were evenly divided over the move by some states to abandon mandatory drug terms. The survey by the Pew Research Center, conducted Feb. 14-23 among 1,821 adults, finds that support for the legalization of marijuana use continues to increase. And fully 75% of the public - including majorities of those who favor and oppose the legal use of marijuana - think that the sale and use of marijuana will eventually be legal nationwide.

Details: Washington, DC: Pew Research Center, 2014. 25p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 23, 2014 at: http://www.people-press.org/files/legacy-pdf/04-02-14%20Drug%20Policy%20Release.pdf

Year: 2014

Country: United States

URL: http://www.people-press.org/files/legacy-pdf/04-02-14%20Drug%20Policy%20Release.pdf

Shelf Number: 132147

Keywords:
Drug Abuse and Addiction
Drug Abuse and Crime
Drug Abuse Policy
Drug Enforcement
Drug Offenders
Drug Policy (U.S.)
Drug Treatment
Illegal Drugs
Public Opinion

Author: Mayfield, Jim

Title: Drug Court Outcomes. Outcomes of Adult Defendants Admitted to Drug Courts Funded by the Washington State Criminal Justice Treatment Account

Summary: This report describes chemical dependency treatment participation and crime outcomes of 1,671 adults charged with felonies who were admitted to formally established drug courts in Washington State from July 2007 through June 2009. Three-year treatment and crime outcomes are compared to a matched comparison group of 1,671 adults charged with similar felonies in the same jurisdictions and time period and who were in need of treatment but not admitted to a drug court. Arrests, incarceration rates, and treatment participation over a three-year follow-up period are examined, as are net benefits associated with the reductions in crime attributed to admission to drug court. This is part of a series of analyses for DSHS' Division of Behavioral Health and Recovery examining the experiences of recipients of treatment funded by the Criminal Justice Treatment Account, which pays for chemical dependency treatment for offenders who are chemically dependent or have a substance abuse problem that could, if untreated, lead to addiction.

Details: Olympia, WA: Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, 2013. 10p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 14, 2014 at: http://www.dshs.wa.gov/pdf/ms/rda/research/4/89.pdf

Year: 2013

Country: United States

URL: http://www.dshs.wa.gov/pdf/ms/rda/research/4/89.pdf

Shelf Number: 133064

Keywords:
Drug Courts (Washington State)
Drug Offenders
Drug Treatment
Problem-Solving Courts

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 Courts
Drug Treatment
Problem-Solving Courts
Substance Abuse Treatment (Washington State)

Author: International Labor Rights Forum

Title: Vietnam's Forced Labor Centers

Summary: The victims are alleged drug addicts who are held for periods of two to four years without ever receiving a hearing or a trial in a court of law. Drug center detainees are forced to work under harsh conditions for little or no pay doing a range of repetitive tasks, like sewing t-shirts or mosquito bed nets, painting stone trinkets, and processing cashews, often for private companies. As punishment for refusing to work, violating center rules, or simply not filling a daily quota, detainees report being beaten with wooden truncheons, shocked with electrical batons, or placed in solitary confinement. Vietnam's use of forced labor as drug treatment clearly violates international law, including ILO Convention 29, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The detention centers are also an ineffective form of drug treatment: it is estimated that over 90 percent of former detainees return to using drugs shortly after release. In 2012, twelve UN agencies, including the ILO, World Health Organization (WHO), and United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), issued a joint public statement calling for the closure of compulsory drug detention centers, citing the use of forced labor and the lack of evidence-based drug treatment. Goods made by detainees' forced labor have made their way into global supply chains: in 2011, Columbia Sportswear acknowledged that one of its Vietnamese contractors had subcontracted the production of jacket liners to a detention center near Ho Chi Minh City. Vietnam is the top supplier of cashew nuts to the United States and there is little doubt that some portion of the cashews sold to U.S. consumers are processed by forced labor in the detention centers.

Details: Washington, DC: ILRF, 2014. 16p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 24, 2014 at: http://www.laborrights.org/sites/default/files/publications/VN_Forced_Labor_Centers_wr.pdf

Year: 2014

Country: Vietnam

URL: http://www.laborrights.org/sites/default/files/publications/VN_Forced_Labor_Centers_wr.pdf

Shelf Number: 133809

Keywords:
Drug Offenders
Drug Treatment
Forced Labor (Vietnam)
Human Rights Abuses

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 Courts
Drug Offenders
Drug Treatment
Problem Solving Courts

Author: Great Britain. Department of Health

Title: Clinical management of drug dependence in the adult prison setting including psychosocial treatment as a core part.

Summary: This document describes how clinical services for the management of substance misusers in prison should develop during the next two years as increasing resources permit. The aim is to address the current challenges facing the care and treatment of substance misusers in prisons. These include: - the vulnerability of drug-using prisoners to suicide and self-harm in prison, and to death upon release from custody due to accidental opiate overdose; - prison regime management problems related to illicit drug use in prisons; - the impetus to provide clinical services that correspond to national (NTA 2003) and international good practice; - the need to provide clinical interventions that harmonise with practice in community and other criminal justice settings (NOMS 2005); - the need to integrate further healthcare and Counselling, Assessment, Referral, Advice and Throughcare (CARAT) services in prisons, to create multi-disciplinary drug teams.

Details: London: Department of Health, 2006. 64p.

Source: Internet Resource: accessed February 9, 2015 at: http://www.drugsandalcohol.ie/11496/1/Clinical_management.pdf

Year: 2006

Country: United Kingdom

URL: http://www.drugsandalcohol.ie/11496/1/Clinical_management.pdf

Shelf Number: 134586

Keywords:
Drug Offenders (U.K.)
Drug Treatment
Health Care
Prisoners

Author: Victoria (AUS). Department of Premier and Cabinet

Title: Ice action plan

Summary: Ice use is a complex problem that demands a long-term solution, but the Ice Action Plan deals with the things that cannot wait. It�s about supporting families, treating users and making our community safer. Under the Plan, the Government will invest $4.7 million to help families identify and manage ice users and $1 million to support frontline workers who are at risk of getting attacked at work. The Government will invest $18 million to expand drug treatment and rehabilitation, so users can get the help they need, and set up a dedicated Ice Help Line that directs families and health professionals to the support they need. New measures to reduce the growing supply of ice on our streets include a $4.5 million plan to crack down on clandestine drug labs and tough laws to stop dealers and manufacturers. Community safety is our priority. The Government will invest $15 million for new drug and booze buses and provide $500,000 to help community groups tackle ice use in their local area. A stable job means a stable life, and the Andrews Labor Government is improving the prospects of young, at-risk people with the $1 billion Back to Work Plan and the $320 million TAFE Rescue Fund. The Ice Action Plan builds on the Victorian Parliament�s landmark 2014 Inquiry into the supply and use of ice, which identified a significant increase in the number of people in their 20s using ice. The work of the Premier�s Ice Action Taskforce will continue, with a long-term role to support the implementation of the Plan and advise the Government where more effort is needed.

Details: Melbourne: Victorian Government, 2015. 24p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 26, 2015 at: http://apo.org.au/files/Resource/ice-action-plan-final-summary-document-web-version.pdf

Year: 2015

Country: Australia

URL: http://apo.org.au/files/Resource/ice-action-plan-final-summary-document-web-version.pdf

Shelf Number: 135061

Keywords:
Drug Abuse and Addiction
Drug Treatment
Methamphetamine
Substance Abuse Treatment

Author: Hussain, Qusai

Title: Alcohol and Other Drug Treatment within the Context of the Criminal Justice System: A Review of the Literature

Summary: This literature review is submitted to the Victorian Department of Human Services' Drugs Policy and Services Branch, as the first part of the Forensic Workforce Training Program project and has been written by the Research, Development and Projects division at Caraniche Pty Ltd. The purpose of the literature review is two-fold. First, it provides a critical review of current best practice in forensic alcohol and other drug (AOD) treatment and secondly, it provides an analysis of the methodologies employed in developing and delivering effective training programs for AOD workers in the criminal justice system. These findings in combination with the Training Needs Analysis undertaken by the Youth Substance Abuse Service will provide the framework for the development of the Forensic Workforce Training Program. The literature review consisted of three phases, namely on-line database searches, web-based searches and specific website searches. The searches were guided by three content areas comprising: 1. current best practice principles in the provision of drug and alcohol treatment. 2. current best practice principles applied by AOD workers when working with forensic clients. 3. the nature, scope and efficacy of training programs developed for AOD workers working with forensic clients.

Details: Melbourne: Victorian Department of Human Services' Drugs Policy and Services Branch, 2015. 34p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 4, 2015 at: http://docs.health.vic.gov.au/docs/doc/49D540596D8A390CCA25789A007E9034/$FILE/fwt-litreview.pdf

Year: 2015

Country: International

URL: http://docs.health.vic.gov.au/docs/doc/49D540596D8A390CCA25789A007E9034/$FILE/fwt-litreview.pdf

Shelf Number: 135502

Keywords:
Alcohol Abuse
Alcohol Treatment
Drug Abuse and Addition
Drug Treatment
Substance 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 Courts
Drug Treatment
Juvenile Courts
Juvenile Drug Courts
Juvenile Offenders
Problem-Solving Courts

Author: Scott, Nick

Title: How patterns of injecting drug use evolve in a cohort of people who inject drugs

Summary: This paper investigates the frequency of intravenous drug use in a cohort of people who inject drugs, and the decline in use over time. It provides an important indication of the effectiveness of current interventions at reducing the consumption of illicit drugs. Comparisons are made between the injection frequency of participants on or off Opioids Substitution Therapy (OST), and according to the settings in which drugs are most frequently purchased and used (eg street, house). This research found an overall movement away from street based drug purchasing and drug use, towards more activity in private settings. This has important implications for the harms experienced by people who inject drugs. Intravenous drug use was persistent, with only slow declines observed in the frequency of the cohort's overall use. Lower injection frequency was associated with use in private rather than public locations as well as the uptake of OST. Additional work is needed to understand how this change in setting is affected by and also affects current interventions, and whether it can be used to help further reduce injecting drug use

Details: Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology, 2015. 7p.

Source: Internet Resource: Trends & issues in crime and criminal justice no. 502: Accessed July 29, 2015 at: http://aic.gov.au/media_library/publications/tandi_pdf/tandi502.pdf

Year: 2015

Country: Australia

URL: http://aic.gov.au/media_library/publications/tandi_pdf/tandi502.pdf

Shelf Number: 136231

Keywords:
Drug Abuse and Addiction
Drug Offenders
Drug Treatment

Author: UK Drug Policy Commission

Title: Charting New Waters: Delivering drug policy at a time of radical reform and financial austerity

Summary: The funding, commissioning, management and delivery structures for addressing the problems associated with illicit drugs in England are experiencing an unprecedented level of change. The government's 2010 Drug Strategy places considerable focus on improving the recovery outcomes for people with drug problems, alongside efforts to reduce the supply of drugs. It identifies the need for support from a range of different services such as employment, education and housing, and family networks to enable people to reintegrate into their communities. In contrast to the strong central oversight of previous drug strategies, it calls for far greater local control over service delivery by local areas and people accessing services. At the same time, substantial reductions in public spending are being implemented alongside wide-ranging public service reform, including structural changes to the NHS, policing and criminal justice reform and a drive to deliver the Big Society. These changes raise key questions, which our study set out to explore, about the ability of areas to achieve the ambitions of the Drug Strategy and around the future security of investment in drug interventions. With considerable additional resources for drug interventions over the last decade much has been achieved but there is a real risk that the current level of change will lead to the dilution of these gains, with negative consequences for drug users, their families, for wider communities, and indeed for the wider economy. Our study reveals a broad picture of upheaval and uncertainty and this summary sets out our study's main findings. The results will be relevant for national policy makers; commissioners and providers of drug treatment and recovery services; Directors of Public Health; those engaged in drug-related enforcement; and locally elected officials.

Details: London: UKDPC, 2012. 119p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 19, 2015 at: http://www.ukdpc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/charting-new-waters-delivering-drug-policy-at-a-time-of-radical-reform-and-financial-austerity.pdf

Year: 2012

Country: United Kingdom

URL: http://www.ukdpc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/charting-new-waters-delivering-drug-policy-at-a-time-of-radical-reform-and-financial-austerity.pdf

Shelf Number: 136484

Keywords:
Drug Abuse and Addiction
Drug Abuse and Crime
Drug Policy
Drug Treatment
Illegal Drugs

Author: Zamudio Angles, Carlos Alberto

Title: First Survey of Illegal Drug Users in Mexico City

Summary: The principal motivation for implementing this survey was the lack of existing information regarding the relationship between drug users and their social networks. There is a lack of quality indicators that provide detailed information regarding the consumption of drugs, particularly when faced with the traditional dichotomy of user-addict. This dichotomy fails to see the complexity of the consumption of illegal drugs and reiterates the notion that the drug using population will inevitably move into addiction, thus ignoring the diversity of existing patterns of consumption When the socio-economic demographic of drug users was explored, it was found that more than half of all users had some university education, whether that be unfinished or graduated (54%) and more than a quarter indicated that they had some high school education (27.9). This is higher than the general Mexican population. Two out of 3 users surveyed, are engaged in full-time work (69.9%), a little less than half study (43.7%) and 1 out of 5 surveyed both work and study (22%). Only 1 out of 10 users surveyed indicated that they are currently unemployed or working without pay (9.9%). Considering almost all of those surveyed have some sort of work or daily activity (91.6%), it is recommended that society do a better job of integrating users into the formation of the public policies which affect them. The survey, which focused on the adult population of Mexico City, consisted of 350 questions and was implemented in February and March 2011. The sample size was 429 people with 310 males and 119 women and with an average age of 28.7.

Details: Ciudad de Mexico, D.F., Mexico: Colectivo por una Politica Integral hacia las Drogas (CUPIDH), 2012. 9p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 17, 2015 at: http://www.cupihd.org/portal/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/first-survey-of-illegal-drug-users.pdf

Year: 2012

Country: Mexico

URL: http://www.cupihd.org/portal/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/first-survey-of-illegal-drug-users.pdf

Shelf Number: 136800

Keywords:
Drug Abuse and Addiction
Drug Offenders
Drug Treatment

Author: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare

Title: Trends in methylamphetamine availability, use and treatment, 2003-04 to 2013-14

Summary: There have been several corresponding trends in the availability, use and treatment of methylamphetamines since 2003-04. Following a decline between 2006-07 and 2009-10, there have been increases across many factors relating to methylamphetamines to 2013-14. Arrests, seizures and detections have all increased. Users are now favouring the crystal form of methylamphetamine. They are using it more frequently, and, there appear to be more new users of crystal. There are more people in treatment reporting smoking as their usual method of use for amphetamines than previously.

Details: Canberra: AIHW, 2015. 40p.

Source: Internet Resource: Drug treatment series no. 26: Accessed October 8, 2015 at: http://www.aihw.gov.au/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=60129552826

Year: 2015

Country: Australia

URL: http://www.aihw.gov.au/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=60129552826

Shelf Number: 136970

Keywords:
Drug Abuse and Addiction
Drug Abuse and Crime
Drug Offender Treatment
Drug Treatment
Methamphetamine

Author: Ahmad, Maryam

Title: Impact of the reduction in heroin supply between 2010 and 2011

Summary: This report concludes that street level heroin prices remained relatively stable, but purity levels fell. There were reports that during this time, heroin use decreased with some users switching to or increasing their use of other substances, particularly benzodiazepines and alcohol. During the period of reduced supply, new presentations to drug treatment for opiate use fell and there were no significant changes in drug related acquisitive crime, though there was a decline in heroin possession offences.

Details: London: Home Office, 2016. 45p.

Source: Internet Resource: Research Report 91: Accessed January 22, 2016 at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/494423/horr91-reduction-heroin-supply.pdf

Year: 2016

Country: United Kingdom

URL: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/494423/horr91-reduction-heroin-supply.pdf

Shelf Number: 137653

Keywords:
Drug Abuse and Addiction
Drug Offenders
Drug Treatment
Heroin

Author: Open Society Foundations

Title: No Health, No Help: Abuse as Drug Rehabilitation in Latin American and the Caribbean

Summary: Chaining, public humiliation, abduction, and prayer. If these were treatments offered for diabetes or heart disease, we would see them as cruel and abusive. Yet these are tactics used widely in centers for the "treatment and rehabilitation" of people who use drugs in Latin America and the Caribbean. These abusive centers often operate unlawfully and without medical or governmental supervision. People are often brought to these centers against their will, by family members, by police, or by gangs of center residents. Families are not aware of the conditions in the center, or don't know where else to turn. These practices run counter to evidence-based drug treatments recommended by the World Health Organization and the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, and reveal how often drug dependency is treated as a moral failing rather than a medical condition. As regional governments prepare for the United Nations General Assembly Special Session (UNGASS) on drugs in April, defining what truly constitutes a "public health approach" to drug policy is increasingly important. No Health, No Help: Abuse as Drug Rehabilitation in Latin America & the Caribbean is a compilation of reports by researchers and civil society in six countries - Brazil, Colombia, the Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Mexico, and Puerto Rico. The report details the extreme human rights abuses occurring in the name of "rehabilitation," and offers recommendations for how governments can work to improve drug treatment in these countries.

Details: New York: Open Society Foundations, 2016. 40p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 4, 2016 at: https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/sites/default/files/no-health-no-help-en-21060403.pdf

Year: 2016

Country: Latin America

URL: https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/sites/default/files/no-health-no-help-en-21060403.pdf

Shelf Number: 138911

Keywords:
Drug Abuse and Addiction
Drug Offenders
Drug Policy
Drug Treatment
Substance Abuse Treatment

Author: Finigan, Michael W.

Title: Societal Outcomes and Cost Savings of Drug and Alcohol Treatment in the State of Oregon

Summary: The NPC study was designed to overcome some of the methodological limitations of past studies of the benefits and costs of drug and/or alcohol treatment. The research design was created with a representative sample of treatment completers with a matched comparison group of clients who received little or no treatment; use of existing state agency databases rather than self-report data for maximum objectivity; and an adequate study period of 2 years prior and 3 years subsequent to treatment completion. The study results indicated that successful drug and alcohol treatment can have positive societal outcomes. While previous studies have shown the positive effects of treatment for the time period of 1 year, this study indicated that these gains are sustained over longer periods of time (up to 3 years). The study estimated the cost savings to taxpayers - either directly in their avoidance of criminal losses or indirectly in the avoidance of expenditure of their tax dollars - that accrue from the positive societal outcomes of treatment.

Details: Portland, OR: NPC Research, Inc., 1996. 29p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 19, 2016 at: http://npcresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/SOCS1.pdf

Year: 1996

Country: United States

URL: http://npcresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/SOCS1.pdf

Shelf Number: 139102

Keywords:
Alcoholism
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Drug Addiction
Drug Offenders
Drug Treatment
Substance Abuse Treatment

Author: Molloy, Jennifer K.

Title: Utah Cost of Crime. Therapeutic Communities in Security Settings for Substance-using Adult Offenders: Technical Report

Summary: It has been estimated that between 70% and 85% of the U.S. prison population is in need of some level of substance abuse treatment (Office of National Drug Control Policy, 2009). The link between drug use and crime has been substantiated in an extensive body of research, leading many to the conclusion that treatment is a necessary component of preventing offenders from reoffending after release from custody (Harrison & Gfroerer, 1992; Lipton, 1998; Wexler, 1995). Therapeutic communities (TCs) are a treatment option commonly used in prisons or jails to address the substance abuse treatment needs of offenders while they are incarcerated. TCs are residential settings that use a hierarchical model of care combined with treatment stages that reflect increased levels of personal and social responsibility. Unlike other treatment models, TCs utilize a "community as method" approach that sees treatment staff and those in recovery as agents of change. TC members interact in structured and unstructured ways to influence attitudes, perceptions, and behaviors associated with drug use and antisocial activities. Another fundamental component of a TC is "self-help," where the individuals themselves are main contributors to the change process. Of all incarceration-based drug treatment programs, TCs are the most intensive and typically the longest in duration (6 to 12 months). Therapeutic Communities (TCs) were first implemented in U.S. psychiatric hospitals in the 1950s, extending to community-based substance abuse programs in the 1960s, and eventually to prisons in the late 1960s (Canode, 2007). The development of the prison TC model can be attributed to a rapidly increasing prison population and a growing awareness of the link between drugs and crime (Wexler & Prendergast, 2010). TCs were developed as an offshoot of the Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) model in order to treat "hard core" heroin-dependent criminals. Subsequently, the model has evolved to include a broader perspective and population, serving individuals from a diverse demographic who are severely dependent on drugs (Gerstein, 1992; Wexler, 1995). The success of the TC model has led to its application with specific populations including women (Sacks et al., 2008), inmates with co-occurring disorders (Sacks, Banks, McKendrick, & Sacks, 2008), and youth (Gordon, 2002).

Details: Salt Lake City: Utah Criminal Justice Center, University of Utah, 2012. 11p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 23, 2016 at: http://ucjc.utah.edu/wp-content/uploads/TC-Technical-Report_v03192013.pdf

Year: 2012

Country: United States

URL: http://ucjc.utah.edu/wp-content/uploads/TC-Technical-Report_v03192013.pdf

Shelf Number: 139123

Keywords:
Drug Abuse and crime
Drug Offenders
Drug Treatment
Substance Abuse Treatment

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 Courts
Drug Treatment
Problem Solving Courts

Author: Kevin, Maria

Title: A Process Evaluation of the Intensive Drug and Alcohol Treatment Program (IDATP). Study One: Program Establishment, Design and Appropriateness

Summary: NSW 2021 Priority Action Establish dedicated metropolitan drug treatment facilities focussed on treatment, rehabilitation and keeping drugs out of prisons Foreward The CSNSW Intensive Drug and Alcohol Treatment Program (IDATP), an initiative of the current NSW government which opened in February 2012, is the largest prison -based residential drug treatment program in the southern hemisphere. While drug treatment had been available in NSW prisons for more than 20 years, the NSW government identified the need to strengthen drug treatment for prisoners and provide a new approach to rehabilitation. At the time of writing, the IDATP was an intensive nine-month program, targeted at medium to high risk male prisoners with drug abuse pr oblems and related dynamic criminogenic needs. The program aimed to prevent relapse to drug use and reoffending. It also aimed to improve the social functioning, health and well-being and post-release prospects of participants. Aside from its large capacity, what distinguished the IDATP's design from the existing programs was an intensive structure combined with a greater emphasis on the integration of a range of interventions and techniques. It operated as a modified therapeutic community, which was deli neated into three explicit program stages - Orientation, Treatment and Maintenance. These treatment stages were designed to bring about incremental degrees of psychological and social learning. The primary modalities were the community living units, therapeutic groups , education, employment, pharmacotherapy and aftercare. As of July 2014, the program had been continually operational for 30 months. More than 300 male prisoners had participated in the program and the women's program - Yallul Kaliarna had recently opened. This preliminary study endeavoured to examine program establish ment, design and appropriateness. The next phase of the evaluation will examine how well the context of the program has been implemented.

Details: Sydney: Corrective Services NSW, 2015. 92p.

Source: Internet Resource: Research Publication No. 54: Accessed August 1, 2016 at: http://www.correctiveservices.justice.nsw.gov.au/Documents/Related%20Links/publications-and-policies/cres/research-publications/idapt-process-study-one-report-2014.pdf

Year: 2016

Country: Australia

URL: http://www.correctiveservices.justice.nsw.gov.au/Documents/Related%20Links/publications-and-policies/cres/research-publications/idapt-process-study-one-report-2014.pdf

Shelf Number: 139911

Keywords:
Alcohol Abuse
Drug Abuse and Addiction
Drug Treatment
Substance Abuse
Substance Abuse Treatment

Author: New York State. Heroin and Opioid Task Force

Title: Combatting the Heroin and Opioid Crisis

Summary: Across the state the Task Force has heard from families who have loved ones addicted to heroin or other opioids, who have overdosed or have had serious health problems as a result of their addiction. Heroin overdose is now the leading cause of accidental death in the state. Between 2005 and 2014, upstate New York has seen an astonishing 222 percent increase in admissions to OASAS certified treatment programs among those 18 to 24 years of age for heroin and other opioids; Long Island has seen a 242 percent increase among the same age group for heroin and other opioids. In all, approximately 1.4 million New Yorkers suffer from a substance use disorder. Heroin and opioid addiction is now a major public health crisis in New York State. Further work must continue to fully realize the Governor's vision for a more responsive, accessible, and compassionate health care system for patients, as well as stronger education, prevention, and enforcement measures. The Task Force recommends that study and work on these issues continue as a high priority, so that New York can remain in the forefront when it comes to helping patients and their families. New York has taken important steps to address the urgent needs of those in critical condition and to prevent future generations from suffering from the disease of addiction. For the 2016 fiscal year, New York State allocated over $1.4 billion to the Office of Alcoholism and Substance Abuse Services (OASAS) to fight this battle including funding for 1,455 beds for patients in crisis; 2,221 beds for inpatient rehabilitation programs; 5,247 beds for intensive residential programs; 2,142 beds for community residential programs; 1,842 beds in supportive living programs; and 265 beds in residential rehabilitation programs for youth. Additionally, OASAS provides more than $74 million to fund prevention services through 165 providers serving communities in every county, including 1,400 schools across the state. The State has also enacted legislation to address this growing epidemic. In 2012 the State enacted the Prescription Drug Reform Act, overhauling the way prescription drugs are dispensed and tracked in New York to improve safeguards for drugs that are prone to abuse. The Act updated the Prescription Monitoring Program (PMP) Registry (also known as I-STOP) to require pharmacies to report information about dispensed controlled substances on a "real time" basis, as well as require health care practitioners to consult the PMP Registry before prescribing or dispensing certain controlled substances most prone to abuse and diversion. The Act also mandated electronic prescription of controlled substances, updated the Controlled Substances Schedules, improved education and awareness efforts for prescribers, and established a safe disposal program for prescription drugs. By the end of 2015, I-STOP had led to a 90 percent decrease in "doctor shopping" - when patients visit multiple prescribers and pharmacies to obtain prescriptions for controlled substances within a three-month time period. Earlier this year, New York State entered into an agreement with New Jersey to share PMP data both ways and prevent "doctor shopping" across state borders. In 2014, the State enacted legislation that granted Good Samaritan protections to individuals who administer an opioid antagonist like naloxone, expanded access to naloxone by allowing nonpatient-specific prescriptions, enacted insurance reforms to improve treatment options for individuals suffering from addiction, directed OASAS to create a wraparound services demonstration program to provide services to adolescents and adults for up to nine months after successful completion of a treatment program, and enhanced penalties to crack down on illegal drug distribution. Despite being on the forefront of nationally-recognized best practices, the epidemic continues to grow in New York. In response, Governor Andrew M. Cuomo convened a team of experienced healthcare providers, policy advocates, educators, parents, and New Yorkers in recovery to serve on a Heroin and Opioid Task Force and develop a comprehensive plan to bring the crisis under control. The Task Force's work was informed by two executive meetings, eight listening sessions across the state, and the 246 comments submitted through www.ny.gov/herointaskforce. This public process resulted in the following recommendations - broken into four areas: prevention, treatment, recovery, and enforcement - to continue to address the crisis.

Details: Albany, NY: The Task Force, 2016. 34p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 19, 2016 at; https://www.governor.ny.gov/sites/governor.ny.gov/files/atoms/files/HeroinTaskForceReport_3.pdf

Year: 2016

Country: United States

URL: https://www.governor.ny.gov/sites/governor.ny.gov/files/atoms/files/HeroinTaskForceReport_3.pdf

Shelf Number: 140350

Keywords:
Drug Abuse and Addiction
Drug Enforcement
Drug Treatment
Heroin
Illegal Drugs
Opioids
Prescription Drug Abuse

Author: Smith, Kelley

Title: Characteristics of criminal justice system referrals discharged from substance abuse treatment and facilities with specially designed criminal justice programs

Summary: Background: Persons referred to treatment through the criminal justice system face many challenges upon treatment discharge. Method: This report compares treatment discharges among those referred to treatment by the criminal justice system to other types of discharges using 2011 Treatment Episode Data Set-Discharges (TEDS-D) data. In addition, the report examines specialized services offered by substance abuse treatment facilities to criminal justice clients using 2012 National Survey of Substance Abuse Treatment Services (N-SSATS) data. Results: Compared to other discharges, criminal justice discharges had higher proportions of lacking health insurance and of marijuana and methamphetamine/ amphetamine use. Over one-third of criminal justice discharges were unemployed at treatment discharge. About half of facilities that offered specially designed programs or groups for criminal justice clients provided assistance in obtaining social services and employment counseling. Conclusion: Criminal justice discharges differed from other types of discharges with respect to health insurance coverage and some drugs of abuse. Substance abuse treatment facilities that offer specially designed programs or groups for criminal justice clients offered services that are known to support the recovery and stabilization of criminal justice clients.

Details: Rockville, MD: Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 2016. 8p.

Source: Internet Resource: he CBHSQ Report: April 26, 2016: Accessed October 12, 2016 at: http://www.samhsa.gov/data/sites/default/files/report_2321/ShortReport-2321.html

Year: 2016

Country: United States

URL: http://www.samhsa.gov/data/sites/default/files/report_2321/ShortReport-2321.html

Shelf Number: 140660

Keywords:
Drug Abuse and Addiction
Drug Offenders
Drug Treatment
Substance Abuse Treatment

Author: Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing

Title: Pennsylvania's State Intermediate Punishment Program

Summary: - The State Intermediate Punishment [SIP] Program is a two-year substance abuse treatment program for eligible offenders sentenced to state prison. - The SIP program became effective in May 2005. As of March 2015: 0 22,935 offenders had been sentenced to the Department of Corrections who were statutorily eligible for the SIP Program - 5,389 offenders [24%] had been evaluated for the SIP Program - Among those evaluated 4,584 offenders [85%] had been admitted to the SIP Program. Of those admitted into the Program: - 2,542 offenders [56%] had successfully completed the SIP Program - 1,029 offenders [20%] had been expelled from the SIP Program - 1,013 offenders [22%] were still enrolled in the SIP Program - As a result of concerns about the underutilization of SIP, the Commission had recommended that the Legislature review the ineligibility criteria for SIP, as well as allow greater discretion to the sentencing court for SIP consideration. Act 122 of 2012 revised statute to incorporate these recommendations. The statute went into effect on July 1, 2013 and increased the number of offenders eligible for SIP by 23% in 2014. The actual number of additional offenders in 2014 was 572, which was within the Commission's estimated range of 369 to 994. - Judges in 63 of Pennsylvania's 67 counties have sentenced offenders to the SIP program. - The majority of offenders approved for SIP were male, white, and had an average age of 34 years. Most offenders were convicted of drug delivery or DUI offenses and a large percentage of the offenders had been previously arrested for a drug or property offense. - Offenders were more likely to complete SIP if they were: older, female, white, convicted of a drug delivery or DUI offense, had fewer prior arrests, had a prior DUI offense, and had a low score on the criminal attitudes assessment scale [CSS-M]. - After three years, 36% of the SIP completers recidivated, compared to 66% of those who were expelled and 54% of those who were eligible for SIP but sentenced to prison instead. When controlling for other factors, offenders who completed SIP were significantly less likely to recidivate than offenders sentenced to prison, and offenders who were expelled from SIP were significantly more likely to recidivate than those who completed SIP or those who went to prison. - Offenders were also more likely to recidivate if they had been convicted of a property offense [compared to a drug delivery or DUI offense], had a greater number of prior arrests, had a prior drug offense, were male, and were younger.

Details: Harrisburg: Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing, 2016. 34p.

Source: Internet Resource: 2016 Report to the Legislature: Accessed October 12, 2016 at: http://pcs.la.psu.edu/publications-and-research/research-and-evaluation-reports/state-intermediate-punishment/sip-2016-report-to-the-legislature/view

Year: 2016

Country: United States

URL: http://pcs.la.psu.edu/publications-and-research/research-and-evaluation-reports/state-intermediate-punishment/sip-2016-report-to-the-legislature/view

Shelf Number: 145424

Keywords:
Drug Offenders
Drug Treatment
Intermediate Punishments
Recidivism
Substance Abuse Treatment

Author: LeCroy & Milligan Associates, Inc.

Title: Compass Behavioral Health Care Greater Arizona Reintegration Services Project (GARSP) Bi-annual Report October 2012

Summary: This bi-annual report presents the findings of the Greater Arizona Reintegration Services Project (GARSP) evaluation for the cumulative Year 2 time-frame of October 1, 2011 to September 30, 2012. GARSP is a project of Compass Behavior Health Care (CBHC) and is funded by a grant from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). The report presents data required by SAMHSA, results of the implementation study, recommendations for continued program improvement, and next steps of the evaluation. CBHC was awarded an Offender Reentry Program (ORP) grant from SAMHSA to expand and enhance substance abuse treatment and related recovery and reentry services to adult offenders (ages 18 and over), returning to Pima County from several Arizona prisons. GARSP has four primary goals: 1) to increase statewide collaborative efforts to reduce recidivism, substance abuse/use and increase self-sufficiency and stability among the offender population; 2) to promote sobriety and improved mental health status among participants; 3) to provide participants with a continuum of treatment and supportive services; and 4) to provide treatment and support services with evidence-based practices to improve the ability of each individual to achieve self-sufficiency and stability.

Details: Tucson, AZ: LeCroy & Milligan Associates, 2012. 42p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 12, 2016 at: http://www.lecroymilligan.com/data/resources/compassgarspyear-2-annual-reportfinal10-22-2012-1.pdf

Year: 2012

Country: United States

URL: http://www.lecroymilligan.com/data/resources/compassgarspyear-2-annual-reportfinal10-22-2012-1.pdf

Shelf Number: 145404

Keywords:
Drug Treatment
Mental Health Services
Prisoner Reentry
Substance Abuse Treatment

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 Courts
Drug Offenders
Drug Treatment
Problem-Solving Courts
Substance Abuse Treatment

Author: Esposito, Carolina

Title: Analysis of the local context report DELIVERABLE 5

Summary: SPRING project aims to fight recidivism of drug related crimes committed by young people in urban contests, through the identification of best practices in alternative measures and treatment programs to detention for drug addicted offenders and prevention campaigns. WP 4 (Analysis of the local context) will aim to perform the country analysis and to report the general knowledge framework about the issues tackled by the project in each participating country (at national and local level): prevention of and fight against recidivism of drug related crimes. The country analysis for each participating country will be based on a literature review of scientific publications, official documents, laws, agreements and guidelines with reference to drug phenomenon and drug addiction and to alternative treatment programs to detention for drug addicted offenders (paying particular attention to experiences with music therapy) This research will concern the following points:  Demographic and socio-cultural analysis and description of drug phenomenon with particular reference to anti-social behaviour;  Legal and regulatory framework on drug and drug addiction;  National data about drug related crimes and drug addicted offenders;  Legislation in force, national and local agreements on the topics of:  health interventions in the field of addiction  social and health practices in the field of addiction  National data about health and social practices in the field of addiction;  Alternative measures to detention for drug addicted offenders;  National data about alternative measures and treatment programs to detention for drug addicted offenders. In order to highlight most clearly the general framework of each participating country, a SWOT analysis (Strength, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats) will be perform to provide a summary of the strength and weaknesses to be considered in the future phases of the project

Details: Valenza (AL): Spring Project, 2016? 160p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 2, 2016 at: http://www.spring-project.eu/upload/documenti/deliverables_spring/WP4_final_report-ENG.pdf

Year: 2016

Country: Europe

URL: http://www.spring-project.eu/upload/documenti/deliverables_spring/WP4_final_report-ENG.pdf

Shelf Number: 145775

Keywords:
Drug Abuse and Crime
Drug Addiction
Drug Treatment
Drugs and Crime
Recidivism

Author: Sperber, Kimberly Gentry

Title: Factors Influencing Medication-Assisted Treatment in Ohio Halfway Houses and Community-Based Correctional Facilities

Summary: Recent years have witnessed an alarming increase in the number of people dependent on opiates. Nationally, opiate overdose is the second leading cause of injury related death, surpassed only by car accidents. In Ohio, accidental overdoses has been the leading cause of death since 2007. In fact, there has been a 472% increase in drug overdose deaths from 1999 to 2013. An increase in opiate dependent people means that community corrections programs are seeing a dramatic increase in admissions of opiate dependent offenders. This is not surprising given that the link between opiate use and crime is well established. The Center for Health and Human Services Research at Talbert House completed a study based on previous National Institutes of Health studies that have examined: (1) barriers to MAT within private and public substance abuse treatment programs and (2) counselor attitudes toward MAT. This study was replicated in halfway houses and Community Based Correctional Facilities (CBCF) across Ohio and assesses attitudes of both treatment and security staff in these programs. All Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections (ODRC)-funded halfway houses and CBCFs were invited to participate in the study. All but two programs elected to participate. Data were collected through two mechanisms. The first was an in-depth structured, face-to-face interview with key staff including Program Directors, Clinical Supervisors, a representative of the medical staff, and at least two clinical/direct service staff. An interview guide was used to gather information on key independent variables within a number of domains. Examples of these domains include organizational structure, organizational resources, dominant treatment philosophy and types of services offered, availability of medical personnel, funding sources, exposure to and understanding of MAT research findings, referral source support for MAT, staff support for MAT, concerns associated with providing MAT to offenders, and client characteristics. A total of 181 staff participated in interviews for this study. The second mechanism was the administration of anonymous surveys to all staff at each facility. These surveys assessed knowledge about MAT, beliefs about the effectiveness and appropriateness of MAT for offenders, and endorsement of myths about MAT. 1876 surveys were distributed, and 910 were returned for a response rate of 49%. Interview and survey questions asked about MAT in general as well as about specific medications (e.g., methadone, buprenorphine, and naltrexone), where appropriate. Survey items were rated on a Likert scale. Major Findings A total of 49 facilities participated in the study. Interviews with the Program Directors of these facilities demonstrated that 17 of the programs did not allow any access to MAT at the time of the interview while 13 programs directly prescribed addiction medication to clients with opioid disorders, and an additional 19 programs allowed clients to access addiction medications through an external provider during their stay in the facility. Of the 13 programs providing MAT, 62% prescribed oral naltrexone, 46% prescribed injectable naltrexone, and 62% prescribed buprenorphine. No programs prescribed or allowed access to methadone. While many programs had begun to implement various forms of MAT, interview results showed that the programs faced a number of barriers to implementing comprehensive MAT services including: infrastructure, financial, workforce development, and stakeholder support.  63.3% of the facilities did not have access to medically supervised detoxification services for the clients they serve.  Response patterns indicated financial barriers to hiring medical staff.  Respondents indicated difficulties finding medical staff willing to provide services within correctional programs and with the appropriate experiences for treating a criminal justice population, particularly those with substance use disorders.  83% of the Program Directors agree that the Ohio Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services (OHMAS) is supportive of the use of medications for treating substance abuse in community corrections settings. However, less than 40% of the Program Directors agreed that OHMAS had adequately disseminated information about how to implement MAT in community corrections programs or that OHMAS had offered sufficient training opportunities about using medications to treat substance abuse.  The primary method staff use to learn about MAT is having conversations with staff of other substance abuse treatment organizations. Survey data were used to assess staff beliefs about general treatment approaches for clients with addiction disorders, beliefs about MAT for clients with addiction disorders, and beliefs about the outcomes of MAT.  Regarding overall treatment philosophy, survey responses demonstrated an overall pattern of clinical staff providing significantly higher ratings on items reflective of cognitive-behavioral and motivational enhancement approaches, and operations staff providing significantly higher ratings on items reflective of 12-step approaches and more confrontational approaches.  Regarding concerns with MAT, the consistent pattern was that operational staff were more likely to agree with a series of negative statements, such “Using medications to treat addiction is substituting one drug for another” or “Medications are drugs and you cannot be clean if you are taking drugs.”  Operations staff provided a statistically significantly lower endorsement of agreement to the item “I have received adequate information about the effects of using medication-assisted treatment for offender populations.”  Operations staff also provided significantly lower ratings of agreement than supervisory and clinical staff on items that reflected benefits of MAT, such as MAT reduces relapse, increases employment, reduces crime, reduces or blocks the effects of opioids, increases family stability, and improves birth outcomes for children born to addicted mothers. On the other hand, they provided significantly higher ratings of agreement to items indicating beliefs about negative outcomes of MAT, such as MAT rewards criminals for being drug users and interferes with the ability to drive a car. In the surveys, we also asked staff about their perceptions of the acceptability and effectiveness of four medications used to treat opioid disorders: buprenorphine, methadone, oral naltrexone, and injectable naltrexone. Since previous studies have found that lack of information about medication effectiveness serves as a barrier to its implementation, we also sought to examine the extent of knowledge diffusion regarding each medication. We operationalized diffusion as a dichotomous variable. This variable was coded based on the response to the item “Based on your knowledge and personal experience, to what extent do you consider each of the following treatment techniques to be effective?” Answering “I don’t know” was coded as a lack of diffusion, while all other ratings were considered as evidence of diffusion. Finally, we sought to identify predictors of knowledge diffusion, endorsements of acceptability, and endorsements of effectiveness. Results are summarized below:  35.1% did not know the effectiveness of buprenorphine, 37.2% did not know the effectiveness of methadone, 55.4% did not know the effectiveness of oral naltrexone, and 44% did not know the effectiveness of injectable naltrexone. This trend is consistent with the amount of time these medications have been in use within the field of community corrections in Ohio.  Staff perceived methadone and buprenorphine as less effective than both oral and injectable naltrexone, with the highest rating of effectiveness assigned to injectable naltrexone. Regarding acceptability, the results show the same trend, with staff rating methadone and buprenorphine as less acceptable than both forms of naltrexone. Again, injectable naltrexone received the highest endorsement of acceptability.  Operations staff were more likely to provide a “don’t know” response regarding the effectiveness all four medications (see Table 1.). On the other hand, staff who worked in programs that provided access to MAT (rather than directly providing MAT) were more likely to endorse an opinion about all four medications. Staff who agreed that they had received adequate information about the effects of using MAT with offender populations also had an increased likelihood of endorsing an opinion about the effectiveness of all four medications.  Staff and agency characteristics did not consistently predict perceived acceptability across the four medications (see Table 2.). Predictors that were somewhat consistent across models included staff beliefs about outcomes of MAT, whether the facility directly provided MAT, and staff concerns about MAT. Specifically, staff who demonstrated a higher level of agreement with positive statements indicating positive outcomes of MAT were significantly more likely to endorse the use of buprenorphine, oral naltrexone, and injectable naltrexone as acceptable. While direct provision of MAT served to increase the probability that staff would rate oral and injectable naltrexone as acceptable, it served to decrease the probability that staff would endorse methadone as acceptable.  The only consistent predictor of perceived effectiveness across all four medications was staff beliefs regarding the positive outcomes of MAT (see Table 3.). Higher average ratings on these beliefs resulted in statistically significant increases in the probability that staff would agree that the medication was effective.

Details: Columbus, OH: Center for Health & Human Services Research, 2016. 41p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 8, 2016 at: http://www.publicsafety.ohio.gov/links/MAT_CBCFs_Report.pdf

Year: 2016

Country: United States

URL: http://www.publicsafety.ohio.gov/links/MAT_CBCFs_Report.pdf

Shelf Number: 145616

Keywords:
Community-Based Corrections
Drug Abuse and Addiction
Drug Abuse and Crime
Drug Offenders
Drug Treatment
Halfway Houses
Substance Abuse Treatment

Author: Schatz, Eberhard

Title: Drug consumption rooms: Evidence and practice

Summary: For the past 10 to 20 years, drug consumption rooms (DCRs) have become an integrated part of the drug treatment and harm reduction strategy in a variety of countries in Western Europe, North America and Australia. However, they have not yet been established in the majority of countries worldwide. This briefing paper provides a short summary of the background, history and objectives of DCRs, and analyses available evidence regarding their impact. The second part of the briefing paper consists of an overview of the various DCRs in different countries, with a particular focus on the concepts used to develop these facilities with regard to the local political, cultural and social situation of each country.

Details: London: International Drug Policy Consortium, 2012. 23p.

Source: Internet Resource: IDPC Briefing Paper: http://www.drugsandalcohol.ie/17898/1/IDPC-Briefing-Paper_Drug-consumption-rooms.pdf

Year: 2012

Country: International

URL: http://www.drugsandalcohol.ie/17898/1/IDPC-Briefing-Paper_Drug-consumption-rooms.pdf

Shelf Number: 146135

Keywords:
Drug Consumption Facilities
Drug Offenders
Drug Treatment
Harm Reduction Programs

Author: High Intensity Drug Trafficking Program

Title: Marijuana's Impact on California. California High Intensity Drug Trafficking Report

Summary: A growing number of California residents are interested in removing barriers to recreational marijuana use, and this paper will outline the current state of marijuana policy in California and the potential impacts of further legalizing marijuana use. Section One, The Science on Marijuana Marijuana is the most abused illicit drug in the world, but the gap between the science on marijuana and the common perception of marijuana has never been greater. Section Two, California Youth Marijuana Use In 2013, California was ranked 20th in current use among youth, and by 2014 California was ranked 11th in the country. The state's largest average increase in youth past 30-day use of marijuana coincided with the proliferation of marijuana dispensaries in the state; at that time, California’s youth use rate was already 29% higher than the national average. Section Three, California Schools Due to a new program, school expulsion rates in California have greatly decreased, even though the number of students who are caught with drugs has not declined. Section Four, California Marijuana Use Ages 18-25 In 2012 and 2013, adult marijuana use for California adults aged 18-25 years was 22% compared to the national average of 19%. Section Five, Marijuana-Related Emergency Department Visits and Hospital Admissions From 2010 to 2014, after marijuana dispensaries began to proliferate, there was a 116% increase in Emergency Department visits and admissions for any related marijuana use. Marijuana-related exposures for young children (0-5 years old) also increased 513% between 2005 and 2015. During the same time there was a 139% increase among children 6-19 years old. Section Six, Treatment From 2005 to 2015, the rate of admissions to drug treatment programs for marijuana abuse remained steady – so did the fact that teens and young adults make up the largest proportion of people admitted for treatment. Section Seven, California Impaired Driving From 2005 to 2014, total statewide traffic fatalities decreased 29% in California, but fatalities involving drivers testing positive for marijuana increased 17%. Section Eight, Diversion More interdiction events, including those by the United States Postal Service (USPS) Inspection Service, resulted in seized marijuana originating from California than from any other state.

Details: s.l.: California High Intensity Drug Trafficking Program, 2016. 65p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 20, 2016 at: https://learnaboutsam.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/CA-MJ-IMPACT-REPORT-FINAL1.pdf

Year: 2016

Country: United States

URL: https://learnaboutsam.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/CA-MJ-IMPACT-REPORT-FINAL1.pdf

Shelf Number: 147299

Keywords:
Driving Under the Influence
Drug Abuse and Addiction
Drug Trafficking
Drug Treatment
Drugged Driving
Marijuana

Author: Campie, Patricia E.

Title: Systematic Review of Factors That Impact Implementation Quality of Child Welfare, Public Health, and Education Programs for Adolescents: Implications for Juvenile Drug Treatment Courts

Summary: To inform the development of juvenile drug treatment court (JDTC) guidelines, this study reviewed the evidence on factors that impact implementation quality and fidelity in other youth-serving systems, namely, child welfare, public health, and education programs delivered to adolescents or adolescents and their families. From a universe of more than 8,000 articles reviewed, 53 studies were included for analysis using meta-aggregation methods, as outlined by the Cochrane Collaboration. The findings support previous research showing that intervention outcomes are influenced by implementation quality, readiness to complete each step of the implementation cycle (beginning with intervention selection), access to technical assistance, and contextual "fit" with the population or community. The findings align with previous research from juvenile drug treatment court implementation studies, showing the importance of improving community collaboration, reducing cross-system barriers, and using data for continuous quality improvement. New findings indicate that fidelity adherence may have unintended negative effects with vulnerable populations when compliance protocols interfere with an intervention's theory of change. Fidelity requirements may affect youth and their adult caregivers differentially and produce more positive outcomes with youth than adults, who may disengage if the program cannot be changed to fit their needs.

Details: Report to the U.S. National Institute of Justice, 2016. 36p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 11, 2017 at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/grants/250483.pdf

Year: 2016

Country: United States

URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/grants/250483.pdf

Shelf Number: 144831

Keywords:
Drug Offenders
Drug Treatment
Drug Treatment Courts
Juvenile Drug Offenders
Juvenile Drug Treatment Courts
Problem-Solving Courts
Treatment Programs

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 Courts
Drug Offenders
Drug Treatment
Juvenile Drug Courts
Problem-Solving Courts

Author: Crawford, Catherine

Title: United Kingdom Drug Situation: Focal Point Annual Report 2016

Summary: Executive summary - Overall drug prevalence in the general population is lower now than ten years ago, with cannabis being the main driver of that reduction. However, there has been little change in recent years. - The order of drugs most commonly reported by respondents has not changed much over this time, with cannabis most prevalent (6.5%) followed by powder cocaine (2.2%) and ecstasy/MDMA (1.5%), according to the most recent Crime Survey for England and Wales. - Seizures data suggests that herbal cannabis has come to dominate the market. While resin was involved in around two-thirds of cannabis seizures in 2000, it was involved in only five per cent in 2015/16. - On 26 May 2016, the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016 came into force in the UK, prohibiting the production, supply, import/export and possession on prison grounds of psychoactive substances, other than those exempted by the legislation. This act was brought in to tackle the trade in new psychoactive substances (NPS) which has steadily grown in recent years. Over 350 premises in the UK trading in NPS have either closed or stopped selling substances covered by the legislation. - In addition, synthetic cannabinoid receptor agonists (SCRAs), a class of NPS whose use among the prison population and vulnerable people has caused concern, became controlled under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 as Class B substances in December 2016. - Temporary class drug orders on methylphenidate-related compounds (including ethylphenidate) and methiopropamine have been remade for another 12 months. - Using the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA) definition, which refers to deaths caused directly by the consumption of at least one illicit drug, the total number of drug-related deaths (DRDs) in the UK during 2014 was 2,655; a five per cent increase from 2013 and the highest number reported to date. - Due to substantial delays being typical between occurrence and registration of DRDs in England and Wales, UK-wide DRD figures are not yet available covering deaths occurring beyond 2014. However, published statistics for DRDs occurring in Scotland during 2015 showed a 15% increase on 2014. - Deaths registered in 2015 in England and Wales were notably higher than deaths registered in 2014. It is therefore likely that DRD figures for 2015 will set a new record. - Across the UK there were 2,304 deaths reported which featured an opioid (87% of UK cases). As in previous years, the substance with the largest number of associated deaths was heroin. In contrast to the UK as a whole, tramadol was the most commonly mentioned opioid drug in Northern Ireland. - The proportion of deaths involving cocaine has risen; however, many of these deaths are believed to be heroin users who also use crack cocaine. - The number of MDMA-associated deaths in England and Wales rose to 57 cases, returning to levels seen prior to the decrease in availability of MDMA in the late 2000s. - Over the last decade the average age of death has increased from 37.6 years in 2004 to 41.6 in 2014, with males being younger than females (40.3 years and 44.6 years respectively). The largest proportion of deaths in the UK in 2014 was in the 40-44 years age group. - There were 124,234 treatment presentations in the UK in 2015. This total includes for the first time, data from individuals presenting to treatment services in prisons in England. - Fifty per cent of all treatment presentations in the UK were for primary opioid use, with 26% of all service users presenting for treatment of cannabis use. However, among those who had never previously been in treatment, just under half (48%) of clients had a primary substance of cannabis, compared to 21% who presented for treatment of heroin. The proportions of users presenting for treatment of these substances appear to have stabilised over the past two years. - The primary drugs cited by those presenting to specialist substance misuse treatment services varied notably between each of the four countries of the UK. While almost half of treatment entrants cited heroin in England, Scotland and Wales, less than 10% did in Northern Ireland. - Benzodiazepines were cited as a primary problem substance in far greater proportion of cases in Scotland and Northern Ireland than in England or Wales, whereas Wales had a far higher proportion of clients citing amphetamines/methamphetamines than in any of the other countries. - Treatment data from prisons showed that 27,836 individuals presented to treatment services in English prisons in 2015, with 564 presenting in prison in Northern Ireland; approximately one-quarter of the treatment clients from each country. Heroin was the most common primary substance among clients in England, whereas cannabis was the most common substance in Northern Ireland. - The use of NPS, and SCRAs in particular, remains a growing concern in prisons in the UK. Surveys carried out in England, Wales and Scotland found that around 10% of prisoners reported use of SCRAs while in prison, behind cannabis with a prevalence at around 15%. - The Prisons and Probation Ombudsman has found 64 deaths that occurred in prisons in England and Wales between June 2013 and April 2016 that were associated with NPS. NPS use has also been associated with self-harm incidents, intimidation and violence. - National Take-Home Naloxone programmes continue to supply naloxone to those exiting prison in Scotland and Wales: there were 932 kits issued by NHS staff in prisons in Scotland, and 146 in Wales, in 2015/16. - Prevalence of HIV among people who inject drugs (PWID) participating in the Unlinked Anonymous Monitoring (UAM) survey in England, Wales and Northern Ireland in 2015 was one per cent (a similar level to recent years). HIV prevalence among 'recent initiates' to injecting substantially increased in 2015 to 2.6%, the highest level seen in the last ten years. However, this likely represents an increase in prevalence among men who have sex with men rather than among the wider population who inject drugs. - There were 50 new diagnoses of HIV among PWID reported from Scotland, compared with 17 in 2014. This increase was due to an outbreak of HIV in PWID in Glasgow. - Around 90% of the hepatitis C infections diagnosed in the UK are acquired through injecting drug use. The prevalence of hepatitis C among PWID has remained fairly stable over the last ten years, and was 50% in the UAM survey of PWID in 2015. - Hepatitis B prevalence rates have also remained stable for 2015 at 13%. This is half the level seen ten years ago, with the decrease likely to be due to the increased uptake of the hepatitis B vaccination among the PWID population. - The level of direct sharing of needles and syringes reported by participants in the UAM Survey of PWID has declined over the last decade from 28% in 2005 to 16% in 2015. However, levels of concern have increased around the harms associated with people who inject NPS such as mephedrone. One-third of participants in the UAM survey of PWID who were currently injecting mephedrone reported they had shared needles or syringes previously used by someone else. - An Independent review into the impact on employment outcomes of drug or alcohol addiction, and obesity was published in December 2016 and made a number of recommendations to promote employment of those with addictions, including that those making a claim should be required to attend a structured discussion with a healthcare professional on the impact of their health condition on their ability to work. - The Association for Young People's Health, in conjunction with Public Health England, published A public health approach to promoting young people's resilience, to aid policy makers and commissioners. Similarly, Mentor-ADEPIS published a briefing paper aimed at teachers and practitioners on how building resilience can prevent substance abuse. - The numbers of recorded incidents of possession and supply offences across the UK, and arrests for drug offences in England and Wales, have fallen in 2015/16, continuing the trends seen over the past five years. In 2015/16, 31,342 supply/trafficking offences and 157,271 possession offences were recorded in the UK. - Heroin purity has continued to rise since the low level seen in the early 2010s, and in 2015 was 44%, more than twice the purity seen in 2011 and 2012 when it reached its nadir. Similarly, cocaine purity, which was at its lowest in 2010, has risen since that time, and in 2015 was also 44%. - Street level price data from law enforcement agencies suggests that most recorded drug prices have remained stable in recent years. - The number of cannabis seizures in all forms in England and Wales in 2015/16 decreased, continuing the downwards trend seen in recent years. Cocaine, ecstasy and heroin seizure numbers all remained stable, while the number of crack seizures increased in 2015/16.

Details: London: United Kingdom Focal Point at Public Health England, 2017. 180p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 17, 2017 at: http://www.nta.nhs.uk/uploads/2905931ukdrugsituation2016webaccessible.pdf

Year: 2017

Country: United Kingdom

URL: http://www.nta.nhs.uk/uploads/2905931ukdrugsituation2016webaccessible.pdf

Shelf Number: 144988

Keywords:
Drug Abuse and Addiction
Drug Abuse and Crime
Drug Enforcement
Drug Offenders
Drug Treatment
Illegal Drug Use

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 Courts
Drug Offenders
Drug Treatment
Problem-Solving Courts
Substance Abuse Treatment

Author: Goldsmid, Susan

Title: Australian methamphetamine user outcomes

Summary: Illicit drug use costs Australia billions of dollars every year in lost productivity and healthcare and crime costs. This paper examines the demographics of methamphetamine users and their employment, education and health outcomes using data from the National Drug Strategy Household Survey, the Drug Use Monitoring in Australia program, the Alcohol and Other Drug Treatment Services data collection and the National Prisoner Health Data Collection. Across all data sources, methamphetamine users reported worse employment, education, housing and health outcomes than those who used other illicit drugs and those who did not use drugs. In the general population, this effect was more pronounced for crystal methamphetamine users than for users of other forms of methamphetamines.

Details: Sydney: Australian Institute of Criminology, 2017. 19p.

Source: Internet Resource: Statistical bulletin 03: Accessed June 17, 2017 at: http://www.aic.gov.au/media_library/publications/sb/003/sb003.pdf

Year: 2017

Country: Australia

URL: http://www.aic.gov.au/media_library/publications/sb/003/sb003.pdf

Shelf Number: 146238

Keywords:
Costs of Crime
Drug Abuse and Addiction
Drug Treatment
Illegal Drugs
Methamphetamine

Author: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare

Title: Alcohol and other drug treatment services in Australia 2015-16

Summary: In 2015-16, about 796 alcohol and other drug treatment services provided just over 206,600 treatment episodes to an estimated 134,000 clients. The top 4 drugs that led clients to seek treatment were alcohol (32% of treatment episodes), cannabis (23%), amphetamines (23%), and heroin (6%). The proportion of episodes where clients were receiving treatment for amphetamines has continued to rise over the 5 years to 2015-16, from 12% of treatment episodes in 2011-12 to 23% in 2015-16. The median age of clients in AOD treatment services is rising, from 31 in 2006-07 to 33 in 2015-16.

Details: Canberra: AIHW, 2017. 85p.

Source: Internet Resource: Drug Treatment Series No. 29: Accessed July 5, 2017 at: http://www.aihw.gov.au/publication-detail/?id=60129559769

Year: 2017

Country: Australia

URL: http://www.aihw.gov.au/publication-detail/?id=60129559769

Shelf Number: 146509

Keywords:
Alcohol Treatment
Drug Abuse and Addiction
Drug Treatment
Substance Abuse Treatment

Author: Birk, Erica G.

Title: The Mitigating Role of Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs in the Abuse of Prescription Drugs

Summary: In response to the epidemic of prescription-drug abuse, now 49 US states have passed legislation to establish Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs (PDMPs). These programs track controlled-substance prescribing and usage behavior in an effort to improve patient outcomes and identify and preempt access by drug abusers. We exploit variation in the timing of implementation across states to identify the effectiveness of PDMPs on reducing opioid abuse. In particular, by considering the role of specific program attributes we offer the strongest evidence to date of the potential for PDMP-type policy to decrease opioidrelated treatment admissions. We also consider heterogeneity across intensity and tenure of use, which reveals that the largest gains are coming from reductions in the number of less-attached users. Overall, these results have important implications for the effective re-design of PDMP policy.

Details: Bonn: IZA (Institute of Labor Economics), 2017. 42p.

Source: Internet Resource: IZA Discussion Paper Series: Accessed October 3, 2017 at: http://ftp.iza.org/dp10990.pdf

Year: 2017

Country: United States

URL: http://ftp.iza.org/dp10990.pdf

Shelf Number: 147525

Keywords:
Drug Abuse and Addiction
Drug Treatment
Prescription Drug Abuse

Author: Brolin, Mary

Title: Improving Access to Substance Abuse Treatment and Reducing Incarceration and Recidivism

Summary: Massachusetts faces an opioid and substance abuse crisis at the same time the U.S. and Massachusetts have some of highest rates of incarceration in the world. This issue brief examines the problem and economic costs and consequences of untreated substance abuse. It examines the benefits of expanding access to treatment in the community, at arrest and initial detention, within the courts, within jails and prisons, at re‐entry and under community supervision, with the intent to reduce substance abuse, incarceration and recidivism and thereby improve health and public safety. The report recommends (1) implementing a pre‐arrest program to divert low‐level drug offenders to treatment, (2) enhancing and expanding specialty courts throughout the state, (3) increasing access to medication‐assisted treatment (MAT), and (4) expanding a Medicaid enrollment program in DOC and HOC facilities to improve access to healthcare services immediately upon release. To facilitate change and judicious invest of resources, it also recommends instating governance structures to coordinate efforts between health and criminal justice organizations within the Executive, Legislative and Judiciary branches of government.

Details: Waltham, MA: Massachusetts Health Policy Forum, 2015. 46p.

Source: Internet Resource: Issue Brief: Accessed October 13, 2017 at: https://masshealthpolicyforum.brandeis.edu/forums/Documents/Substance%20Abuse%202015%20Docs/IssueBrief_FULL.final.pdf

Year: 2015

Country: United States

URL: https://masshealthpolicyforum.brandeis.edu/forums/Documents/Substance%20Abuse%202015%20Docs/IssueBrief_FULL.final.pdf

Shelf Number: 147673

Keywords:
Drug Abuse and Addition
Drug Abuse and Crime
Drug Offenders
Drug Treatment
Opioids
Substance Abuse Treatment

Author: Great Britain. HM Inspectorate of Probation

Title: New Psychoactive Substances: the response by probation and substance misuse services in the community in England

Summary: The prevalence of NPS is hard to quantify for several reasons. Synthetic drug manufacture is not geographically constrained and this prevents an estimation of the volume of such drugs being manufactured worldwide. Users of NPS often don't know what they are taking, and in some cases they have been misled, with NPS passed off as more conventional drugs such as ecstasy. In addition, GPs, accident and emergency departments, probation services and the police do not specifically record NPS use. While the overall size of the NPS market is small in comparison with other drugs, an increasing number of countries are reporting seizures of NPS. There is also growing recognition of the harm associated with NPS use - often the result of crude manufacturing techniques and unpredictable dosage levels. As a result, they can be more lethal than other drugs. Concern is also rising about their use among marginalised populations such as prisoners and street homeless, attracted by the availability and low cost of NPS. Treatment options are more limited than with other substances, for example opioids, where substitutes are available. In most cases, treatment involves psychosocial interventions to help people consider the health risks and the costs of using NPS, and to help them make behavioural changes to reduce harm and moderate their drug use. We came across two areas using clinical detoxification to help manage withdrawal from NPS use. Overall, inspected areas did not have a good enough understanding of the prevalence of NPS use at a local level or what may work for those using NPS. While the UK government has issued advice and guidance for commissioners and substance misuse services, in the main, strategies have focused on crisis management to address emergencies. While local management relationships between substance misuse services and probation providers were good, probation engagement at a strategic level was less consistent. Where the strategic response was appropriately coordinated, for example in Newcastle, it included longer-term actions for agencies to work together and address NPS-related concerns locally. They were also more likely to be collecting NPSspecific data. Partnership working was strongest in probation teams that worked in collaboration with other agencies, such as Integrated Offender Management, and in cases where service users had court-imposed or licence conditions to engage with substance misuse services. In other cases, work was often being done in isolation. We found the assessments and plans completed by substance misuse services sufficient overall. In line with Public Health England guidance, substance misuse services worked with the individual symptoms and not specifically on the drug that the individual used. We were told that this national guidance that NPS users should be treated the same as other drug users was the reason that NPS-specific training had not been rolled out to all keyworkers - we found that this had led to a significant gap. Without specific training, keyworkers relied on their more experienced colleagues and their own research to increase their knowledge and understanding. The most skilled practitioners had developed NPS toolkits, which were then used in individual work with service users. Where these were being used, we found that there was more awareness of the risks and effects of using NPS. However, many NPS users were not accessing available services. All the cases we inspected were known either to have used or be currently using NPS, yet probation assessments lacked sufficient information to explore the pattern, level and funding of NPS use. Many users experienced problems with housing, mental health, relationships and finances. Some had lost placements in hostels or housing tenancies for reasons that were often related to their NPS use, but responsible officers rarely identified this. In the process, those who lost their accommodation ended up on the streets, sleeping rough in an environment where NPS were easy to obtain and frequently used. Worryingly, probation providers did not routinely consider the risks associated with NPS use to groups such as children, staff, prisoners or the wider community, despite there being enough known about the unpredictable behaviour that could be displayed by those using the drugs. Two Community Rehabilitation Companies had developed short-duration substance misuse interventions. NPS use was only covered to a basic standard, with many attendees being better informed than responsible officers. We found no evidence that the Building Skills for Recovery accredited programme, which is designed to reduce offending behaviour and problematic substance misuse, was used for NPS users by either the National Probation Service or Community Rehabilitation Companies. Responsible officers were rarely able to talk to NPS users about their symptoms and consolidate work undertaken by substance misuse services. While probation providers were making appropriate referrals to substance misuse services, these were not always responded to in a timely fashion. Service user engagement was often sporadic and responsible officers did not do enough to support NPS users to re-engage. We found poor-quality information-sharing. Prisoners were being released into the community often with no information shared about their NPS use in prison, and release plans did not meet the needs of the prisoner in relation to their substance misuse. We found good recording of information by substance misuse keyworkers who had access to probation IT systems. In many cases, however, we found that substance misuse services held information that would have improved the quality of probation assessments and plans but was not being shared. NPS users were disengaged from services, insufficient progress had been made to address NPS use and in many cases no other work was taking place either. NPS users lacked trust in the help and support available, and many turned to using NPS to forget their problems. Confidence, knowledge and awareness were the key areas that affected the quality of work for both probation and substance misuse services. While some training had been provided, this was often not sufficient for practitioners and was no longer up to date. As a result, responsible officers and many substance misuse keyworkers were not confident enough to undertake harm minimisation work with NPS users. While clinical guidance is available, not enough has been provided to inform professionals working with NPS users on community orders in the criminal justice system.

Details: Manchester, UK: Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Probation, 2017. 59p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 30, 2017 at: http://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/cjji/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2017/11/New-Psychoactive-Substances-report.pdf

Year: 2017

Country: United Kingdom

URL: http://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/cjji/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2017/11/New-Psychoactive-Substances-report.pdf

Shelf Number: 148589

Keywords:
Drug Abuse and Addiction
Drug Offenders
Drug Treatment
Probation Officers
Probationers
Substance Abuse
Substance Abuse Treatment
Synthetic Drugs

Author: Ghandnoosh, Nazgol

Title: Opioids: Treating and Illness, Ending a War

Summary: More people died from opioid-related deaths in 2015 than in any previous year. This record number quadrupled the level of such deaths in 1999. Unlike the heroin and crack crises of the past, the current opioid emergency has disproportionately affected white Americans-poor and rural, but also middle class or affluent and suburban. This association has boosted support for preventative and treatment-based policy solutions. But the pace of the response has been slow, critical components of the solution-such as health insurance coverage expansion and improved access to medication-assisted treatment- face resistance, and there are growing efforts to revamp the failed and costly War on Drugs. This report examines the sources of the opioid crisis, surveys health and justice policy responses at the federal and state levels, and draws on lessons from past drug crises to provide guidance on how to proceed. The War on Drugs did not play a major role in ebbing past cycles of drug use, as revealed by extensive research and the reflections of police chiefs. In 2014, the National Research Council concluded: The best empirical evidence suggests that the successive iterations of the war on drugs- through a substantial public policy effort-are unlikely to have markedly or clearly reduced drug crime over the past three decades. Growing public awareness of the limited impact and devastating toll of the War on Drugs has encouraged many policymakers and criminal justice practitioners to begin its winding down. The number of people imprisoned nationwide for a drug offense skyrocketed from 24,000 in 1980 to a peak of 369,000 in 2007. It has since declined by nearly one-quarter, reaching approximately 287,000 people in the most recent count. The lessons from past drug crises and the evidence base supporting a public health approach can guide policymakers as they seek an end to the current opioid crisis.

Details: Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project, 2017. 35p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 31, 2018 at: https://www.sentencingproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Opioids-Treating-an-Illness-Ending-a-War.pdf

Year: 2017

Country: United States

URL: https://www.sentencingproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Opioids-Treating-an-Illness-Ending-a-War.pdf

Shelf Number: 148950

Keywords:
Drug Abuse and Addiction
Drug Abuse Treatment
Drug Treatment
Opioids
War on Drugs

Author: Matthew, Dayna Bowen

Title: Un-burying the Lead: Public health tools are the key to beating the opioid epidemic

Summary: On November 1st, the President's Commission on Combating Drug Addiction and the Opioid Crisis, chaired by Governor Chris Christie, released its report and recommendations for fighting "the worst drug overdose epidemic in U.S. history." The Report repeatedly underscores the scope and urgency of the nation's opioid epidemic that is ravaging families and communities in all 50 states. It claims 175 lives daily. In addition to these deaths, other tragic and costly health consequences of this epidemic include unprecedented increases in the incidence and prevalence of addiction, increased hospitalizations and emergency room visits, and a dramatic increase in the number of babies born with neonatal abstinence syndrome. There is much in the Report to praise. For example, the Commission recommended that the president declare the opioid crisis a national public health emergency and the president adopted this recommendation. The declaration of a public health emergency will eventually allow states to apply for and Congress to fund long-term interventions to prevent and treat drug abuse. Moreover, the Commission's recommendations that emphasize treatment and harm reduction admirably include systemic changes that would have long-term impact, such as:  Development of new quality measures to incentivize early screening and treatment referrals;  Waiver of Institutions for Mental Diseases (IMD) exclusions within Medicaid to expand capacity for in-patient treatment;  Broad expansion of federal drug courts to divert individuals away from prison and into treatment programs; and  Insurer regulations and penalties for mental health parity violations. However, this report argues that it is the Commission's final six recommendations - buried in the back of the report--that offer the most far-reaching and promising opportunities for state and federal leaders to strike at the root causes of the opioid crisis. These final recommendations, listed on the left side of Table 1 below, signal that our government may be willing to seriously address the opioid crisis as the public health emergency that it is. They aim at changing the fundamental social and environmental conditions that are risk factors for the populations among which addiction and death rates are soaring. As such, they have the greatest potential for impact because they reach the broadest segments of the community where addictions flourish. But even they do not go far enough. These good ideas need to be accompanied by action steps to implement them with the immediacy that this crisis warrants. This report suggests the logical "next steps" that should accompany the Commission's recommendations. They are listed on the right side of Table 1 below. This report proceeds in three parts. It first calls attention to the Commission's final six recommendations. It argues that these proposals, which focus on reforming housing, employment, family, criminal justice and educational determinants of opioid addiction, are the most important. interventions of all. Second, this report places the current opioid epidemic into historic context; America has seen terrible spikes in opioid and other drug related deaths in this country during two prior periods. The public health lessons from earlier epidemics provide strong support for the Commission's final six recommendations, and counsel a comprehensive approach to the social and economic risk factors associated with opioid addiction. Finally, this report asserts that the Commission's recommendations will have limited impact unless they are implemented with immediate action steps to ensure, and even expand, their concrete impact. Therefore, for each one of the Commission's final six recommendations, this report proposes a related action step for housing9 and employment,10 community engagement, and criminal justice interventions12 that are essential to defeating the worsening opioid crisis in this country. Moreover, this section urges the Administration to reach back 50 years in America's self-proclaimed drug "war" and extend the public health framework it has now adopted toward opioid addiction to the victims of America's earlier opioid crisis, and to those who became addicted to successor drugs. These victims of America's earlier opioid crises tragically were subjected to a criminal justice rather than public health approach to their disease. This report argues it is not too late to correct that error, by applying the public health framework to all populations affected by the disease of addiction. In conclusion, this report outlines a comprehensive and equitable strategy that federal, state, and local governments, as well as affected communities can take to effectively address the social determinants of opioid addiction.

Details: Washington, DC: USC-Brookings Schaeffer Initiative for Health Policy , 2018. 18p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 22, 2018 at: https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/es_20180123_un-burying-the-lead-final.pdf

Year: 2018

Country: United States

URL: https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/es_20180123_un-burying-the-lead-final.pdf

Shelf Number: 149227

Keywords:
Drug Abuse and Addiction
Drug Policy
Drug Treatment
Opioid Epidemic
Opioids
Public Health

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 Courts
Drug Offenders
Drug Treatment
Human Rights Abuses
Problem-Solving Courts
Substance Abuse Treatment

Author: King County Heroin and Prescription Opiate Addiction Task Force Final Report and Recommendations

Title: Heroin and Prescription Opiate Addiction Task Force: Final Report and Recommendations

Summary: Heroin and opioid use are at crisis levels in King County. In 2015, 229 individuals died from heroin and prescription opioid overdose in King County alone. To confront this crisis, in March 2016, King County Executive Dow Constantine, Seattle Mayor Ed Murray, Renton Mayor Denis Law and Auburn Mayor Nancy Backus convened the Heroin and Prescription Opiate Addiction Task Force. The Task Force, co-chaired by the King County Department of Community and Human Services and Public Health - Seattle & King County, was charged with developing both short and long-term strategies to prevent opioid use disorder, prevent overdose, and improve access to treatment and other supportive services for individuals experiencing opioid use disorder. The Heroin and Prescription Opiate Addiction Task Force met over a six month period from March to September 2016 to review 1) current local, state and federal initiatives and activities related to prevention, treatment and health services for individuals experiencing opioid use disorder; 2) promising strategies being developed and implemented in other communities; and 3) evidence-based practice in the areas of prevention, treatment and health services. The Task Force strived to avoid redundancy with other related activities and to leverage existing partnerships and activities where appropriate. Additionally, the Task Force applied an equity and social justice lens to the work to ensure that recommendations do not exacerbate, but rather lessen, inequities experienced by communities of color as a direct result of the "War on Drugs." This report provides a summary of the group's recommendations to both prevent opioid addiction and improve opioid use disorder outcomes in King County.

Details: Seattle: The Task Force, 2016. 101p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 4, 2018 at: https://www.kingcounty.gov/~/media/depts/community-human-services/behavioral-health/documents/herointf/Final-Heroin-Opiate-Addiction-Task-_Force-Report.ashx

Year: 2016

Country: United States

URL: https://www.kingcounty.gov/~/media/depts/community-human-services/behavioral-health/documents/herointf/Final-Heroin-Opiate-Addiction-Task-_Force-Report.ashx

Shelf Number: 150055

Keywords:
Drug Abuse and Addiction
Drug Treatment
Opiates
Prescription Drug Abuse
Substance Abuse Treatment

Author: Strach, Patricia

Title: How a Rural Community Addresses the Opioid Crisis

Summary: In rural communities like upstate New York's Sullivan County, where the bus runs twice a week and cab fare is expensive, people who need substance abuse treatment often have a hard time getting to it. A few years ago, one public official in the county wanted to show state officials how vital transportation is to addressing access, especially in a county the size of Rhode Island. She started by inviting them to Sullivan County. Instead of meeting in a conference room, she took them for a drive. "I tried to really give them a visual," she said. "They were shocked that it took an hour to get from one end of the county to the other, and that's just straight." It's clear that America has an opioid problem. In conversations with people on the frontlines of the epidemic, however, it is not so clear that lawmakers in Albany or Washington, D.C. understand the realities of the crisis - like the challenges of accessing services in remote rural communities. This disconnect between the communities fighting opioids on a day-to-day basis and lawmakers devising solutions in the state's Capitol weakens the response to the opioid crisis. How can we expect state and federal officials to craft relevant solutions to a problem we don�t fully understand? In an effort to bridge this disconnect between local communities and lawmakers, the Rockefeller Institute of Government is conducting an in-depth study of the opioid crisis in Sullivan County, a rural community located 100 miles northwest of New York City. Readers will follow the project as it happens - what we call "research in real-time." By talking to community members, public officials, medical experts, and activists, we seek a better understanding of the causes and effects of the opioid epidemic not just in Sullivan County, but in similar communities across the country. In short, we ask: - What does the opioid problem look like in a small, rural community? - How has the community responded? - What do people on the ground need from government to address it? In essence, this project looks at how government works by examining its response to a public health crisis. How do different levels of government - state, federal, and local - work together to address the situation? Are the policy solutions really addressing needs on the ground? How are governmental agencies and departments working or not working together in response? Our work combines aggregate data analysis with on-the-ground research in affected communities to provide insight into what the opioid problem looks like, how communities respond, and what kinds of policies have the best chances of making a difference.

Details: Albany, NY: Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government, 2018 48p.

Source: Internet Resource: Stories from Sullivan, Vol. 1: Accessed August 8, 2018 at: http://rockinst.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/6-26-18-Stories-from-Sullivan-Web.pdf

Year: 2018

Country: United States

URL: http://rockinst.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/6-26-18-Stories-from-Sullivan-Web.pdf

Shelf Number: 151048

Keywords:
Drug Abuse and Addiction
Drug Treatment
Opioid Crisis
Rural Areas
Substance Abuse Treatment

Author: Carre, Z.

Title: Finding a Needle in a Haystack: Take-Home Naloxone in England 2017/18

Summary: This report updates Release's previous reporting on 'Take-home Naloxone in England: 2016/17' and presents novel findings on take-home naloxone provision in custodial settings, such as in prisons, across England for the period 2017/18. Release surveyed each of the 152 local authority areas in England, as local authorities are responsible for commissioning drug services, which give out take-home naloxone. The report includes findings on the availability of take-home naloxone across local authority areas, the scale of take-home naloxone supply in community settings, and coverage among people who use opiates and opiate clients in drug treatment. Release also collected information on take-home naloxone in 109 prisons across England. This report also includes findings on the prisons giving out take-home naloxone to people when they are released from their custody. The report mainly highlights national-level findings on take-home naloxone. For findings on provision, coverage, and availability of take-home naloxone in each local authority and prison in England,

Details: London: Release, 2019. 14p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 6, 2019 at: https://www.release.org.uk/sites/default/files/pdf/publications/Finding%20a%20Needle%20in%20a%20Haystack_0.pdf

Year: 2019

Country: United Kingdom

URL:

Shelf Number: 154826

Keywords:
Drug Abuse and Addiction
Drug Addicts
Drug Overdose
Drug Treatment
Naloxone

Author: National Center for State Courts

Title: Trends in State Courts: 2019

Summary: Courts play an essential role in our society, yet many members of the public find them intimidating, with their imposing architecture, security procedures, and seemingly arcane rules and legal language. Yet, for many members of the public, courts represent their only one-on-one contact with government, at least outside of a voting booth. As intimidating as courts can seem, access to justice is critical; therefore, state courts are working to make their processes more understandable and relevant to the public. Courts also provide a crucial gateway to other essential services, such as drug treatment and rehabilitation. For example, the lead article in this year's edition of Trends in State Courts discusses how the Massachusetts Community Justice Project uses Sequential Intercept Mapping to confront the state's opioid-abuse crisis. This mapping process shows how the opioid crisis impacts the courts and points out gaps in community services to addicts that need to be filled. The attitudes of court employees also affect access to justice, as well as public perceptions of the justice system. Engaged employees tend to be more efficient and devoted to the mission of the courts. A group of articles in this year's Trends examines the importance of courts investing in human capital, with a focus on such investment in the Connecticut Judicial Branch and the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas in Cleveland, Ohio. Such investments pay dividends in improved operations and public perceptions of the courts' role in society. Another section of Trends 2019 looks at the role of technology in promoting the rule of law. One such article describes the 2019 Innovating Justice Forum at The Hague, which brought together court technologists and demonstrated the best justice-related apps from around the world, including India, Nigeria, and Sierra Leone. Other articles show how technology can improve outcomes in child support enforcement and increase access to a court self-help center. Another takes up the importance of building a foundation for information security.

Details: Williamsburg, VA: Author, 2019. 68

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 16, 2019 at: https://www.ncsc.org/~/media/Microsites/Files/Trends%202019/Annual%20Publication/Trends-2019-Full-Publication.ashx

Year: 2019

Country: United States

URL: https://www.ncsc.org/~/media/Microsites/Files/Trends%202019/Annual%20Publication/Trends-2019-Full-Publication.ashx

Shelf Number: 156857

Keywords:
Administration of Justice
Community Justice
Court System
Criminal Courts
Drug Treatment
Opioid Epidemic

Rutgers - School of Law, Newark

Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.

Results for drug treatment