Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 30, 2024 Tue
Time: 2:29 am
Time: 2:29 am
Results for problem solving courts
22 results foundAuthor: Jones, Craig Title: Intensive Judicial Supervision and Drug Court Outcomes: Interim Findings from a Randomised Controlled Trial Summary: Aim: To assess whether intensive judicial supervision (IJS) during the early stages of drug court reduces drug use and sanctioning rates. Method: The study employed a non-blinded randomised controlled trial to test the effect of IJS on early-phase substance use and sanctioning rates. All participants accepted onto the Parramatta Drug Court program between March 2010 and March 2011 were randomly allocated into either an IJS or supervision as usual (SAU) condition. The IJS group had phase 1 of their program extended from three to four months and appeared before the judge two times per week during phase 1. The SAU group appeared once per week for three months during phase 1. Results: Participants in the IJS group were significantly less likely to return positive urinalysis tests and had a significantly greater number of episodes of abstinence than participants in the SAU group. IJS participants were less likely to accrue sanctions than participants in the SAU group. There was no significant difference in the odds of having sanctions waived or having to serve sanctions in prison between the two groups. Conclusion: These interim findings provide strong evidence that intensively supervising drug court participants in the early phases reduces early-phase substance use and sanctioning rates. Details: Sydney: New South Wales Bureau o0f Crime Statistics and Research, 2011. 16p. Source: Internet Resource: Contemporary Issues in Crime and Justice, No. 152: Accessed January 10, 2012 at: http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/bocsar/ll_bocsar.nsf/vwFiles/CJB152.pdf/$file/CJB152.pdf Year: 2011 Country: Australia URL: http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/bocsar/ll_bocsar.nsf/vwFiles/CJB152.pdf/$file/CJB152.pdf Shelf Number: 123544 Keywords: Drug CourtsDrug Offenders (Australia)Intensive Judicial SupervisionProblem Solving CourtsRandomized Controlled Trial |
Author: Roman, John K. Title: Impact and Cost-Benefit Analysis of the Anchorage Wellness Court Summary: The primary goal of this research is to estimate the costs and benefits of serving misdemeanor DUI offenders in the Anchorage Wellness Court (AWC), a specialized court employing principles of therapeutic jurisprudence. The Urban Institute conducted an impact and a cost-benefit analysis (CBA) to estimate the effectiveness of the AWC. The study focused on the impact of the program on reducing the prevalence and incidence of new criminal justice system contact. Costs were collected to estimate the opportunity cost of the AWC. Recidivism variables were monetized to estimate the benefits from crime reductions. Outcomes were observed at 24, 30, 36, and 48 months. Details: Washington, DC: Justice Policy Center, Urban Institute, 2008. 73p. Source: Research Report: Internet Resource: Accessed on January 27, 2012 at http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/411746_anchorage_wellness.pdf Year: 2008 Country: United States URL: http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/411746_anchorage_wellness.pdf Shelf Number: 123796 Keywords: Alcohol Courts (Alaska)Cost-Benefit AnalysisProblem Solving CourtsRecidivism |
Author: Porter, Rachel Title: What Makes a Court Problem-Solving? Universal Performance Indicators for Problem-Solving Justice Summary: This report identifies a set of universal performance indicators for specialized “problem-solving courts” and related experiments in problem-solving justice. Traditional performance indicators related to caseload and processing efficiency can assist court managers in monitoring case flow, assigning cases to judges, and adhering to budgetary and statutory due process guidelines. Yet, these indicators are ultimately limited in scope. Faced with the recent explosion of problemsolving courts and other experiments seeking to address the underlying problems of litigants, victims, and communities, there is an urgent need to complement traditional court performance indicators with ones of a problem-solving nature. With funding from the State Justice Institute (SJI), the Center for Court Innovation conducted an investigation designed to achieve three purposes. The first was to establish a set of universal performance indicators against which to judge the effectiveness of specialized problem-solving courts, of which there are currently more than 3,000 nationwide. The second purpose was to develop performance indicators specific to each of the four major problem-solving court models: drug, mental health, domestic violence, and community courts. The third purpose was to assist traditional court managers by establishing a more limited set of indicators, designed to capture problem-solving activity throughout the courthouse, not only within a specialized court context. Details: New York: Center for Court Innovation; Sacramento: Judicial Council of California, 2010. 75p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 28, 2012 at http://www.courtinnovation.org/sites/default/files/What_Makes_A_Court_P_S.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.courtinnovation.org/sites/default/files/What_Makes_A_Court_P_S.pdf Shelf Number: 125093 Keywords: CourtsEvaluative StudiesProblem Solving Courts |
Author: Cahill, Meagan Title: Interim Report on the Truancy Court Diversion Program in the District of Columbia, 2011–12 Summary: The Truancy Court Diversion Program (TCDP) is a voluntary program for at risk students and their parents. It combines involvement of a Family Court judge in group and individual sessions with service provision. During the 2011-12 school year, a pilot TCDP was implemented at Kramer Middle School (M.S.) and at Johnson M.S. The program attempts to simultaneously address participants’ motivations and attitudes, as well as barriers to attendance. Attitudes are addressed by the involvement of judges in the program, whose role includes meeting with individual families, and via the program’s curriculum. The curriculum is intended to promote the personal responsibility of students and parents; increase parents’ level of positive involvement with their children and the school; improve attitudes toward school achievement, graduation, and career aspirations; and improve parent-child communication. Barriers to attendance are addressed through family needs assessments, case management, and service referrals provided by a community collaborative and coordinated though a meeting with the judge and program team. The approach of the program is to address the “whole child.” This interim report is focused on implementation. The report reviews the logic and design of the program, implementation successes and challenges, and makes recommendations to enhance the program and its implementation. A final report will also examine the services delivered through the program. Key findings from the pilot TCDP include implementation challenges as well as some encouraging findings. Implementation findings include: • Successful program implementation requires a strong partnership between the courts and schools. • The current pilot encountered challenges concerning recruitment and program participation. • A limiting factor to integrated service provision in the current pilot was the lack of regular team meetings to assess family needs and services as well as academic progress, or a strong structure for regular information-sharing. Despite such implementation issues, the program seems to have improved attitudes and school aspirations of students, as well as parent-child communication, for those students and parents who participated regularly. The program also was successful in reaching needy families with services. This interim report is not able to speak to the program’s success in improving attendance. Based on our study of the program’s implementation in this pilot, we recommend the following modifications to strengthen the program: • Use prior year’s school attendance as eligibility criteria. • Formalize additional program eligibility criteria. • Strengthen the use of incentives and consequences to improve program attendance. • Provide increased training for all partners, especially judges new to the program. • Allow sufficient time for planning, recruitment, and intake prior to beginning weekly program sessions. • Hold regular team meetings. Several additional modifications would be needed in order to expand the program designed to address truancy more broadly, rather than just the truancy of a few individual students. Because each TCDP is inherently limited to 10 to 15 participating students per school per semester, expansion to address considerably more students involves expansion to more schools. To achieve consistent implementation across multiple schools would require: • More formalization of the program, including eligibility and recruitment criteria, program curriculum, procedures for the judge-family individual meetings, and incentives and consequences for program attendance. • Dedicated resources, including a formal program director. • Additional support from both the school and the District of Columbia Public Schools (DCPS). In conclusion, the TCDP seems to hold promise for positive intervention in the lives of students at risk for chronic truancy and their parents, and improving their school attendance and academic performance. However, the pilot suggests that program implementation could be considerably improved, and that structural changes would be necessary for the TCDP to have the potential to impact the truancy of a more substantial number of students. Details: Washington, DC: Urban Institute, District of Columbia Crime Policy Institute, 2012. 33p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 5, 2012 at: http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/412664-Interim-Report-on-the-Truancy-Court-Diversion-Program.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/412664-Interim-Report-on-the-Truancy-Court-Diversion-Program.pdf Shelf Number: 126561 Keywords: At-risk YouthProblem Solving CourtsSchool AttendanceTruancy (U.S.) |
Author: Virginia. Supreme Court Title: Evaluation of Virginia's Drug Treatment Court Programs (Phase 1) Summary: The Office of the Executive Secretary (OES) was awarded a U.S. Department of Justice Grant (# 2002-DC-BX-0034) to conduct comprehensive statewide evaluations of Virginia’s drug court programs. When the grant was awarded in 2002, there were fourteen drug treatment court programs in Virginia. Twelve additional drug treatment court programs have been implemented since that time. Of the current twenty-six operational drug treatment court programs, thirteen are Circuit Court (adult felony) programs, two adult misdemeanor (DUI and misdemeanor drug) drug courts, eight juvenile drug court programs, and three family drug court programs. This report presents the results of two evaluation efforts: (1) a process evaluation reporting myriad facts about program policies and procedures and descriptions of Virginia’s adult, juvenile, and family drug court participants, and (2) an outcome evaluation reporting drug court participant retention rates and graduate and non-graduate (terminated or withdrawn participants) recidivism rates. Also included in the outcome evaluation is an analysis of the severity and chronicity of offenses committed by participants prior to their drug court admittance. Severity and chronicity assessments were conducted to examine whether drug courts accept only “light weight” offenders or more serious and chronic offenders. In the coming year, five other evaluations are planned to give additional information about Virginia’s drug court programs: (1) a quasi-experimental impact study comparing drug court results with the outcomes of drug offenders in matched control groups; (2) qualitative staff and participant assessments of operational drug court programs; (3) a Delphi study of treatment components of Virginia’s drug court programs; (4) a cost assessment study; and (5) a summative analysis of participant variables related to successful drug court outcomes. Each type of drug addiction (alcoholism, crack addiction, narcotics addition, etc.) has different treatment protocols and different rates of success. In addition to differences in treatment needs, participant profiles vary between Virginia’s drug court programs. For example, a post-dispositional program may accept only probation violators who have exhausted other sentencing alternatives and are facing lengthy incarceration. A predispositional drug court may catch addicts earlier in their criminal history. Another drug court may accept homeless people or those with mental illness as well as addiction. Because of the wide variability in participant populations among Virginia’s drug courts, the reader is urged to resist comparing one drug court program with another. Rather than compare programs, it is important to ask the “big picture” questions: (1) do drug courts reduce subsequent drug-fueled crime overall?; (2) what is the longevity of program impact on sobriety and criminal offending?; (3) which program elements increase program success measures of increased retention and reduced recidivism?; and, (4) which participant profiles are most amenable to success in drug treatment courts? Virginia drug court programs require offenders to plead guilty prior to drug court admittance. Some drug court programs are primarily pre-dispositional (facts are found sufficient for conviction, adjudication is deferred pending program outcome, and, with program graduation, admitting charges may be reduced or dismissed) while other programs are primarily post-dispositional (participant is found guilty, sentenced, and drug court success may earn reduction or dismissal of sentence). Newer drug court programs tend to follow the post-dispositional model. Of the operational adult drug court programs, two are predispositional, six are post-dispositional, and seven are a combination of the pre-dispositional and post-dispositional models. Of the 3216 Virginians admitted to adult felony drug court programs between November 1995 and December 2004, a total of 2002 have graduated or are currently enrolled in the programs. The resulting retention rate is 62.25%. Juvenile drug courts have admitted 371 youths. Of this total, 217 have graduated or are currently enrolled resulting in a retention rate of 58.49%. An additional 66 addicted parents have been admitted to Virginia’s family drug treatment court programs. Twenty-seven have graduated or are currently enrolled for a retention rate of 40.9%. Retention is an important benefit of drug court programs. Lower recidivism rates correlate with longer periods of drug treatment. Drug court participants stay in treatment longer and have higher program completion rates than other criminal justiceinvolved addicts who voluntarily enter substance abuse treatment. Virginia drug court participants stay a minimum of twelve months in judicially-supervised treatment programs. Research indicates that addicts who stay in treatment over a year have twice the recovery rates as those who fail to stay in treatment at least a year. National studies indicate that recidivism rates of drug court graduates are half or less than half the recidivism rates of other addicted offenders not participating in drug courts. The 2004 Virginia drug court impact study included 2,056 adult drug court participants. Of these, 647 participants have graduated from a drug court program. Of the total number of graduates, 103 have been arrested for felony offenses after drug court graduation. This represents a statewide felony recidivism rate of 15.9% for adult drug court graduates. There were 59 drug court graduates who had misdemeanor arrests resulting in a misdemeanor recidivism rate of 9.1%. Recidivism rates of drug court non-graduates were also examined. Non-graduates include former drug court participants who withdrew or were involuntarily terminated from drug court programs. Of the total sample of 2,056, 918 former participants are drug court non-graduates. Of these, 303 were arrested for felony offenses after leaving drug court. This results in a felony recidivism rate for non-graduates of 33.0%. There were 72 non-graduates who were arrested for subsequent misdemeanor offenses. This represents a 7.8% misdemeanor recidivism rate for nongraduates. It is apparent that adult drug court graduates have significantly lower felony recidivism than non-graduates. Details: Richmond, VA: Supreme Court of Virginia, 2005(?). 128p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 17, 2013 at: http://leg2.state.va.us/dls/h&sdocs.nsf/fc86c2b17a1cf388852570f9006f1299/82c03793ce42b31785256ec500553b91/$FILE/RD40.pdf Year: 2005 Country: United States URL: http://leg2.state.va.us/dls/h&sdocs.nsf/fc86c2b17a1cf388852570f9006f1299/82c03793ce42b31785256ec500553b91/$FILE/RD40.pdf Shelf Number: 128395 Keywords: Drug Courts (Virginia, U.S.)Drug OffendersProblem Solving Courts |
Author: Carey, Shannon M. Title: San Joaquin DUI Monitoring Court Process and Outcome Evaluation. Final Report Summary: For the past 20 years in the United States, there has been a trend toward guiding nonviolent drug and alcohol offenders into treatment rather than incarceration. The original drug court model links the resources of the criminal system and substance treatment programs to increase treat-ment participation and decrease criminal recidivism. Drug treatment courts are one of the fastest growing programs designed to reduce drug abuse and criminality in nonviolent offenders in the nation. The first drug court was implemented in Miami, Florida, in 1989. As of December 2010, there were 2,633 drug courts including 1,881 adult and juvenile drug courts, 343 family courts, and 409 other types of drug courts in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands (NDCI, 2011). In a typical drug court program, participants are closely supervised by a judge who is supported by a team of agency representatives that operate outside of their traditional adversarial roles. These include addiction treatment providers, district attorneys, public defenders, law enforce-ment officers, and parole and probation officers who work together to provide needed services to drug court participants. Generally, there is a high level of supervision and a standardized treatment program for all the participants within a particular court (including phases that each participant must pass through by meeting certain goals). Supervision and treatment may also include regular and frequent drug testing. More recently, over the past 10 years, the drug court model has been expanded to include other populations (e.g., juveniles) and other systems (e.g., child welfare and mental health). The model has also been used with a special focus on specific types of offenders (e.g., DWI offenders). DWI courts specifically target repeat driving-while-intoxicated (DWI) offenders with the main goal of protecting public safety. Benefits to society take the form of reductions in crime and fu-ture DWIs, resulting in reduced costs to taxpayers and increased public safety. DWI courts, specifically, have been shown to be effective in reducing recidivism (both of DWIs and other crimes) and in reducing taxpayer costs due to positive outcomes for DWI court participants, in-cluding fewer re-arrests, less time in jail and less time in prison (Carey, Fuller, Kissick, Taylor, & Zold-Kilbourn, 2008). In 2008, San Joaquin County implemented a system change where all repeat DUI offenders in the largest judicial district (mainly the City of Stockton) are required to participate in a DUI Monitor-ing Court program. Because this program was designed to treat all repeat DUI offenders, and be-cause the drug court model is designed to treat high-risk/high-need offenders (in particular, drug- or alcohol-dependent individuals) the San Joaquin DUI Monitoring Court (SJDMC) does not fol-low all tenants of the drug court model for all participants. Many of the repeat DUI offenders in this program are not dependent on alcohol or other drugs and do not need the high level of supervision and treatment that would be appropriate for high-risk/high-need offenders. For this reason, there are two tracks to the San Joaquin DUI Monitoring Court. Track 1 is the “monitoring track” where participants are required to come to court infrequently to report on progress in completing the terms of their probation, including DMV requirements to qualify to get their license returned. Track 2 is for those participants who demonstrate that they are unable to comply with Track 1 re-quirements and are assessed as needing drug and alcohol treatment. Track 2 follows a drug court model more closely. The SJDMC program is described in detail in Chapter 1 of this report. For the evaluation of the SJDMC, the court was interested in learning about the effectiveness of this program in reducing DUI recidivism and protecting public safety and, if it proved to be effec-tive, wanted a detailed process evaluation that would allow other interested jurisdictions to follow the model in implementing a similar program. Chapter 1 of this report describes the process eval-uation methods and provides a detailed description of the program. Chapter 2 presents the meth-ods and results of the outcome evaluation. The process evaluation was also designed to provide the SJDMC program with suggestions for process improvement. Chapter 3 compares the SJDMC practices with the research-based drug court best practices and provides recommendations for en-hancing Track 2 of the program. Details: Portland, OR: NPC Research, 2012. 60p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 17, 2013 at: http://www.centurycouncil.org/sites/default/files/reports/California-Evaluation-1.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.centurycouncil.org/sites/default/files/reports/California-Evaluation-1.pdf Shelf Number: 128398 Keywords: Driving Under the Influence (U.S.)Drugged DrivingDrunk DrivingProblem Solving Courts |
Author: Carey, Shannon M. Title: Colorado Statewide DWI and Drug Court Process Assessment and Outcome Evaluation. Final Report Summary: Drug courts are designed to guide offenders identified as drug-addicted into treatment that will reduce drug dependence and improve the quality of life for the offenders and their families. Benefits to society include substantial reductions in crime, resulting in reduced costs to taxpayers and increased public safety. In late 2011, NPC Research was contracted by the State of Colorado Judicial Department to conduct a statewide process assessment and outcome evaluation of Colorado’s adult drug courts (ADC) and DUI courts. The process study included an examination of Colorado’s drug court practices in relation to the 10 Key Components of drug court (NADCP, 1997) and research-based best practices for drug courts. Recommendations for enhancements to the programs were provided. The outcome evaluation included an examination of the characteristics of the participant population who entered Colorado’s adult drug courts and DUI courts as well as an examination of whether there were participant characteristics that would predict graduation or unsuccessful termination from the program. In addition, analyses were performed to determine the graduation rate for Colorado’s drug courts and whether programs were graduating their participants within the intended time frame. Finally, the outcome evaluation included a criminal justice recidivism study comparing arrest rates and charges for drug court participants before and after participation in the program. The main purpose of the overall evaluation was to answer four key policy and research questions. Specifically, 1. What are the components of the problem-solving courts (e.g., who is on the drug court team, what practices are Colorado’s drug courts engaging in, and how do they relate to program outcomes)? 2. What are the components of the probation program within the problem-solving court? 3. What are the significant characteristics of participants who have entered Colorado’s drug court programs? What are the demographics? How do adult drug court and DUI drug court populations differ? What are the characteristics of the drug court participants who successfully complete the program compared to those who terminate from the program? 4. How successful are the problem-solving courts? What are the graduation rates of Colora-do’s drug courts? Are the drug courts graduating participants within the intended time frame? What are the recidivism rates of Colorado’s drug courts? Details: Portland, OR: NPC Research, 2012. 110p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 17, 2013 at: http://www.npcresearch.com/Files/CO_Statewide_Process_Assessment_and_Outcome_Evaluation_0912.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.npcresearch.com/Files/CO_Statewide_Process_Assessment_and_Outcome_Evaluation_0912.pdf Shelf Number: 128399 Keywords: Drug Courts (Colorado, U.S.)Drug OffendersProblem Solving Courts |
Author: Carey, Shannon M. Title: Marion County Fostering Attachment Treatment Court Process, Outcome and Cost Evaluation. Final Report Summary: For the past 20 years in the United States, there has been a trend toward guiding nonviolent drug offenders into treatment rather than incarceration. The original drug court model links the resources of the criminal system and substance treatment programs to inrease treatment participation and decrease criminal recidivism. Drug treatment courts are one of the fastest growing programs designed to reduce drug abuse and criminality in nonviolent of-fenders in the nation. The first drug court was implemented in Miami, Florida, in 1989. As of May 2009, there were 2,037 adult and juvenile drug courts active in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and Guam, with another 214 being planned (National Association of Drug Court Professionals, 2009). Drug courts have been shown to be effective in reducing recidivism (GAO, 2005) and in reduc-ing taxpayer costs due to positive outcomes for drug court participants (including fewer re-arrests, less time in jail, and less time in prison) (Carey & Finigan, 2004; Carey, Finigan, Waller, Lucas, & Crumpton, 2005). Some drug courts have even been shown to cost less to operate than processing offenders through business-as-usual (Carey & Finigan, 2004; Carey et al., 2005). More recently, in approximately the last 10 years, the drug court model has been expanded to include other types of offenders (e.g., juveniles and parents with child welfare cases). Family Drug Courts (FDCs) work with substance-abusing parents with child welfare cases. There have been a modest number studies of these other types of courts including some recidivism and cost studies of juvenile courts (e.g., Carey, Marchand, & Waller, 2006) and a national study of family drug courts (Green, Furrer, Worcel, Burrus, & Finigan, 2007). Many of these studies show prom-ising outcomes for these newer applications of the drug court model. However, the number of family drug court studies in particular has been small, and to date, there have been no detailed cost studies of family drug courts. In late 2008, NPC Research was contracted by the Oregon State Police and the Criminal Justice Commission to conduct the third year evaluations of 11 drug courts funded by the Byrne Methamphetamine Reduction Grant Project. NPC conducted Drug Court Process Foundations evaluations of 11 Oregon adult and family drug court sites (examining the programs‟ adherence to best practices within the 10 Key Components, with adjustments for the special family drug court population of parents with child welfare cases). In addition, as a part of this project, NPC per-formed full process, outcome and cost-benefit evaluations of two family drug court sites, the Ma-rion and Jackson County Family Drug Court Programs. This evaluation was funded under the Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law Enforce-ment Assistance Grant Program: Byrne Methamphetamine Reduction Grant Project 07-001. This summary contains process, outcome and cost evaluation results for the Marion County Fostering Attachment Family Treatment Court (FATC). Details: Portland, OR: NPC Research, 2010. 97p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 17, 2013 at: http://www1.spa.american.edu/justice/documents/3905.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www1.spa.american.edu/justice/documents/3905.pdf Shelf Number: 128401 Keywords: Drug Courts (U.S.)Drug OffendersDrug TreatmentProblem Solving Courts |
Author: Kissick, Katherine Title: Bexar County Felony Drug Court: Process, Outcome, and Cost Evaluation Final Report Summary: Drug courts are designed to guide offenders identified as drug-addicted into treatment that will reduce drug dependence and improve the quality of life for the offenders and their families. Benefits to society include substantial reductions in crime, resulting in reduced costs to taxpayers and increased public safety. In the typical drug court program, participants are closely supervised by a judge who is supported by a team of agency representatives operating outside of their traditional roles. The team typically includes a drug court coordinator, case managers, substance abuse treatment providers, prosecuting attorneys, defense attorneys, law enforcement officers, and parole and probation officers who work together to provide needed services to drug court participants. Prosecuting and defense attorneys modify their traditional adversarial roles to support the treatment and supervision needs of program participants. Drug court programs blend the resources, expertise and interests of a variety of jurisdictions and agencies. Drug courts have been shown to be effective in reducing criminal recidivism (GAO, 2005), improving the psycho-social functioning of offenders (Kralstein, 2010), and reducing taxpayer costs due to positive outcomes for drug court participants (including fewer re-arrests, less time in jail and less time in prison) (Carey & Finigan, 2004; Carey, Finigan, Waller, Lucas, & Crumpton, 2005). Some drug courts have been shown to cost less to operate than processing offenders through business-as-usual in the court system (Carey & Finigan). The Bexar County Felony Drug Court was implemented in January 2004. This program, which is designed to last for 18 months, takes only post-conviction participants. The general program population consists of nonviolent offenders currently on probation assessed as high risk and high needs. It has a capacity to serve approximately 225 participants at one time. In 2009, the Bexar County Felony Drug Court (BCFDC) received a program enhancement grant from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). The program is using this enhancement grant in working towards three goals: 1) obtaining "on-demand" residential beds intended to treat 50 participants each year, 2) receiving training and technical assistance to improve the program, and 3) conducting a program evaluation including process, out-come and cost components. NPC Research performed an initial process assessment of the program as part of a technical assistance program through SAMHSA and completed a report in May of 2010. Midway through the 3-year grant, the BCFDC hired NPC Research to conduct a full process, outcome, and cost evaluation of the program. The process evaluation included in this report provides updated information from the assessment conducted in 2010 as well any changes made to the program since. Details: Portland, OR: NPC Research, 2013. 91p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 4, 2013 at: http://www.npcresearch.com/Files/Bexar_County_Final_Report_0913.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.npcresearch.com/Files/Bexar_County_Final_Report_0913.pdf Shelf Number: 131736 Keywords: Cost-Benefit AnalysisDrug Abuse TreatmentDrug Courts (U.S.)Felony Drug OffendersProblem Solving Courts |
Author: Sarteschi, Christine Marie Title: Assessing the Effectiveness of Mental Health Courts: A Meta-Analysis of Clinical and Recidivism Outcomes Summary: Mental health courts (MHC) are treatment oriented court diversion programs that seek to redirect individuals with severe mental illnesses (SMI), such as those with schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and major depression, who have committed a crime, into court mandated treatment programs instead of the criminal justice system. It is believed that individuals with SMI commit and re-commit offenses as a result of their illness and if directed to the appropriate treatments, would be less likely to offend. Currently, there are over 150 MHCs nationally operating in at least 35 states, yet a gap remains in the scientific literature concerning their ability to reduce recidivism and clinical outcomes. To determine their effectiveness in reducing recidivism and improving clinical outcomes, the first meta-analytic study of these courts was conducted. A systematic search of the literature through May 2008, as well as an e-mail survey, generated 23 studies representing 129 outcomes with over 11,000 MHC participants. Aggregate effects for recidivism revealed a mean effect size of -0.52. MHCs had a small to medium positive effect of 0.28 on a participant's quality of life. Among quasi-experimental studies, there was a small effect size of - 0.14 for clinical outcomes indicating a positive improvement. Based on this analysis, MHCs are effective interventions for reducing recidivism and improving clinical and quality of life outcomes. Details: Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh, 2009. 166p. Source: Internet Resource: Dissertation: Accessed March 14, 2014 at: http://d-scholarship.pitt.edu/9275/1/CMSarteschiAug2009Dissertation.pdf Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: http://d-scholarship.pitt.edu/9275/1/CMSarteschiAug2009Dissertation.pdf Shelf Number: 131917 Keywords: Mental Health CourtsMental Health TreatmentMentally Ill OffendersProblem Solving Courts |
Author: Young, Nancy K. Title: Needs Assessment Report Summary: The purpose of this Family Drug Court Needs Assessment (FDC-NA) is to identify the training and technical assistance (TTA) needs of Family Drug Courts (FDC). The Center for Children and Families Futures (CCFF) designed and developed methods to collect and analyze data from multiple sources to identify FDC TTA needs. Primary data collection and analyses were conducted in different formats: - FDC TTA online survey-which asked FDC practitioners to rate the extent they were experiencing barriers in implementing key FDC strategies and identify specific barriers and TTA needs of their FDC - In-depth stakeholder interview with State and Federal stakeholders-to gather their input on the TTA needs of FDCs and feedback on preliminary findings of the FDC-NA Secondary analysis was conducted from three data sources: 1) Technical Assistance (TA) Tracker-which is a web-based data system used by CCFF to manage and analyze the content of previously received TTA requests 2) Post-webinar online surveys-completed by attendees from the FDC Learning Academy regarding their feedback on priority content for future webinar presentations 3) FDC Self-Assessment Surveys-administered to 16 jurisdictions regarding their level of agreement in implementing key FDC recommendations. Through this design and process of the FDC-NA, CCFF was able to draw from its prior TTA work and garner input from FDC practitioners and stakeholders in determining the current TTA needs of FDCs. The findings showed widespread interest in and the need for TTA across a broad range of topics. A synthesis of the data revealed four priority content areas and specific topics for TTA: 1) Services to Parents-Respondents cited the challenges of meeting the complex and multiple needs of parents as a result of trauma, dual-diagnosis, domestic violence and the use of medication-assisted treatment (MAT). Specific content for TTA included engagement and retention strategies, recovery supports, and serving parents in MAT. 2) Funding and Sustainability-A lack of continued funding for staff positions, treatment and a broad service array were raised as barriers to sustaining FDCs. There is a need to engage sites in active sustainability planning by exploring barriers and working towards strategic activities including cost analyses, the use of baseline measures and outcome data, and exploring refinancing and redirection strategies. 3) Cross-Systems Knowledge-A need for ongoing cross-system training to bridge the divisions between professional disciplines, agency mandates, values and practice was cited frequently by respondents. These include training in gender-specific issues, trauma, co-occurring conditions, enhancing motivation and dynamics of addiction and recovery. Details: Lake Forest, CA: Center for Children and Family Futures, 2014. 44p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 17, 2014 at: http://www.cffutures.com/files/publications/OJJDP_TTA_NAR_2014.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.cffutures.com/files/publications/OJJDP_TTA_NAR_2014.pdf Shelf Number: 131940 Keywords: Drug Abuse and AddictionDrug OffendersFamily Drug CourtsProblem Solving Courts |
Author: Boles, Sharon Title: Sacramento County Dependency Drug Court Year Seven Outcome and Process Evaluation Findings Summary: The Sacramento County Dependency Drug Court (DDC) began in October 2001. The Sacramento DDC was developed as part of a system-wide reform effort to address the needs of families with substance use disorders in the child welfare system. The Sacramento DDC operates parallel to the dependency case proceedings, which are conducted on a regular family court docket. Compliance reviews and management of the recovery aspects of the case are heard by the DDC officer throughout the life of the parents' participation in the dependency drug court. Parents begin DDC services promptly to pre-empt the possibility of noncompliance of court orders regarding substance abuse treatment participation. The focus of this report includes: 1) a description of the program participants; 2) findings regarding treatment engagement, retention and completion; and 3) 12, 18, and 36 month findings regarding child safety and permanency. For this report, the 24 month findings are presented in Appendix A. For a complete description of the DDC model and programmatic components, please contact the authors for a report issued in April 2002. Details: Irvine, CA: Children and Family Futures, 2010. 84p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 23, 2014 at: http://www.cffutures.org/files/publications/Year%207%20Summary%20Report%20Final.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.cffutures.org/files/publications/Year%207%20Summary%20Report%20Final.pdf Shelf Number: 132149 Keywords: Child ProtectionChild WelfareDrug CourtsDrug Offender TreatmentDrug OffendersProblem Solving Courts |
Author: Hornby Zeller Associates, Inc. Title: Evaluation of Maine's Family Treatment Drug Courts: A Preliminary Analysis of Short and Long-term Outcomes Summary: The high correlation between child maltreatment and the abuse of drugs and alcohol among parents or other caregivers is well documented. Indeed, parental substance abuse is one of the major reasons why children are removed from their homes and placed into protective custody. Today, it is estimated that nearly eighty percent of all substantiated child abuse and neglect cases involve parental substance abuse. Many parents with substance abuse problems never regain custody of their children. This is due in large part to the fact that these caregivers are significantly less likely to enter into or complete court ordered treatment services. Pervasive among this population are other issues that hamper reunification efforts including inadequate or unstable housing, mental illness, transportation issues and unemployment, to name a few. Family drug courts were developed as a means to respond to the complex problems posed by substance abuse among parents involved in the child welfare system. Through a combination of intensive judicial oversight, case management supervision, drug testing and dedicated treatment and protective custody caseworker assignments, the family drug court represents a nexus between the court, child welfare and substance abuse treatment systems. The overarching goal of the family drug court is to protect the safety and welfare of the child while providing parents the opportunity to enter into treatment and learn the skills they need to become healthy, responsible caregivers. Nationally, there are approximately 200 family drug courts in operation in 43 states across the country. The first family drug court program in Maine became operational in October, 2002. Today, there are three family drug courts currently in operation with locations in Belfast, Augusta and Lewiston. As of January 1, 2007, thirteen parents have successfully completed these programs and graduated, forty-one have been expelled and twenty-three are currently active participants in Maine's family drug court programs. Preliminary findings from a recently released national study suggest several promising outcomes for family drug court programs. The current study contributes to the ongoing discussion about the effectiveness of these programs and how well they operate in Maine. Overall findings in this report are consistent with those reported elsewhere, indicating that Maine's family drug court programs are also generating important outcomes across a variety of key measures. Key findings of this report include the following: - Seven drug-free babies were born to mothers participating in the drug court program. - Family drug court participants are significantly more likely than other parents with substance abuse problems in having greater child welfare system and criminal justice system involvement. - Families in drug court are more likely to receive treatment and adjunctive services such as child care. - Family drug court participants are significantly more likely to enter into and subsequently complete treatment. - Children of family drug court participants have significantly fewer placement changes and spent less time in foster care. - Once returned to the home, children of family drug court participants are less likely to experience a subsequent removal from the home. - Significant predictors of successful parent-child reunification relate to caregiver mental health, relative foster care setting, treatment completion and days out-of-home placement. - Among cases involving a TPR, children of family drug court participants were more likely to be adopted. - Savings generated from the family drug court program result from differences in the types of foster care settings utilized as well as fewer days in foster care. - The likelihood of even greater cost-savings will result in more families being enrolled in the family drug court with expanded capacity. Details: Portland, ME: Hornby Zeller Associates, Inc., 2007. 26p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 14, 2014 at: http://www.courts.state.me.us/maine_courts/drug/Statewide%20FTDC%20Evaluation%202007.pdf Year: 2007 Country: United States URL: http://www.courts.state.me.us/maine_courts/drug/Statewide%20FTDC%20Evaluation%202007.pdf Shelf Number: 102595 Keywords: Child Abuse and NeglectDrug OffendersFamily Drug Courts (Maine)Problem Solving CourtsSubstance Abuse Treatment |
Author: Ward, Jenni Title: Are problem-solving courts the way forward for justice? Summary: Problem-solving courts are not a new innovation, but their use and implementation appears to be growing across a number of jurisdictions, including the UK. This development suggests there is belief in the 'therapeutic jurisprudence' approach that underpins this style of criminal court adjudication; moreover their growth fits within the discourse which points out traditional criminal justice mechanisms too often leave the offender out as an uninvolved actor in the process (Nolan, 2001; Berman and Fox, 2009; Braithwaite, 1989). Processes that draw people in more closely, making them accountable for their actions, and playing an active role in their rehabilitation are more likely to achieve success at reducing reoffending and assisting people to live altered and reformed lives (Hoyle, 2012). This working paper provides some background detail on problem-solving courts and the central guiding principle of therapeutic jurisprudence, and argues court structures that assist people to construct positive self-identities and reintegrate into purposeful lives, and which empower people to play a role in their rehabilitation demonstrate a criminal justice model that has well-being at its core, and puts a human face to the delivery of justice. Details: London: Howard League for Penal Reform, 2014. 13p. Source: Internet Resource: Howard League What is Justice? Working Papers 2/2014: Accessed November 15, 2014 at: Year: 2014 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://d19ylpo4aovc7m.cloudfront.net/fileadmin/howard_league/user/pdf/Research/What_is_Justice/HLWP_2_2014.pdf Shelf Number: 134117 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationDrug CourtsProblem Solving Courts |
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 CourtsDrug Offenders Drug TreatmentProblem Solving Courts |
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: Martin, Shawn M. Title: Policy Evaluation of Hillsborough County's Family Dependency Treatment Court Summary: Child abuse and neglect is a troubling issue all too familiar with courts in the United States. The problem becomes even more complicated when substance abuse is involved. In 2004, approximately 500,000 children were removed from their homes because of abuse and neglect issues1. In the past few years, a judicial model appeared to address both substance abuse and child dependency issues. This model, entitled Family Dependency Treatment Court (FDTC) enables the court to mandate treatment for parents and make reunification dependent on treatment compliance. The FDTC program in Hillsborough County, Florida is now in its second year and has raised a host of policy and procedural issues. As such, 20 key FDTC informants and 6 clients were interviewed to identify strengths and weaknesses of the program. Key areas identified as requiring improvement include increasing communication and collaboration among key stakeholders, training on FDTC inclusion criteria, and increased funding for treatment services and resources. Identified strengths included being a court-based treatment program, providing a supportive atmosphere for clients, and maintaining reunification as a goal. The results of this evaluation emphasize the importance of diverse organizations working collaboratively to achieve this often difficult objective within the child welfare setting. Details: Tampa, FL: Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health Institute, University of South Florida, 2013. 27p. Source: Internet Resource: Mental Health Law & Policy Faculty Publications. Paper 579; Accessed May 23, 2015 at: http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1578&context=mhlp_facpub Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1578&context=mhlp_facpub Shelf Number: 135773 Keywords: Child Abuse and NeglectChild ProtectionChild WelfareFamily Treatment CourtsProblem Solving Courts |
Author: Cheesman, Fred Title: Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Veterans Treatment Court Performance Measures Summary: Veterans Treatment Courts (VTCs) are a relatively new type of problem-solving court. The first VTC was implemented in Buffalo, NY in 2008, serving military veterans utilizing a combination of several problem-solving court models. Since then, the number of VTCs implemented across the country has grown significantly, including seventeen VTCs in Pennsylvania. The Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts (AOPC) has been proactive in applying lessons learned in other problem-solving courts to VTCs. To that end, the AOPC has collaborated with the National Center for State Courts (NCSC) to develop the first set of performance measures specifically designed for VTCs. Performance measurement is considered an essential activity in many government and non-profit agencies because it "has a common sense logic that is irrefutable, namely that agencies have a greater probability of achieving their goals and objectives if they use performance measures to monitor their progress along these lines and then take follow-up actions as necessary to insure success" (Poister, 2003). Effectively designed and implemented performance measurement systems provide tools for managers to exercise and maintain control over their organizations, as well as mechanisms for governing bodies and funding agencies to hold programs accountable for producing intended results. The argument for measuring VTC performance is compelling because VTCs must compete with other priorities of the criminal justice system for a finite amount of resources. This makes it incumbent upon VTCs to demonstrate both that the limited resources provided to them are used efficiently and that this expenditure of resources produces the desired participant outcomes. To this end, VTC performance measures (PMs) should demonstrate that participants are receiving evidence-based treatment in sufficient doses, thereby improving their capability to function effectively in society. Performance measures should also illustrate that participants are held accountable and public safety is protected. Performance measurement is distinct from program evaluation and consequently does not attempt to ascertain a VTC's "value-added" over an appropriate "business-as-usual" alternative (typically probation or incarceration). Rather, PMs provide timely information about key aspects of the performance of the VTC to program managers and staff, enabling them to identify effective practices and, if warranted, to take corrective actions. The NCSC philosophy for the development of PMs is guided by several important principles. First, we aim for a small number of measures targeting the most critical of VTC processes. Second, PMs are developed with significant input from stakeholders. NCSC acts an informed facilitator, offering suggestions and making recommendations for PMs, but the ultimate decision is made by the advisory committee convened by the commonwealth agency responsible for VTCs. Third, the target audiences for the PMs are individual VTCs. That is, these measures are intended to provide information to individual courts to improve their performance. The information generated by the PMs will also be useful to commonwealth policy makers, but they are not the primary target audience. Fourth, PMs are well-documented. Detailed specification sheets documenting data sources, calculations, and interpretation are written for each PM, leaving little equivocation about the details of the PM. During a two-day meeting convened on June 24-25, 2014, a select group of veterans court stakeholders, AOPC staff, and NCSC staff worked together to produce a set of commonwealth-wide performance measures for veterans treatment courts. The stakeholder group (henceforth the Performance Measures Work Group) was diverse but representative of a variety of critical viewpoints including veterans court judges, coordinators, attorneys, probation officers, veterans justice outreach specialists, treatment team members, and staff from the AOPC. The project and the work of the work group was informed by a number of resources. Since research on VTCs is still in its infancy, the limited amount of VTC-specific research was supplemented by other relevant research related to adult drug courts, mental health courts, and court performance measurement. First, the NCSC team provided a document that included core performance measures for adult drug treatment courts and suggestions for areas specific to veterans for which to develop measures. Second, the work group referenced the only set of nationally articulated measures for drug courts (developed by the National Research Advisory Committee (NRAC). The NRAC measures were incorporated in this report, though in some cases amended to fit the particular circumstances of Pennsylvania VTCs. Third, the discussion was informed by previous work conducted by NCSC to develop performance measures for drug and mental health courts in other states (see Rubio, Cheesman, and Federspiel, 2008) and the latest research on evidence-based practices (e.g. Carey, Mackin, and Finigan, 2012). Finally, the High Performance Court Framework (Ostrom and Hanson, 2010) was used to ensure that the selected measures provided a "balanced" perspective that represents competing values (e.g. productivity, effectiveness, access). Details: Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts, 2015. 111p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 22, 2016 at: http://ncsc.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/singleitem/collection/spcts/id/302/rec/2 Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://ncsc.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/singleitem/collection/spcts/id/302/rec/2 Shelf Number: 138378 Keywords: Military PersonnelProblem Solving CourtsVeteransVeterans Treatment Courts |
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 CourtsDrug TreatmentProblem Solving Courts |
Author: LeCroy & Milligan Associates, Inc. Title: Northern Arizona Regional Behavioral Health Services (NARBHA) Jail Diversion Project Summary: In November 2005, NARBHA contracted with LeCroy & Milligan Associates, Inc. to conduct an evaluation of their Jail Diversion Project. The purpose of the evaluation was to provide information about how well the project is functioning and meeting its goals. During this past year, the evaluation team assisted NARBHA to develop evaluation capacity among the sites, identify important program implementation and outcome indicators, and develop an effective and realistic plan to incorporate consistent measures across all programs. This work provides the framework within which process and outcome evaluations can be conducted. While it had been anticipated that funding for the evaluation would continue for at least one more fiscal year, that did not come to fruition. Because some counties had not implemented their programs as of September 2006, when this report was written, and because some counties had only recently started their programs, evaluation data available for this report were very limited. Only Navajo County, which started its program in January 2006, had submitted data for their participants. The evaluation team also conducted a site visit in Navajo County in July 2006 during which a participant focus group and staff interviews were completed. The team also observed a mental health court team staffing and a court session. The findings from these efforts are presented later in this report. The evaluation team felt that other programs, such as the Mohave County mental health court, had not been in operation long enough to warrant site visits because programs often undergo significant changes during the early months of implementation as staff determine which procedures work best. The team did conduct telephone interviews in September 2006 with each county to gather information on program development and implementation progress. This information is presented in the Program Development and Implementation section. The evaluation team understood that the first project year would present program start-up challenges for the counties. For this reason, the team selected a limited number of evaluation goals related to program implementation and evaluation capacity to focus on during the first year. The purpose of the first phase of evaluation was to: Conduct a review of the mental health court literature to help determine appropriate process and outcome measures Develop a global data collection system, with input from program staff, that is applicable across sites for uniform data collection Describe each program and the target populations Identify key challenges and barriers to program implementation Describe major accomplishments Develop a comprehensive program logic model Each of these goals was met, to the extent possible, given the delayed start up of some of the programs. The remainder of this report is organized into the following sections: Literature review: Presents a summary of the latest thinking and research findings related to mental health courts. Program Development and Implementation: Provides information about each program's development and implementation progress. This sections also present findings from the evaluative efforts conducting with the Navajo County mental health court. Database and Forms: Describes the ACCESS database and data collection forms developed by the evaluation team working in concert with program staff. Summary and Recommendations Details: Tucson, AZ: LeCroy & Milligan Associates, 2006. 29p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 12, 2016 at: http://www.lecroymilligan.com/data/resources/narbha-final-report-final.pdf Year: 2006 Country: United States URL: http://www.lecroymilligan.com/data/resources/narbha-final-report-final.pdf Shelf Number: 145421 Keywords: Diversion ProgramsMental Health CourtsMental Health ProgramsMentally Ill OffendersProblem Solving Courts |
Author: Canada. Department of Justice. Evaluation Division Title: Drug Treatment Court Funding Program Evaluation : final report Summary: 1. Introduction The Drug Treatment Court Funding Program (DTCFP) is a contributions funding program that provides financial support and administers funding agreements to six drug treatment court (DTC) sites: Toronto (established in 1998), Vancouver (2001), Edmonton (2005), Winnipeg (2006), Ottawa (2006), and Regina (2006). This report presents the evaluation findings and responds to the Treasury Board Secretariat's 2009 Policy on Evaluation, which requires that all direct expenditures of the federal government be evaluated every five years. The evaluation, which was conducted between June and September 2014, covers the work of the DTCFP between fiscal years (FYs) 2009-10 and 2013-14. 2. Methodology The evaluation comprised three main lines of evidence: - a document and data review, including relevant Justice Canada sub-studies and research studies, including a recidivism study and a study comparing the results of urine drug tests (UDTs) of graduates and non-completers during the program; - 48 interviews with participants in the program; and - an online survey of DTC stakeholders and staff. Details: Ottawa: Department of Justice Canada, 2015. 148p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 13, 2016 at: http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2015/jus/J2-413-2015-eng.pdf Year: 2015 Country: Canada URL: http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2015/jus/J2-413-2015-eng.pdf Shelf Number: 145085 Keywords: Costs of Criminal JusticeCriminal Justice ExpendituresDrug CourtsDrug Treatment ProgramsProblem Solving Courts |
Author: Brown, Randall T. Title: Drug Treatment Court: Participants, Processes, and Substance Abuse Treatment Completion Summary: Drug treatment courts have spread rapidly as an alternative to traditional adjudication for drug-involved offenders. The overarching goal for the current research is to increase the understanding of risk factors for treatment failure in order to refine case management conditions during drug court participation; this research is done in collaboration with the Dane County Drug Treatment Court (DTC). To this end, three distinct research manuscripts are presented. The first is a systematic review of the existing literature examining the effectiveness and the characteristics of U.S. adult drug treatment courts. The second and third manuscripts comprise analyses of administrative data collected from the Dane County Drug Treatment Court on all participants (n = 573) during program years 1996–2004. Firstly, review of non-experimental and quasi-experimental literature point toward benefit of drug courts in averting future criminal behavior and in reducing future substance use. However, meta-analysis of three randomized trials failed to demonstrate a significant effect upon re-arrest rates for drug-involved offenders participating in drug treatment court vs. typical adjudication. Two studies examining reincarceration, however, demonstrated reductions for the drug treatment court group. In the second manuscript, subjects comprised all participants (n = 573) in drug treatment court in Dane County from 1996 through 2004. Administrative data included measures of demographics and socioeconomics, substance use, and criminal justice history. Stepwise logistic regression yielded a final model of failure to complete drug treatment. Unemployment, lower educational attainment, and cocaine use disorders were associated with failure to complete treatment. Finally, administrative data were used to examine the impact of jail sanctioning upon failure to complete substance abuse treatment. While the application of a first jail sanction achieved near significant predictive value (p = 0.07) for lowering of failure hazard, further jail sanctioning did not achieve significance. Given that selection factors would likely operate in the opposite direction, the true impact of a first jail sanction is likely stronger than that demonstrated by these results. The findings of the current work are discussed under an integrated framework of life-course and social control theories. Details: Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin, Madison, 2009. 225p. Source: Internet Resource: Dissertation: Accessed December 5, 2016 at: https://search.library.wisc.edu/catalog/9910092251102121 Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: https://search.library.wisc.edu/catalog/9910092251102121 Shelf Number: 139800 Keywords: Drug Courts Drug Offenders Drug Treatment Problem Solving Courts |