Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: November 22, 2024 Fri
Time: 12:25 pm
Time: 12:25 pm
Results for problem-oriented courts
2 results foundAuthor: Adkins, Geneva Title: Iowa Adult and Juvenile Drug Court Extended Recidivism Outcomes Summary: Over the past decade, the Iowa Division of Criminal and Juvenile Justice (CJJP), located in the Department of Human Rights, has been engaged in several outcome and process evaluations of Iowa’s adult and juvenile drug courts. Since 2001 CJJP has engaged in two studies of adult drug courts and two studies of juvenile drug courts. These earlier studies found that adult drug courts had positive impacts on recidivism, particularly for felony offenders and female offenders. The juvenile studies did not demonstrate significant impact on recidivism. The purpose of this research is to complete a longitudinal study of drug court participants and comparison groups from the above cohorts to address the following questions: Do adult drug court participants continue to have lower rates of recidivism over time? What is the adult recidivism rate for juvenile drug court participants? In addition, the following questions will be explored: Are there differences in the highest level of new conviction? Are there differences in the type of new convictions? Are there differences in the number of new convictions? Are there differences in cumulative recidivism over time? Are there differences in recidivism by offender background or model? It should be clearly understood that this longitudinal study looks at outcomes for adult and juvenile drug courts as they functioned in the past. The outcomes identified in this study apply to those participants and matched comparison groups. Any generalization to current operations would only be valid to the extent that the courts are being operated in substantially the same manner. Any modifications in design, staffing, or participant selection could alter the long-term outcomes for offenders. The findings for the adult drug court confirm the earlier studies. o Females drug court participants tend to have lower recidivism rates than male participants. o Non-white drug court participants do not have better long-term outcomes than the comparison groups. o Judge model drug courts tend to be more effective than community panel courts. o Drug court participants who graduate tend to have lower recidivism over time than do non-graduates. o Of those offenders who did recidivate, the highest percentages of offenses were non-person and drug-related offenses. There was not much difference between participants and the comparison groups except for the pilot cohort. That cohort had a larger percentage of violent offenses than the other three cohorts. o Drug court participants who did not graduate had a higher percentage of violent offense convictions, and had a higher cumulative recidivism rate than did the graduates. The findings for the juvenile drug court also confirm the earlier studies, suggesting that participation in drug courts does not improve outcomes into adulthood. o Participants tended to have poorer long-term outcomes than the comparison groups. o The cohort with the lowest recidivism was the consent decree cohort. o The difference between white and minority participants is not as marked as that of adult drug court participants, although white participants did have lower recidivism rates. o Long-term recidivism rates do not vary significantly by drug court model. o Non-graduates have higher felony recidivism rates than do graduates and the three comparison cohorts. Details: Des Moines, IA: Iowa Department of Human Rights, Division of Criminal and Juvenile Justice Planning, Statistical Analysis Center, 2011. 28p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 10, 2012 at: http://www.humanrights.iowa.gov/cjjp/images/pdf/Extended%20Drug%20Court%20Study-Final.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.humanrights.iowa.gov/cjjp/images/pdf/Extended%20Drug%20Court%20Study-Final.pdf Shelf Number: 123535 Keywords: Drug Courts (Iowa)Drug OffendersDrug TreatmentProblem-Oriented CourtsRecidivism |
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 |