Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: November 22, 2024 Fri
Time: 12:20 pm
Time: 12:20 pm
Results for drug treatment courts
6 results foundAuthor: Van Stelle, Kit R. Title: Treatment Alternatives and Diversion (TAD) Program: Advancing Effective Diversion in Wisconsin. 2007-2010 Evaluation Report Summary: In 2005, Wisconsin Act 25 (SECTION 90m. 16.964) authorized “grants to counties to enable them to establish and operate programs, including suspended and deferred prosecution programs and programs based on principles of restorative justice, that provide alternatives to prosecution and incarceration for criminal offenders who abuse alcohol or other drugs.” These programs are designed to target non-violent offenders where a violent offender is defined as “a person to whom one of the following applies”: 1. The person has been charged with or convicted of an offense in a pending case and, during the course of the offense, the person carried, possessed, or used a dangerous weapon, the person used force against another person, or a person died or suffered serious bodily harm. 2. The person has one or more prior convictions for a felony involving the use or attempted use of force against another person with the intent to cause death or serious bodily harm. (Section 90m. 16.964 (12)). The goals of the TAD program are to “…promote public safety, reduce prison and jail populations, reduce prosecution and incarceration costs, reduce recidivism, and improve the welfare of participants’ families...”. This evaluation report documents the implementation of the TAD program in seven sites in Wisconsin and examines the individual outcomes of offenders who participated in the TAD projects between January 1, 2007 and December 31, 2010. 150p. Details: Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Population Health Institute, 2011. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 26, 2013 at: http://uwphi.pophealth.wisc.edu/about/staff/van-stelle-kit/tad-2011-evaluation-report-full-report.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://uwphi.pophealth.wisc.edu/about/staff/van-stelle-kit/tad-2011-evaluation-report-full-report.pdf Shelf Number: 129185 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration (U.S.)Drug Abuse TreatmentDrug OffendersDrug Treatment CourtsProblem-Solving CourtsSubstance Abuse Treatment |
Author: Hiller, Matthew Title: Waukesha Alcohol Treatment Court (WATC): Process and Outcomes Summary: This report presents findings from a process and outcome evaluation of the Waukesha Alcohol Treatment Court (WATC), a program initiated by a group of local stakeholders to address the Operating While Intoxicated (OWI) problem endemic to the county and to Wisconsin as a whole. With 3 years of implementation funding provided by the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), the program has been in operation since April 2006. Specifically, this report examines an exhaustive sample of participants admitted to the WATC between May 1, 2006 and May 15, 2009. Process data summarized below compared the implementation of the program to both the plan laid out in the narrative of the grant funded by BJA as well as the 10 Key Components, a commonly accepted guideline that details the program theory underlying these types of programs. In addition to this, the outcome evaluation portion of this study compared WATC participants with a "waiting list" comparison group of 3rd OWI offenders who were precluded from participation because they served out their jail time before a program slot became available. In general, findings showed that the program continues to be implemented well, adhering closely to the plan laid out in the grant proposal and to the 10 Key Components. Analysis of outcome data showed a measurable impact on 2-year recidivism rates, with 29% of the WATC group being rearrested for a new offense compared to 45% of the comparison group. More specifically, the process evaluation shows a number of program strengths, including a team of dedicated professionals (with limited turnover evident), intensive supervision of convicted 3rd OWI offenders (a niche that historically has received limited local attention), a much greater than anticipated retention rate, and a high degree of on-going program fidelity. Suggested improvements include more fully integrating substance abuse treatment into the program, engaging the District Attorney's office more actively in the program, and careful study of why OAR rates do not drop significantly while the participants are in the program (possibly suggesting the need for a specialized intervention focused around transportation issues faced by those in the program). With respect to the outcome evaluation, reductions in overall recidivism (combining new OWI, OAR and other criminal offenses) were observed. However, because OWI reoffending was infrequently observed in both the comparison and WATC groups, additional study using larger samples and longer follow-up intervals is needed to determine whether the WATC substantially reduces the risk for OWI recidivism (i.e., small differences were observed, but statistical power was too low to determine whether these differences were statistically meaningful). In conclusion, the WATC is a well-implemented program that is measurably impacting recidivism among individuals convicted for their 3rd OWI offense. It fulfills an important niche in the post-conviction supervision of these individuals (who are typically not under probation supervision after release from jail or Huber). Future examinations should determine the extent to which costs offset by the program (related to new offense and to the number of days participants do not serve on their original jail/Huber sentence because they are being supervised in the community) relate to costs incurred by the program. Details: Philadelphia, PA: Temple University, Department of Criminal Justice, 2009. 110p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 13, 2015 at: http://www.dwicourts.org/sites/default/files/nadcp/WATC_Outcome_Evaluation-final%20draft.pdf Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: http://www.dwicourts.org/sites/default/files/nadcp/WATC_Outcome_Evaluation-final%20draft.pdf Shelf Number: 135617 Keywords: Alcohol Treatment CourtsAlternatives to IncarcerationDriving Under the InfluenceDrug Treatment CourtsDrunk DrivingProblem Solving CourtsRecidivism |
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 OffendersDrug TreatmentDrug Treatment CourtsJuvenile Drug OffendersJuvenile Drug Treatment CourtsProblem-Solving CourtsTreatment Programs |
Author: Cooper, Caroline S. Title: Establishing Drug Treatment Courts: Strategies, Experiences and Preliminary Outcomes. Volume One: Overview and Survey Results Summary: Drug dependence is a chronic relapsing disorder that must be addressed and treated as a public health matter, on a par with the treatment of other chronic diseases.2 It is a cluster of behavioral, cognitive and physiological phenomena that develop after repeated substance use and that typically include a strong desire to take the drug, difficulties in controlling its use, persisting in its use despite harmful consequences, a higher priority given to drug use than to other activities and obligations, increased tolerance, and sometimes a physical withdrawal state.3 Heavy drug use is found more frequently among offenders than among the general population, as shown by a number of studies in the Western Hemisphere and Europe.4 Using Goldstein's conceptual model,5 acquisitive crime to support a compulsive drug habit represents a fair proportion of crimes committed by offenders with substance abuse problems. Offenses committed under the influence of drugs or alcohol, according to self-reports in some countries, represent an even higher percentage of crimes by drug-dependent offenders Because drug abuse is compulsive, it does not stop at the prison door. In a 2009 survey of prisoners conducted by the Scottish Prison Service, 22% of prisoners reported that they had used drugs in prison in the month prior to the survey. 7 Treatment alternatives to incarceration for drug-dependent offenders involve diverting substance-abusing offenders from prison and jail into treatment and rehabilitation under judicial supervision. By increasing direct supervision of offenders, coordinating public resources, and expediting case processing, treatment alternatives to incarceration can help break the cycle of criminal behavior, alcohol and drug use, and imprisonment. The details of these alternative mechanisms vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but most involve suspension of the sentence provided the offender agrees voluntarily8 to participate in a drug treatment program. The judge in the case supervises the offender's progress in treatment, with the assistance of the prosecutor, social workers (case officers), treatment providers and probation officers. The judge has the power to end the treatment program if the offender violates its terms and conditions, in which case, the sentence will be handed down and the offender will be incarcerated. Drug treatment under judicial supervision is well established in countries like Canada, Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States, under the name of "drug courts" or "drug treatment courts". While the name may vary from place to place, and the conditions of participation may differ, the essential ingredients are as described above. For the purposes of this publication, we shall use the term "drug treatment courts" and "drug courts" interchangeably. At a number of recent seminars organized by the Inter-American Drug Abuse Control Commission (CICAD), Secretariat for Multidimensional Security of the Organization of American States9 , judges, prosecutors and health care personnel from Latin America, the Caribbean and Europe examined the feasibility of establishing treatment alternatives to incarceration for drug-dependent offenders, one form of which are drug courts. Some of the CICAD countries expressed great interest in setting up such programs, although civil law countries pointed to some difficulties they might face in working such alternatives into their penal codes and procedures. Countries where drug courts are already up and running spoke of how they had overcome obstacles and public skepticism, and stressed the need for good evaluations and research on the outcomes of drug treatment court programs in order to demonstrate their effectiveness. Through its program of City Partnerships on the improvement of Drug Treatment, CICAD has helped the courts of Suriname and the State of Nuevo Leon, Mexico, to set up new drug treatment courts, and continues to support the work of drug courts in Chile, Jamaica and other interested countries and cities. Belgium, where a new drug treatment court pilot has been created, has taken a collaborative approach, involving city officials and universities in the process. CICAD's exchange of good practices in recent years allowed countries where drug treatment courts are in place to share different approaches to drug court challenges. Key to the success of drug courts in the U.S. has been the ability to demonstrate to lawmakers and the public at large that drug court participants have lower rates of recidivism and lower rates of relapse into drug use than drug dependent offenders who are incarcerated. We therefore recommend that all drug treatment courts have a robust information system, to assure public acceptance of alternatives to incarceration for drug-dependent offenders as well as to secure future funding. Details: Washington, DC: Organization of American States, 2010. 152p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 20, 2018 at: http://www.cicad.oas.org/fortalecimiento_institucional/dtca/files/Establishing_DTC_%20Strategies_Experiences_Preliminary_Outcomes_volume%201.pdf Year: 2010 Country: Latin America URL: http://www.cicad.oas.org/fortalecimiento_institucional/dtca/files/Establishing_DTC_%20Strategies_Experiences_Preliminary_Outcomes_volume%201.pdf Shelf Number: 118587 Keywords: Drug Abuse and CrimeDrug CourtsDrug OffendersDrug Treatment CourtsProblem-Oriented Courts |
Author: Mackin, Juliette R. Title: St. Mary's County Juvenile Drug Court Outcome and Cost Evaluation Summary: St. Mary's County Juvenile Drug Court (JDC) was formed in 2003 in response to the increase in youth abuse of alcohol, marijuana, and cocaine and juvenile arrests involving drug charges. The program admitted its first participant in February 2004 and since that time has served over 100 participants. The JDC program has four phases that can be completed by participants in a period as short as 12 months. For the 80 drug court participants included in this study who had since exited the program, either successfully or unsuccessfully, the average number of days in the program was 341 (approximately 11 months). Graduates spent an average of 358 days in the program (almost 12 months), whereas non-graduates spent an average of 310 days in the program (approximately 10 months). Throughout the program, participants attend drug court hearings evaluating their progress, supervision meetings with a case manager, and group and individual counseling sessions. Their family members are also included in the program and offered services as needed. The program requires that the youth submit to drug testing, attend school or another educational or occupational activity, and complete a community project. The JDC uses incentives and sanctions to encourage positive behaviors. Youth must have been abstinent for a minimum of 120 consecutive days and complete all program requirements, including restitution, to graduate; at which time the youth is eligible to expunge the case from his/her court records. Three key policy questions of interest to program practitioners, researchers, and policymakers about drug courts were addressed in this study. 1. Does the JDC Reduce Substance Abuse Among Program Participants? YES: JDC participants showed reductions in drug use following entrance into the program 2. Does the JDC Program Reduce Recidivism in the Juvenile Justice System? YES: JDC participants had a decreased re-arrest rate from 75% at pre-JDC to 52% postJDC admission 2. Does the JDC Program Reduce Recidivism in the Juvenile Justice System? YES: JDC participants had a decreased re-arrest rate from 75% at pre-JDC to 52% postJDC admission 3. Does the JDC Result in Savings of Taxpayer Dollars? YES: Outcome costs for JDC participants showed substantive savings, when factored against the comparison group. Details: Portland, OR: NPC Research, 2010. 55p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed arch 20, 2018 at: https://ndcrc.org/resource/st-marys-county-juvenile-drug-court-outcome-and-cost-evaluation/ Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: https://ndcrc.org/resource/st-marys-county-juvenile-drug-court-outcome-and-cost-evaluation/ Shelf Number: 118419 Keywords: Cost-Benefit AnalysisDrug CourtDrug OffendersDrug Treatment CourtsJuvenile Drug CourtProblem-Solving Courts |
Author: Schleifer, Rebecca Title: Drug Courts in the Americas Summary: Executive Summary Drug courts in the United States are presented as an alternative to incarceration for people arrested for minor drug offenses where drug use is considered an underlying cause of the crime, thus theoretically serving as a tool for reducing prison and jail populations. The United States has nearly thirty years of experience with these courts, which have spread to all fifty states as well as US territories. Many countries around the world have looked to the United States' experience with drug courts as a model to be adopted, and the US government has also promoted them abroad as an alternative to incarceration. Perhaps the most organized efforts to expand this policy are those currently underway in Latin America and the Caribbean. The considerable influence of the United States on the region's drug control policies has certainly encouraged many of its countries to view drug courts as such an alternative, and the growing number of countries implementing them signals that these efforts are moving ahead with full force there. The Canadian government has also worked to support the expansion of drug courts, particularly in the Caribbean, but this report does not focus on the Canadian model. Proponents of drug courts assert that they are cost-effective; they reduce recidivism as well as time spent in detention (prison or jail); and they offer drug treatment as an alternative to incarceration to people whose drug use fuels their criminal activity. To evaluate these assertions, this report reviews key findings from the United States' experience which, despite major institutional, legal, and cultural differences, may usefully inform debates about drug courts, along with other alternatives to incarceration for low-level drug crimes, in other countries - in particular, in countries in Latin America and the Caribbean that have either established, or are looking to establish, drug courts. This report also presents a brief overview of where and how drug courts have been implemented in Latin America and the Caribbean to identify, to the extent possible, the different experiences and challenges faced by those countries. One main difficulty in this exercise is the limited availability of data that would allow strong parallels to be drawn. As is the case with the United States, with rare exceptions, drug courts in Latin America and Caribbean are not independently monitored and evaluated, and most were established relatively recently. Nevertheless, we have found the information available points to fundamental problems with the implementation of drug courts; the findings from the United States experience could, at the very least, offer insight into whether and under what circumstances they provide a more desirable option than incarceration. The US section is based on review of the existing research on drug courts and treatment for substance use disorders and evaluations of drug court efficacy conducted and published by the US government, major research institutions, advocacy organizations, and leading scholars whose work focuses on drug courts specifically or on criminal justice, substance use disorders, drug treatment, and drug policy more broadly. The Latin America and Caribbean sections are based on a review of their available information on drug courts (which is significantly more limited than the vast literature available in the United States), as well as on research on criminal justice, incarceration, drug treatment, and drug policy, responses to requests for information, and interviews. Also reviewed for each country are laws, official documents (including memoranda of understanding, government documents and web pages, judiciary reports, PowerPoint presentations made by authorities, and international organization documents, among others), studies and evaluations (when available), and, in a few cases, news reports. The substantial diversity among drug court models complicates efforts to evaluate their impact on the problems they aim to address, but our review of the existing evidence shows the claim that drug courts provide an alternative to incarceration is debatable. We found that drug courts, as implemented in the United States, are a costly, cumbersome intervention that has limited, if any, impact on reducing incarceration. Indeed, for many participants, they may have the opposite effect by increasing criminal justice supervision and subjecting those who fail to graduate to harsher penalties than they might otherwise have received, thus becoming an adjunct rather than an alternative to incarceration. Moreover, evidence about their effectiveness in reducing cost, recidivism, and time spent in prison is mixed. The financial and human costs to drug court participants are also steep and disproportionately burdensome to the poor and racial minorities. The evidence also does not support drug courts as an appropriate public health intervention. Drug court judges are empowered to make treatment decisions that should be the domain of health care professionals, choosing from limited or counterproductive options that may threaten the health and lives of participants as well as expose confidential information about their health and drug use. One of the main stated objectives of drug courts is to ensure access to comprehensive substance abuse treatment for those who need it. Our review of the available evidence shows, however, that, in practice, many drug court participants do not need treatment; at the same time, treatment may be unavailable to or inappropriate for those who do. Evidence we have found indicates the resort to drug courts may be an appropriate measure for certain offenders - that is, people charged with serious crimes linked to their drug dependence who would otherwise serve prison terms. What is often not considered is that most drug courts do not meet this definition. More important, we must remember that drug dependence treatment is a type of medical care. People who are dependent on drugs have a right, under international human rights law, to relevant health care services that are available, physically and economically accessible without discrimination, gender appropriate, culturally and ethically acceptable, designed to respect confidentiality, scientifically and medically appropriate, and of good quality. By mediating treatment through the criminal justice system, drug courts aggressively insert the penal system into people's private and family lives and into their decisions about their health and medical care, reproducing and perpetuating the criminalization of people who use drugs and those involved in low-level drug-related crimes. As an overall framework through which to think about drug courts, we should not lose sight of the fact that no individuals, regardless of their criminal records, should be punished for their medical conditions, nor should they have to allow courts to make their medical decisions for them or rely on the criminal justice system for access to treatment that could perhaps have prevented their incarceration in the first place. The primary lessons learned from US drug courts that should be considered by other countries in the Americas as they look at this model are the following: Drug courts are not an alternative to incarceration: - Defendants remain in criminal proceedings at every step in the drug court program, risk incarceration, both as a sanction while in the program and for failure to complete it, and, in some cases, spend more time behind bars than they would have had they chosen to pursue criminal justice proceedings instead of drug court. Drug courts may increase the number of people under supervision of the criminal justice system in the following ways: - By requiring them to plead guilty as a condition of getting access to drug court. - By processing discretionary crimes that police might have not enforced had drug court not been an option. - By mediating treatment through the criminal justice system. Drug courts are not a rights-based health intervention: - Drug court judges maintain control over treatment decisions for drug court participants, in some cases ordering treatment that is at odds with accepted medical practice. - Participants who fail drug court risk incarceration and face abrupt interruption of treatment and other health risks attendant to incarceration. - Access to treatment comes at the cost of forfeiting fundamental legal and human rights. Drug courts may perpetuate racial bias in the criminal justice system: - Drug courts point to drug dependence as the factor that puts people at risk of criminal justice involvement, ignoring the racial bias in drug policing and prosecution in the United States that leads African Americans and Latinos into long-term criminal justice supervision at much higher rates than their white counterparts. Further complicating this scenario is the concerted effort to export drug courts as a model that should be adopted by other countries. Despite the evidence from the United States experience cited above, countries in Latin America and the Caribbean have embraced drug courts as a promising solution to the over-incarceration problem that plagues the region. This development is problematic not only because governments in the region apparently are not conducting proper investigations before adopting drug courts as a public policy model, but also because the very specific social, economic, and political context of Latin American and Caribbean countries immediately complicates the adoption of public policies designed by other, more developed countries with different legal systems. The lack, for example, of scientifically and medically appropriate treatment options and the reliance on private providers is a serious issue in the Latin America and Caribbean region, where numerous cases of abuse and human rights violations by treatment providers have been documented. Furthermore, health systems do not have enough capacity to provide health and social services to all the people who need them; in these cases, private and religious institutions with scarce knowledge about drug dependence, treatment, and medical standards are used. A reliance on abstinence-based treatment programs and drug testing is also of concern. On the criminal justice side of the issue, many drug courts in the region still focus on simple drug possession as a crime, contributing to the criminalization and stigmatization of people who use drugs. Research about drug courts in Latin America and the Caribbean also underscores the need for a more rigorous data management system that can provide sufficient information for a comprehensive assessment of their effectiveness in the region. Currently, research is too dependent on anecdotal evidence and not focused on evidence-based analysis. This report's main findings about drug treatment courts in Latin America are as follows: - Generally speaking, detailed and current data are lacking in almost all the Latin American countries studied, and independent evaluations are scarce. - The model is more advanced in three countries (Chile, Mexico, and Costa Rica) and in a pilot phase in four others (Argentina, Panama, Dominican Republic, and Colombia). Ecuador and Peru are also considering whether to establish drug courts. - Most programs in the region were established in 2012 or later, except for the Chilean model, which was implemented in 2004. - Drug courts in Latin America function as specific programs within the legal jurisdictions where they have been established rather than as special courts. They function under the conditional suspension of criminal proceedings mechanism and adopt a pre-plea approach that diverts participants before conviction. - Candidates must meet two basic requirements to enter the programs: they must be prosecuted for an eligible offense, and they must receive a diagnosis of problematic drug use related to the commission of the crime. - Only people charged with what the local jurisdictions consider to be minor and/or nonviolent rimes (charges carrying sentences of no more than three to five years in prison) are accepted in the programs. - Many programs carry harsh penalties as sanctions during the course of treatment. - In most programs, participants must be first-time offenders. - In contrast to the US experience, Latin American drug treatment courts graduate few participants. - The drug courts in the region most commonly address crimes against property, domestic violence, and drug possession. Based on available information, simple possession is one of the most frequent crimes in drug court programs that include drug offenses (those in Chile, Dominican Republic, Mexico, and Panama). - Most participants in drug court programs are male. - Juvenile courts have been established in Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, and Mexico, and other countries plan to create such programs. - Much as in the United States, participation in Latin American drug courts typically requires that participants remain drug free and sometimes sanction them for positive drug tests. - Most countries clearly lack the capacity to provide appropriate treatment to all program participants. This report's main findings about drug treatment courts in the English-speaking Caribbean are as follows: - Much as in Latin America, detailed and current data are lacking in almost all the Caribbean countries studied, and no independent evaluations of drug courts have been done. The information available is mostly from government sources. - The earliest drug court programs in the Caribbean were established in 2001 in Bermuda and Jamaica (making these the oldest programs in the Latin America and Caribbean region), with other countries (the Cayman Islands, Trinidad and Tobago, Barbados, and Belize) establishing drug courts in 2012 or later. - The drug court model is more advanced in three countries (Bermuda, Jamaica, and the Cayman Islands) and in an initial phase in three others (Trinidad and Tobago, Barbados, and Belize). The Bahamas seems to be interested in establishing drug courts. - Drug courts in the Caribbean are not specialized courts as in the United States but, rather, operate as specific programs under local lower (parish/magistrates) courts, as in Latin America. The drug treatment courts in Caribbean countries operate under different legal structures. Bermuda, the Cayman Islands, and Jamaica have enacted specific legislation, while Barbados, Belize, and Trinidad and Tobago have signed memoranda of understanding with the Organization of American States' Inter-American Drug Abuse Control Commission (CICAD). The Canadian government has directly supported the implementation of drug courts in a few Caribbean countries. - The basic requirements for admission to drug court are to be charged with an eligible offense and receive a diagnosis of problematic drug use related to the commission of the crime. - Only people charged with what the local jurisdictions consider to be minor and/or nonviolent crimes are accepted in the programs, with the exception of Jamaica, where people charged with certain more serious crimes may be eligible. Participants must be first-time offenders. - Jamaica is the only country in the English-speaking Caribbean where a guilty plea is not a requirement for admission. - The information available suggests that few participants graduate from Caribbean drug courts. - The drug courts in the region most commonly address crimes against property and drug possession. Based on available information, simple possession is one of the most frequent crimes in drug court programs that include drug offenses. - Most participants in drug court programs are male. - Juvenile courts have been established in Jamaica, and reports indicate the Cayman Islands and Trinidad and Tobago are exploring the possibility of establishing such programs. - Many programs carry harsh penalties as sanctions during the course of treatment. - Participation in Caribbean drug courts typically requires that participants remain drug free, and they rely on drug testing to assess compliance, with sanctions imposed for positive drug tests. - Information about treatment standards and options available is scarce, but our research suggests most countries in the region lack the capacity to provide appropriate treatment to all program participants. Undoubtedly, the creation of alternatives to the criminal justice system for drug-related offenses is urgently needed, and countries should focus on moving away from an excessive reliance on incarceration as a panacea. Nonetheless, a close examination of the United States as a case study does not support the drug court model as the most appropriate solution for governments genuinely focused on addressing this issue, since in some respects it continues to criminalize drug consumption and prioritize a criminal approach to drug dependence over a health approach. Hence, this report presents a series of recommendations that should be seriously considered by countries concerned with mass incarceration and intent on moving away from over-reliance on criminal justice responses to drug use. We developed the recommendations with two groups in mind: countries that have not established drug courts or in which they are in early stages, and countries in which drug courts are more established and their continuation is overwhelmingly supported, thus making it difficult (but not impossible) to address the issues raised here. Details: New York, NY: Social Science Research Council, 2018. 126p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 20, 2019 at: https://www.ssrc.org/publications/view/drug-courts-in-the-americas/ Year: 2018 Country: International URL: https://s3.amazonaws.com/ssrc-cdn1/crmuploads/new_publication_3/DSD_Drug+Courts_English_online+final.pdf Shelf Number: 154312 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCaribbeanData Management SystemDrug CourtsDrug CrimesDrug OffensesDrug PossessionDrug Treatment CourtsInter-American Drug Abuse Control Commission (CICAJail PopulationLatin AmericaPrison PopulationPublic Health InterventionRacial BiasRecidivismSubstance UseSupervisionTreatment |