Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 29, 2024 Mon
Time: 9:02 pm
Time: 9:02 pm
Results for problem-solving courts
122 results foundAuthor: Guerin, Paul Title: Dona Ana County Magistrate Court DWI-Drug Court Outcome Study Summary: This report summarizes findings from an outcome study of the Third Judicial District Dona Ana Magistrate Court DWI-Drug Court conducted by the New Mexico Sentencing Commission at the University of New Mexico. In April 2008 the Department of Finance Administration (DFA) and the University of New Mexico (UNM) signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to study the operations and conduct an outcome study including a cost analysis of the Third Judicial District Court Magistrate Court DWI-Drug Court in Dona Ana County. This MOU was amended in January 2009 to reflect preliminary findings. The Institute for Social Research at the University of New Mexico completed two previous process evaluations for the Third Judicial District Court Adult Drug Court Program that included the Dona Ana Magistrate Court as one of the courts in the Third Judicial District. The first evaluation was completed in 2001and the second was completed in 2002. The purpose of these studies was to develop an understanding of the internal dynamics of the Third Judicial District Adult Drug Court Program, with a particular focus on the District Court program, including an understanding of the overall structure, organization, and operations of four different courts located in the district. The included courts were: - Third Judicial District Court Drug Court - Dona Ana County Magistrate DWI-Drug Court - Las Cruces Municipal DWI Court - Mesilla Municipal DWI Court Process evaluations lay critical groundwork for future outcome evaluations which examine the match between stated program goals and court functioning. This report noted the development of the Third Judicial District Court Adult Drug Court programs was at the time incomplete and was complicated by the inclusion of four different drug courts under the umbrella of a single program and evaluation. An added difficulty was that ISR found significant variations between DWI-Drug Court processes and procedures amongst the lower level courts analyzed. The results of the 2002 study indicated the various courts included in the study did not, "completely follow/implement all of the 10 key components provided by the Drug Courts Program Office" (ISR Process Evaluation, 2002). We have been unable to locate process evaluations that look at each of the individual lower level courts. As a result, we were able to gather very little historical information on the Dona Ana Magistrate Court DWI-Drug Court Program. A critical component of this study aims to address the difficulties of the 2002 process evaluation by providing an examination of the operations in only the Dona Ana Magistrate Court DWI-Drug program. Details: Albuquerque, NM: New Mexico Sentencing Commission, 2009. 21p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 25, 2018 at: https://nmsc.unm.edu/reports/2009/DACMC_DWIDrugCourt_FinalReport_v1_063009-1.pdf Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: https://nmsc.unm.edu/reports/2009/DACMC_DWIDrugCourt_FinalReport_v1_063009-1.pdf Shelf Number: 117099 Keywords: Drug CourtsDrug OffendersProblem-Solving CourtsTreatment Programs |
Author: Almquist, Lauren Title: Mental Health Courts: A guide to research-informed policy and practice Summary: This guide is intended to assist policymakers and practitioners in assessing the utility of mental health courts. After briefly describing who participates in mental health courts and how these courts function, this guide reviews research findings that address the extent to which mental health courts have been found to achieve their stated goals. Because mental health courts are relatively new, many unanswered questions remain on how they work, for whom, and under what circumstances; these outstanding research questions are highlighted in the final portion of this guide. Details: New York: Council of State Governments Justice Center, 2009. 54p. Source: Internet Source: https://www.bja.gov/Publications/CSG_MHC_Research.pdf Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: https://www.bja.gov/Publications/CSG_MHC_Research.pdf Shelf Number: 116672 Keywords: Mental HealthMental Health CourtsMental Health ServicesMentally Ill OffendersProblem-Solving Courts |
Author: Wolf, Robert V. Title: California's Collaborative Justice Courts: Building a Problem-Solving Judiciary Summary: Judiciaries around the country are embracing a new way of business, one that emphasizes partnerships with stakeholders in and outside the courts, improved community access to the justice system, greater accountability for offenders and better community outcomes, such as increased safety and improved public confidence. This new way of doing business goes by various names. In many jurisdictions, it’s called “problem solving.” In California it goes by the name “collaborative justice.” Problem-solving courts (or collaborative justice courts) include specialized drug courts, domestic violence courts, community courts, family treatment courts, DUI courts, mental health courts, peer/youth courts and homeless courts. Their aim is to address challenging problems — like drug addiction, domestic violence and juvenile delinquency — that society brings to courthouses across the country every day. While each of these courts targets a different problem, they all seek to use the authority of courts to improve outcomes for victims, communities and defendants. These court programs strive to achieve tangible results like safer streets and stronger families; at the same time, they seek to maintain the fairness and legitimacy of the court process. In California, collaborative justice is increasingly being viewed as a set of principles and practices that can be used in many types of cases both in and outside specialized, intensive court calendars. Collaborative justice also seeks to incorporate other innovative justice approaches, such as balanced and restorative justice, procedural fairness efforts, therapeutic jurisprudence and alternative dispute resolution. This report attempts to capture the history of the California judiciary’s involvement in collaborative justice courts, from their beginnings as isolated experiments to current efforts at statewide coordination. In recounting this story, the goal is to offer lessons to other states that are grappling with similar challenges. Details: Sacramento: Judicial Council of California, Administrative Office of the Courts, 2005. 38p. Source: Internet Resource: accessed July 27, 2011 at: http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/California_Story.pdf Year: 2005 Country: United States URL: http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/California_Story.pdf Shelf Number: 122170 Keywords: Courts (California)Problem-Solving Courts |
Author: Huddleston, West Title: Painting the Current Picture: A National Report on Drug Courts and Other Problem-Solving Court Programs in the United States Summary: This document is a national report on Drug Court and other Problem-Solving Court activity in every state, commonwealth, territory and district in the United States as of December 31, 2009 (Part I) and as of December 31, 2008 (Part II). Specific to this volume and in addition to reporting on the aggregate number and types of operational Drug Courts and other Problem-Solving Court programs throughout the United States, a major section of this report is dedicated to recent research findings related to the most prevalent Drug Court models. Additionally, sections are dedicated to analyses of national survey data on Drug Court capacity; drug-of-choice trends among Drug Court participants in rural, suburban and urban areas; average graduation rates; participation costs; state Drug Court authorization legislation and funding appropriations; and international Drug Court activity. Finally, this year’s report provides first-ever national demographic data on racial and ethnic minority representation among Drug Court participants. Details: Alexandria, VA: National Drug Court Institute, 2011. 68p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 10, 2011 at: http://www.ndci.org/sites/default/files/nadcp/PCP%20Report%20FINAL.PDF Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.ndci.org/sites/default/files/nadcp/PCP%20Report%20FINAL.PDF Shelf Number: 122351 Keywords: Drug Courts (U.S.)Drug OffendersDrug TreatmentProblem-Solving Courts |
Author: Close, Daniel W. Title: The District of Oregon Reentry Court: Evaluation, Policy Recommendations, and Replication Strategies Summary: The District of Oregon Reentry Court is a court-involved, evidence-based program in which voluntary participants under federal supervision commit to individualized plans emphasizing sobriety, employment, and constructive problem-solving. The program encourages participants to develop a high and sustained level of satisfaction with a productive and prosocial lifestyle and thereby desist from crime and substance abuse. Participants engage in self-assessment monthly, with each other and the reentry court team (composed of a district court judge, assistant U.S. attorney, assistant federal public defender, probation officer, and treatment services personnel), who issue rewards and sanctions matched to each participant’s level of progress. The reentry court team encourages participants to access an array of services designed to meet particular reentry needs. Successful participants maintain 12 months of sobriety and receive a reduction in their terms of supervision. The model was developed in 2006, as a strategy for addressing recidivism among drug-involved offenders. The program underwent a thorough evaluation in 2008. The accompanying study sets forth a description of the model, its basis in evidence, and a manual for its replication and customization. Details: Portland, OR: United States District Court, District of Oregon, 2009?. 149p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 12, 2011 at: http://www.ussc.gov/Education_and_Training/Annual_National_Training_Seminar/2009/008c_Reentry_Court_Doc.pdf Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: http://www.ussc.gov/Education_and_Training/Annual_National_Training_Seminar/2009/008c_Reentry_Court_Doc.pdf Shelf Number: 122380 Keywords: Drug OffendersPrisoner Reentry (Oregon)Problem-Solving CourtsTreatment Programs |
Author: Carey, Shannon M. Title: Jackson County Community Family Court Process, Outcome, and Cost Evaluation Final Report Summary: For the past 20 years in the United States, there has been a trend toward guiding nonvio-lent drug offenders into treatment rather than incarceration. The original drug court model links the resources of the criminal system and substance treatment programs to increase treatment participation and decrease criminal recidivism. Drug treatment courts are one of the fastest growing programs designed to reduce drug abuse and criminality in nonviolent of-fenders in the nation. The first drug court was implemented in Miami, Florida, in 1989. As of May 2009, there were 2,037 adult and juvenile drug courts active in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and Guam, with another 214 being planned (National Association of Drug Court Professionals, 2009). Drug courts have been shown to be effective in reducing recidivism (GAO, 2005) and in reduc-ing taxpayer costs due to positive outcomes for drug court participants (including fewer re-arrests, less time in jail and less time in prison) (Carey & Finigan, 2004; Carey, Finigan, Waller, Lucas, & Crumpton, 2005). Some drug courts have even been shown to cost less to operate than processing offenders through business-as-usual (Carey & Finigan, 2004; Carey et al., 2005). More recently, in approximately the last 10 years, the drug court model has been expanded to include other types of offenders (e.g., juveniles and parents with child welfare cases). Family Drug Courts (FDCs) work with substance-abusing parents with child welfare cases. There have been a modest number studies of these other types of courts including some recidivism and cost studies of juvenile courts (e.g., Carey, Marchand, & Waller, 2006) and a national study of FDCs (Green, Furrer, Worcel, Burrus, & Finigan, 2007). Many of these studies show promising out-comes for these newer applications of the drug court model. However, the number of family drug court studies in particular has been small, and to date, there have been no detailed cost studies of family drug courts. In late 2008, NPC Research was contracted by the Oregon State Police and the Criminal Justice Commission to conduct the third year evaluations of 11 drug courts funded by the Byrne Methamphetamine Reduction Grant Project. NPC conducted Drug Court Foundations evaluations of 11 Oregon adult and family drug court sites. In addition, as a part of this project, NPC performed full process, outcome and cost-benefit evaluations of two family drug court sites, the Marion and Jackson County Family Drug Court Programs. Details: Portland, OR: NPC Research, 2010. 99p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 29, 2011 at: http://www.oregon.gov/CJC/docs/Jackson_Byrne_Final_Report_June_2010.pdf?ga=t Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.oregon.gov/CJC/docs/Jackson_Byrne_Final_Report_June_2010.pdf?ga=t Shelf Number: 122956 Keywords: Drug CourtsDrug OffendersDrug TreatmentFamily Courts (Oregon)Problem-Solving Courts |
Author: Harwin, Judith Title: The Family Drug & Alcohol Court (FDAC) Evaluation Project: Final Report Summary: This report presents the findings from the evaluation of the first pilot Family Drug and Alcohol Court (FDAC) in England and Wales. FDAC is a new approach to care proceedings, in cases where parental substance misuse is a key element in the local authority decision to bring proceedings. It is being piloted at the Inner London Family Proceedings Court in Wells Street. Initially the pilot was to run for three years, to the end of December 2010, but is now to continue until March 2012. The work is co-funded by the Department for Education (formerly the Department for Children, Schools and Families), the Ministry of Justice, the Home Office, the Department of Health and the three pilot authorities (Camden, Islington and Westminster). The evaluation was conducted by a research team at Brunel University, with funding from the Nuffield Foundation and the Home Office. FDAC is a specialist court for a problem that is anything but special. Its potential to help break the inter-generational cycle of harm associated with parental substance misuse goes straight to the heart of public policy and professional practice. Parental substance misuse is a formidable social problem and a factor in up to two thirds of care cases. It is a major risk factor for child maltreatment, family separation and offending in adults, and for poor educational performance and substance misuse by children and young people. The parents’ many difficulties create serious problems for their children and place major demands on health, welfare and criminal justice services. For these reasons, parental substance misuse is a cross-cutting government agenda. FDAC is distinctive because it is a court-based family intervention which aims to improve children’s outcomes by addressing the entrenched difficulties of their parents. It has been adapted to English law and practice from a model of family treatment drug courts that is used widely in the USA and is showing promising results with a higher number of cases where parents and children were able to remain together safely, and with swifter alternative placement decisions for children if parents were unable to address their substance misuse successfully. The catalysts for the FDAC pilot were the encouraging evidence from the USA and concerns about the response to parental substance misuse through ordinary care proceedings in England: poor child and parent outcomes; insufficient co-ordination between adult and children’s services; late intervention to protect children; delay in reaching decisions; and the soaring costs of proceedings, linked to the cost of expert evidence. Details: London: Brunel University London, 2011. 197p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 5, 2011 at: http://www.brunel.ac.uk/research/centres/iccfyr/fdac Year: 2011 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.brunel.ac.uk/research/centres/iccfyr/fdac Shelf Number: 117329 Keywords: Alcohol CourtsDrug Courts (U.K.)Family CourtsProblem-Solving CourtsSubstance Abuse |
Author: U.S. Government Accountability Office Title: Adult Drug Courts: Studies Show Courts Reduce Recidivism, but DOJ Could Enhance Future Performance Measure Revision Efforts Summary: A drug court is a specialized court that targets criminal offenders who have drug addiction and dependency problems. These programs provide offenders with intensive court supervision, mandatory drug testing, substance-abuse treatment, and other social services as an alternative to adjudication or incarceration. As of June 2010, there were over 2,500 drug courts operating nationwide, of which about 1,400 target adult offenders. The Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) administers the Adult Drug Court Discretionary Grant Program, which provides financial and technical assistance to develop and implement adult drug-court programs. DOJ requires grantees that receive funding to provide data that measure their performance. In response to the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, this report assesses (1) data DOJ collected on the performance of federally funded adult drug courts and to what extent DOJ used these data in making grant-related decisions, and (2) what is known about the effectiveness of drug courts. GAO assessed performance data DOJ collected in fiscal year 2010 and reviewed evaluations of 32 drug- court programs and 11 cost-benefit studies issued from February 2004 through March 2011. GAO recommends that BJA document key methods used to guide future revisions of its performance measures for the adult drug-court program. DOJ concurred with GAO’s recommendation. Details: Washington, DC: GAO, 2011. 62p. Source: Internet Resource: GAO-12-53: Accessed January 10, 2012 at: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d1253.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d1253.pdf Shelf Number: 123545 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationDrug CourtsDrug OffendersProblem-Solving Courts |
Author: Picard-Fritsche, Sarah Title: The Bronx Family Treatment Court2005-2010: Impact on Family Court Outcomes and Participant Experiences and Perceptions Summary: The Bronx Family Treatment Court (FTC) is one of more than 50 family treatment courts across New York State. The Bronx FTC structure is loosely based on the adult drug court model. The court orders respondent parents with a child neglect case and an underlying substance abuse treatment allegation to treatment. The court supervises the treatment process through regular judicial status hearings, drug testing, intensive case management, and graduated sanctions and rewards. FTC participation is voluntary but requires an admission of “responsible” to the child neglect allegations. Departing from most drug courts, the Bronx FTC divides its caseload among three dedicated judges, each of whom presides over approximately one-third of the cases. The current evaluation assessed the court by comparing outcomes of respondent children whose parents enrolled in the FTC with similar children whose parents did not enroll. In addition, based on structured interviews with FTC and non-FTC parents, we assessed the court’s impact on service experiences; perceptions of the judge, case managers, and court process; and drug use. To enrich the analysis, we also conducted staff and stakeholder interviews; a focus group with public defenders who represent the parents; and an analysis of FTC court administrative data. Details: New York: Center for Court Innovation, 2011. 84p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 12, 2012 at: http://www.courtinnovation.org/sites/default/files/documents/Full_Bronx_FTC.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.courtinnovation.org/sites/default/files/documents/Full_Bronx_FTC.pdf Shelf Number: 123558 Keywords: Child Abuse and NeglectFamily Courts (New York)Problem-Solving CourtsSubstance Abuse Treatment |
Author: Rossman, Shelli B. Title: The Multi-Site Adult Drug Court Evaluation: The Impact of Drug Courts - Final Report, Volume 4 Summary: Volume 4 from the National Institute of Justice's Multi–site Adult Drug Court Evaluation (MADCE) provides findings from the outcome evaluation answering the questions, "do drug courts work", "for whom do drug courts work," and "what are the mechanisms by which drug courts work", as well as provides findings from the cost–benefit study. The outcome evaluation found that drug courts prevent crime and substance use and work equally well for most participant subgroups. Effects are greatest among participants whose judges who spend time with them, support them, and treat them with respect. Implications for practice, policy, and future research are also discussed. Details: Washington, DC: Urban Institute Justice Policy Center, 2011. 366p. Source: Internet Resource. Accessed on January 20, 2012 at http://www.urban.org/uploadedpdf/412357-MADCE-The-Impact-of-Drug-Courts.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.urban.org/uploadedpdf/412357-MADCE-The-Impact-of-Drug-Courts.pdf Shelf Number: 123694 Keywords: Cost-Benefit AnalysisDrug CourtsDrug OffendersDrug TreatmentProblem-Solving CourtsRecidivism |
Author: Carey, Shannon M. Title: Vermont Drug Courts: Rutland County Adult Drug Court Process, Outcome, and Cost Evaluation - Final Report Summary: In the past 20 years, one of the strongest movements in the United States focused on reducing substance abuse among the criminal justice population has been the spread of Drug Courts across the country. In 2002, under Act 128 the Vermont legislature established a pilot project to create drug court initiatives and begin implementing drug courts in 3 Vermont counties: Rutland, Chittendon, and Bennington. By 2007, at the sunset of Act 128, drug courts in Vermont were up and running on their own. Currently, in Vermont, there are three operational Adult Drug Courts, one Family Treatment Court and one Mental Health Court. The Rutland County Adult Drug Court (RCADC) began its operations in January 2004 with the support of a federal grant. In early 2008, NPC Research ("NPC"), under contract with the Supreme Court of Vermont, Office of the Court Administrator, began a process, outcome and cost study of the Rutland County Adult Drug Court Program (RCADC). The goals of this project were to evaluate the effectiveness of the RCADC in reducing recidivism, to determine the cost-benefits of drug court participation and to evaluate the RDADC processes. The results of this evaluation are designed to be helpful in assisting the drug court in improving the services to drug court participants, and in gaining support from the community. Details: Portland, OR: NPC Research, 2009. 125p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed on January 20, 2012 at http://www.npcresearch.com/Files/VT_Drug_Court_Eval_Rutland_0109.pdf Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: http://www.npcresearch.com/Files/VT_Drug_Court_Eval_Rutland_0109.pdf Shelf Number: 123696 Keywords: Cost-Benefit AnalysisDrug Courts (Vermont)Drug OffendersProblem-Solving CourtsRecidivism |
Author: Latimer, Jeff Title: A Meta-Analytic Examination of Drug Treatment Courts: Do They Reduce Recidivism? Summary: A meta-analysis was conducted to determine if drug treatment courts reduce recidivism compared to traditional justice system responses. After a comprehensive search of both the published and unpublished literature, 54 studies were located and deemed acceptable according to the study inclusion criteria. Since studies oftentimes contained information on more than one program, data from 66 individual drug treatment court programs were aggregated and analyzed. The results indicated that drug treatment courts significantly reduced the recidivism rates of participants by 14% compared to offenders within the control/comparison groups. Several variables identified in the analysis, however, had an impact on the results, including the age of the participants, the length of the program, the follow-up period used to measure recidivism, and other methodological variables (i.e., the use of random assignment and the choice of the comparison group). While there are other issues that were not the subject of this research, such as the cost-effectiveness of DTCs, the results of this meta-analysis provides clear support for the use of drug treatment courts as a method of reducing crime among offenders with substance abuse problems. Details: Ottawa: Research and Statistics Division, Department of Justice Canada, 2006. 24p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed on January 20, 2012 at http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/pi/rs/rep-rap/2006/rr06_7/rr06_7.pdf Year: 2006 Country: Canada URL: http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/pi/rs/rep-rap/2006/rr06_7/rr06_7.pdf Shelf Number: 123698 Keywords: Cost-Benefit AnalysisDrug Courts (Canada)Drug OffendersProblem-Solving CourtsRecidivismRepeat Offenders |
Author: Carey, Shannon M. Title: Marion County Adult Drug Court Outcome Evaluation Final Report Summary: Marion County, Oregon has a population of approximately 280,000. It is rich in ethnic diversity, including a large Hispanic/Latino population, a growing Russian-American community, and is near the Grande Ronde Indian tribe. The Office of National Drug Control Policy identified Marion County as a “High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area” (HIDTA) as the county has links to major Interstate and Highway routes that contribute to the drug trafficking trade from Mexico and Central America. The Community Corrections Division of the Marion County Sheriff’s Office reports that 64% of the offenders currently under their supervision have been convicted of alcohol and/or drug related offenses. Further, a study by Portland State University indicated that 80% of all corrections inmates had substance abuse addictions that directly contributed to their current offense. With these statistics in mind, Marion County began planning a drug court. The County was awarded a program planning grant in July of 1999. In April of 2000, Marion County began a pilot of their Adult Drug Court. Arrangements were made to collect client data in a drug court database, the Oregon Drug Court Case Management System (ODCMS), which is used in several counties in Oregon. In September of 2001, Marion County received a drug court implementation grant from the Drug Court Program Office (DCPO) at the National Institute of Justice and transitioned from their pilot phase into full drug court operations. This grant provided funds for evaluation and NPC Research was hired to perform a process and outcome study of the Marion County Adult Drug Court (MCADC). This report contains the MCADC outcome evaluation performed by NPC Research. The Drug Court participant outcomes were compared to outcomes for a matched group of offenders who were eligible for Drug Court during a time period one year prior to the MCADC program implementation. The first section of this report is a brief summary of the MCADC program process (An executive summary of the process evaluation can be found in Appendix A). Following the process summary is a description of the methods used to perform the outcome evaluation, including sample selection, data collection, and analysis. The next section provides the results of the outcome analyses and an interpretation of these results. A summary of the results with overall conclusions can be found at the end of this report. Details: Portland, OR: NPC Research, 2005. 28p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed on January 20, 2012 at http://www.npcresearch.com/Files/Marion%20Outcome%20Evaluation%20Final%20Report%20-%20January%202005.pdf Year: 2005 Country: United States URL: http://www.npcresearch.com/Files/Marion%20Outcome%20Evaluation%20Final%20Report%20-%20January%202005.pdf Shelf Number: 123699 Keywords: Drug Courts (Oregon)Drug OffendersProblem-Solving CourtsRepeat Offenders |
Author: Carey, Shannon M. Title: Guam Adult Drug Court Outcome Evaluation Final Report Summary: In the past 15 years, one of the most dramatic developments in the movement to reduce substance abuse among the U.S. criminal justice population has been the spread of drug courts across the country. 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 including addiction treatment providers, prosecuting attorneys, public defenders, law enforcement officers, and parole and probation officers who work together to provide needed services to drug court participants. “The emergence of these new courts reflects the growing recognition on the part of judges, prosecutors, and defense counsel that the traditional criminal justice method of incarceration, probation, or supervised parole have not stemmed the tide of drug use among criminals and drug-related crimes in America” (Hora, Schma, & Rosenthal, 1999). Guam’s drug court movement began in the mid-1990s with the emergence of the “ice” (crystal methamphetamine) epidemic. Nationwide, there was an unprecedented increase in drug-related offenses, particularly with crack cocaine, that significantly impacted the criminal justice system. Following national statistics, Guam’s increase of drug offenders, particularly “ice” offenders, rose to staggering numbers, thus impacting an already over-burdened justice system that was unprepared for this occurrence. An examination of statistics from the Guam Uniform Crime Report shows relatively high numbers of substance abuse arrests for adults, despite extremely limited law enforcement activities targeting drug crimes. In 1998, there were 418 drug-related arrests and 70% involved methamphetamine. Because of these statistics, Guam was awarded a Program-Planning Grant in 1998 and a Drug Court Implementation Grant in 2002. In August 2003, Guam held its first Adult Drug Court session. The implementation grant also provided funds for evaluation and NPC Research was hired to perform a process and outcome study of the Guam Adult Drug Court (GADC). This report contains the GADC outcome evaluation performed by NPC Research. GADC participant outcomes were compared to outcomes for a matched group of offenders who were eligible for drug court during a 2-year time period just prior to the GADC implementation. The first section of the main report is a brief summary and update of the GADC process with some new recommendation from NPC. The rest of the report contains a detailed description of the methodology used for the outcome evaluation and its results. Details: Portland, OR: NPC Research, 2007. 39p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed on January 20, 2012 at http://www.npcresearch.com/Files/Guam_Adult_Drug_Court_Outcome_Evaluation_Final%20_Report_0307.pdf Year: 2007 Country: United States URL: http://www.npcresearch.com/Files/Guam_Adult_Drug_Court_Outcome_Evaluation_Final%20_Report_0307.pdf Shelf Number: 123700 Keywords: Drug Courts (Guam)Drug OffendersMethamphetamineProblem-Solving CourtsRecidivismRepeat OffendersSubstance Abuse |
Author: Finigan, Michael W. Title: Impact of a Mature Drug Court Over 10 Years of Operation: Recidivism and Costs (Final Report) Summary: This study examined the impact of a single drug court on the total population of drug court-eligible offenders over a 10-year period in Portland, Oregon. This drug court, the Multnomah County Drug Court in Portland, Oregon, is the second oldest in the United States. The Program was originally designed to be a pre-plea offer to individuals arrested on drug charges. The program began accepting probationers and parolees (as well as pre-plea clients) in 1995 and became a completely post-plea program in 2000. This study covers the period from program start in 1991 through 2001. The entire population of offenders, identified as eligible for drug court by the Multnomah County District Attorney’s Office over a 10-year period, from 1991 to 2001, was identified and tracked through a variety of administrative data systems. Approximately 11,000 cases were identified; 6,500 participated in the Drug Court program during that period and 4,600 had their case processed outside the drug court model. Because the program changed from pre-plea to post-plea over time, the population of drug court participants used in these analyses contains a mix of both pre- and post-conviction offenders. Data on intermediate and long-term outcomes were gathered on each offender, with a particular emphasis on criminal recidivism (re-arrest) as a primary outcomes measure. The outcome data were drawn in late 2005 and early 2006, allowing a minimum of 5 years of follow-up on all cohorts and more than 10 years on many cohorts. Data on costs were gathered using a modified Transactional Cost Analysis Approach to allow us to conduct a cost-benefit analysis. Costs were calculated in terms of investment costs (transactions associated with the drug court-eligible case), outcome costs (transactions that occurred after participants entered the program, not associated with the drug court-eligible case) and total costs per participant. The analysis of the data focused on both the overall impact of the drug court on the target population over time, variations over time on that impact, and external and internal conditions that influenced these outcomes. A cost analysis was conducted to assess the overall investment of taxpayer money in the court compared to its benefits. Results included significantly reduced recidivism for drug court participants up to 14 years after drug court entry compared to eligible offenders that did not participate. Drug court judges that worked longer with the drug court had better participant outcomes. Judges that rotated through the drug court twice had better participant outcomes the second time than the first. Investment costs in the drug court program were $1,392 less than the investment costs of business-as-usual. Savings (benefits) due to reduced recidivism for drug court participants totaled more than $79 million over the 10-year period. Details: Portland, OR: NPC Research, 2007. 104p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed on January 20, 2012 at http://www.npcresearch.com/Files/10yr_STOP_Court_Analysis_Final_Report.pdf Year: 2007 Country: United States URL: http://www.npcresearch.com/Files/10yr_STOP_Court_Analysis_Final_Report.pdf Shelf Number: 123701 Keywords: Cost-Benefit AnalysisDrug Courts (Oregon)Drug OffendersProblem-Solving CourtsRecidivism |
Author: Marchand, Gwen Title: Barry County Adult Drug Court Outcome and Cost Evaluation (Final Report) Summary: In the past fifteen years, one of the most dramatic developments in the movement to reduce substance abuse among the U.S. criminal justice population has been the spread of drug courts across the country. 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 including addiction treatment providers, prosecuting attorneys, public defenders, law enforcement officers, and parole and probation officers who work together to provide needed services to drug court participants. “The emergence of these new courts reflects the growing recognition on the part of judges, prosecutors, and defense counsel that the traditional criminal justice methods of incarceration, probation, or supervised parole have not stemmed the tide of drug use among criminals and drug-related crimes in America” (Hora, Schma, & Rosenthal, 1999, p.9). In the drug treatment court movement, Michigan has been a pioneering force. The Michigan Community Corrections Act was enacted in 1988 to investigate and develop alternatives to incarceration. Four years later, in June 1992, the first women’s drug treatment court in the nation was established in Kalamazoo, Michigan. The Drug Court in Barry County began in 2001 as a response to the high number of drunk drivers coming before the court. Over time, the Barry County Adult Drug Court has emerged as a powerful force in the community in combating increasing jail and prison populations as well as social and public health problems stemming from a variety of substance abuse issues. In 2005, the Michigan Supreme Court, State Court Administrative Office contracted with NPC Research to perform outcome and cost evaluations of two Michigan adult drug courts; the Kalamazoo Adult Drug Treatment Court and the Barry County Adult Drug Court. This document describes the evaluation and results for the Barry County Adult Drug Court (BCADC). Details: Portland, OR: NPC Research, 2006. 61p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed on January 20, 2012 at http://www.npcresearch.com/Files/Barry%20Final%20Report_1006.pdf Year: 2006 Country: United States URL: http://www.npcresearch.com/Files/Barry%20Final%20Report_1006.pdf Shelf Number: 123702 Keywords: Cost-Benefit AnalysisDrug Courts (Michigan)Drug OffendersProblem-Solving CourtsRecidivismSubstance Abuse |
Author: Shaffer, Deborah K. Title: Evaluation of Ohio's Drug Courts: A Cost Benefit Analysis Summary: In 1995, researchers in the Center for Criminal Justice Research at the University of Cincinnati began an evaluation of Ohio’s first drug court (Hamilton County). Since that time, numerous other drug courts have been implemented throughout the State of Ohio. The University of Cincinnati has completed outcome evaluations on juvenile, felony, and misdemeanor drug courts throughout the State. While these studies have suggested that Ohio’s drug courts are reducing recidivism, none of them have included a cost-benefit analysis. In 2003, the Ohio Office of Criminal Justice Services contracted with the University of Cincinnati to extend the previous research. Specifically, this project seeks to assess whether drug courts save taxpayer dollars as either a less expensive sentencing option or through reductions in recidivism. Details: Cincinatti, OH: Center for Criminal Justice Research, University of Cincinnati, 2005. 44p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed on January 20, 2012 at http://www.publicsafety.ohio.gov/links/ocjs_CostBenefitAnalysisofOhiosDrugCourts2005.pdf Year: 2005 Country: United States URL: http://www.publicsafety.ohio.gov/links/ocjs_CostBenefitAnalysisofOhiosDrugCourts2005.pdf Shelf Number: 123705 Keywords: Cost-Benefit AnalysisDrug Courts (Ohio)Drug OffendersDrug TreatmentProblem-Solving CourtsRecidivism |
Author: Gilbertson, Troy Title: 2008 DWI Court Evaluation Report - Ninth Judicial District Minnesota Summary: An evaluation of the DWI Courts in the Minnesota 9th Judicial District was conducted. The individual courts include; Aitkin County DWI Court, Beltrami County DWI Court, Cass County/ Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe Wellness Court, Crow Wing County DWI Couty, Koochiching County DWI Court, Lake of the Woods County DWI Court, and Roseau County DWI Court. The evaluation is based on data collected from participants active in the above referenced DWI courts between January 1, 2008 and December 31, 2008. The analysis was focused on four main criteria: recidivism, sobriety, community functioning, and jail cost avoidance. Details: Bemidji, MN: Criminal Justice Department, Bemidji State University, undated. 65p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed on January 20, 2012 at http://www.american.edu/spa/jpo/customcf/get.cfm?jpo_collection=1&doc=2008-DWI-Court-Evaluation-Report--Ninth-Judicial-District-MN-Executive-Summary & at: http://www.american.edu/spa/jpo/customcf/get.cfm?jpo_collection=1&doc=2008-DWI-Court-Evaluation-Report-Ninth-Judicial-District-MN1 Year: 0 Country: United States URL: http://www.american.edu/spa/jpo/customcf/get.cfm?jpo_collection=1&doc=2008-DWI-Court-Evaluation-Report--Ninth-Judicial-District-MN-Executive-Summary & at: http://www.american.edu/spa/jpo/customcf/get.cfm?jpo_collection=1&do Shelf Number: 123709 Keywords: Cost-Benefit AnalysisDrug Courts (Minnesota)Drug OffendersDrug TreatmentProblem-Solving CourtsRecidivism |
Author: Ottawa County Planning Department Title: Program Evaluation - Ottawa County Sobriety/Drug Courts - (58th District Sobriety Court, 20th Circuit Adult Drug Court, 20th Circuit Juvenile Drug Court) Summary: Over the past decade, sobriety and drug courts have been established throughout the nation as a new way to address substance abuse problems among criminal offenders. These courts seek to treat the needs of alcohol or drug-dependent offenders in a relational, non-adversarial approach, while at the same time, requiring accountability and a structured lifestyle. This balance between therapeutic and sanction-based programming has increased the popularity of these courts immensely among judges and their staff. Sobriety courts are designed primarily for offenders with serious alcohol-dependencies, while drug courts are designed primarily for offenders with serious drug-dependencies (i.e. crack, heroine, cocaine, prescription drugs, other). However, both courts can accept and process offenders who have either (or both) alcohol and drug-dependencies. The Circuit and District Court judges in Ottawa County were prompted to explore the use of sobriety and drug courts in their dockets based on the numerous positive accolades this approach to substance abuse treatment had received in recent years. Judge Susan Jonas launched the first Ottawa County District Sobriety Court in May 2004, and Judge Bradley Knoll followed with a second District Sobriety Court in October 2004. Judge Mark Feyen initiated a Juvenile Drug Court in October 2004 and an Adult Circuit Drug Court in January 2005. The team members responsible for implementing the sobriety/drug courts all have a positive view of their involvement in the sobriety/drug courts. In fact, because team members find it is more therapeutic for participants than being solely punitive, many say that this is the most satisfying work they have ever performed in the criminal justice system. Based on self-reported performance from District Sobriety Court graduates, it appears to be popular with many of the graduates as well. Since the adult sobriety/drug court programs require an average of 17 months to complete, and the courts have only been operational for 20-24 months, there are only a few program graduates who can be evaluated to determine the long-term impacts (i.e. sobriety and recidivism) of the program. Furthermore, operational issues that were recently addressed in the Juvenile Drug Court also affect the completion of the evaluation at this time. Despite the inability to look at long-term, outcome-based measures, it was still possible to assess all three courts to determine their administrative and operational performance, as well as, relative cost. In the District Sobriety Court, the total cost per participant was $6,168. As a comparison, the total average cost for a similar offender sentenced to traditional probation is $1,926, and the average cost for a similar offender sentenced to Intensive Supervision Probation in the Grand Haven District Court and in the Hudsonville District Court is $2,907 and $3,105, respectively. In the Circuit Drug Court, the total cost per participant was $14,563. At the time of this evaluation, comparison group data were not available. Since Circuit Drug Court involves participants with felony charges, it is expected that sentencing practices, program intensity, and associated expenses would be greater than Sobriety Court. In the Juvenile Drug Court, the total cost per participant was $5,285. As a comparison, the total average cost for a juvenile offender enrolled in the Juvenile Community Justice (JCJ) program is $14,698. Another issue that will need to be factored into the overall cost of sobriety/drug courts is the program expense presently being funded through grant dollars. When these grants expire, financial support will likely be sought from the County to replace 80% of grant funding presently being used for salaries, programming, drug/alcohol testing, and other program expenses. The remaining 20% of the grant funding, on average, is in the form of inkind contributions, so it will not have to be replaced. The total replacement funds needed could be as high as $866,542 beginning 2011/12. It is important to note that the outcome-based success and relative expense of the sobriety/drug court programs can only be calculated by comparing program cost, completion rates, and recidivism rates to other existing treatment programs when more data become available for analysis in 2008/09. Nevertheless, this report does provide several recommendations for administrative and operational improvements, as well as a detailed overview of the relative cost of each program. Details: Ottawa County, MI: Ottawa County Planning Department, 2006. 65p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed on January 22, 2012 at http://www.co.ottawa.mi.us/CoGov/Depts/Planning/pdf/SobrietyDrugCourtsEval2006.pdf Year: 2006 Country: United States URL: http://www.co.ottawa.mi.us/CoGov/Depts/Planning/pdf/SobrietyDrugCourtsEval2006.pdf Shelf Number: 123721 Keywords: Adult OffendersDrug Treatment ProgramsDrugs Courts (Michigan)Juvenile OffendersProblem-Solving CourtsRecidivismSubstance Abuse |
Author: innovation Research & Training, Inc. Title: Rowan County Juvenile Drug Treatment Court Process Evaluation Report Summary: The primary purpose of this process evaluation report is to provide a description of the structure, organization, and operations of the Rowan County Juvenile Drug Treatment Court (RCJDTC), as well as to identify the strengths and barriers of the court. Process evaluations are required by North Carolina’s Administrative Office of the Courts and the Bureau of Justice Assistance, and are supported by the North Carolina Governor’s Crime Commission. The North Carolina Drug Treatment Court Advisory Committee is “established to develop and recommend to the Director of the AOC guidelines for the DTC and to monitor local courts wherever they are implemented” (N.C. Gen. Stat. §7A-795). A drug court process evaluation documents and describes the current operation, strengths, and areas in need of improvement in the functioning of a court. A process evaluation differs from an outcome evaluation in that it does not examine and evaluate the effectiveness of the Drug Treatment Court in terms of its effectiveness in reducing recidivism, substance abuse, and addiction. This report describes the results of the process evaluation conducted on the functioning of the RCJDTC. At various points within this report, excerpts from program materials and from interviews are reported verbatim in order to retain the exact language and nuances intended by the Drug Court Team or by the interviewee. Details: Durham, NC: innovation Research & Training, Inc., 2005. 81p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed on January 22, 2012 at http://www.dtcintranet.nccourts.org/Documents/Resources/Rowan/Youth/processevaluation.pdf Year: 2005 Country: United States URL: http://www.dtcintranet.nccourts.org/Documents/Resources/Rowan/Youth/processevaluation.pdf Shelf Number: 123722 Keywords: Drug Courts (North Carolina)Drug TreatmentJuvenile OffendersProblem-Solving Courts |
Author: Pearson-Nelson, Benjamin Title: Allen County Community Corrections Reentry Court Program Impact Evaluation Summary: This report is an analysis of the Allen County Community Corrections (ACCC) reentry program from the inception of the program in 2001 through 2008. This report focuses on two general categories: program completion by offenders and recidivism. The program completion analysis highlights the proportion of offenders who successfully completed the program, as well as the various proportions of the categories for non-completion. The recidivism analysis includes rearrest rates, length of time after an offender started the ACCC reentry program before rearrest (for offenders who were rearrested on the program), and evaluations of the validity of mental health measures for predicting rearrest. The overarching finding is that offenders who complete the reentry program have a much lower rate of recidivism than would otherwise be expected. Further more, even offenders who had limited exposure to the reentry program (i.e., offenders who did not complete the program) demonstrated significantly lower rates of rearrest. Details: Unpublished, 2008. 25p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed on January 23, 2012 at http://www.allencountycorrections.com/pdfs/reports/ReEntry%20Court%20Impact%20Evaluation%2002%2004%2009.pdf Year: 2008 Country: United States URL: http://www.allencountycorrections.com/pdfs/reports/ReEntry%20Court%20Impact%20Evaluation%2002%2004%2009.pdf Shelf Number: 123746 Keywords: Mental HealthProblem-Solving CourtsRecidivismReentry (Indiana) |
Author: Rossman, Shelli B. Title: The Multi-Site Adult Drug Court Evaluation: The Drug Court Experience - Final Report Volume 3 Summary: Volume 3 from the National Institute of Justice's Multi–site Adult Drug Court Evaluation (MADCE) provides process evaluation findings about the 23 drug courts included in the MADCE outcome evaluation, and information about participant receipt of program services including drug court supervision (contact with judges and attorneys; case management; drug testing; and sanctions and incentives) and treatment. It also describes drug court participants' outcomes related to offender attitudes and to drug court retention. Participants' perceptions of procedural justice, distributive justice, and severity of the sentence to be imposed upon drug court failure significantly predicted program compliance, criminal behavior, and drug use at follow–up. Details: Washington, DC: Urban Institute, 2011. 139p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed on January 23, 2012 at http://www.urban.org/uploadedpdf/412356-MADCE-The-Drug-Court-Experience.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.urban.org/uploadedpdf/412356-MADCE-The-Drug-Court-Experience.pdf Shelf Number: 123747 Keywords: Drug Courts (U.S.)Drug OffendersDrug TreatmentProblem-Solving Courts |
Author: Mitchell, Ojmarrh Title: Drug Courts’ Effects on Criminal Offending for Juveniles and Adults Summary: Drug courts are specialized courts in which court actors collaboratively use the legal and moral authority of the court to monitor drug-involved offenders’ abstinence from drug use via frequent drug testing and compliance with individualized drug treatment programs. Drug courts have proliferated across the United States in the past 20 years and been adopted in countries outside the United States. Drug courts also have expanded to non-traditional populations (juvenile and DWI offenders). The objective of this review is to systematically review quasi-experimental and experimental (RCT) evaluations of the effectiveness of drug courts in reducing recidivism, including drug courts for juvenile and DWI offenders. This systematic review critically assesses drug courts’ effects on recidivism in the short- and long-term, the methodological soundness of the existing evidence, and the relationship between drug court features and effectiveness. Details: Oslo, Norway: Campbell Collaboration, 2012. 87p. Source: Internet Resource: Campbell Systematic Review 2012:4: Accessed February 28, 2012 at: http://www.ndcrc.org/sites/default/files/mitchell_drugcourts_review.pdf Year: 2012 Country: International URL: http://www.ndcrc.org/sites/default/files/mitchell_drugcourts_review.pdf Shelf Number: 124302 Keywords: Drug Abuse TreatmentDrug CourtsDrug OffendersProblem-Solving CourtsRecidivism |
Author: Stiegel, Lori A. Title: Final Technical Report to the National Institute of Justice on "A Multi-Site Assessment of Five Court-Focused Elder Abuse Initiatives" Summary: We assessed the five court-focused elder abuse initiatives in existence when our study began to examine how they handle elder abuse cases and determine whether they improve the criminal justice response to those cases. The initiatives were the: “Elder Protection Court” in Alameda County, California; “Elder Justice Center” in Hillsborough County, Florida; “Elder Justice Center” in Palm Beach County, Florida; “In-Home Emergency Protective Order Initiative” in Jefferson County, Kentucky; “Elder Temporary Order of Protection” Initiative in Kings County, New York. Our goal was to provide judges, court administrators, policymakers, and funders with evidence-based knowledge about the structure, process, and outcomes of these initiatives so they can make informed decisions about supporting similar initiatives in their communities. Guided by a multidisciplinary advisory committee, we: reviewed research literature; identified and surveyed key informants; identified key stakeholders from an array of disciplines; developed four question sets for stakeholder interviews; created a case file review sheet; conducted five site visits at which we interviewed 92 stakeholders, including three victims, and reviewed 68 court case files; coded and analyzed (qualitatively and quantitatively) stakeholder interview and court case file data; and developed findings and arrived at conclusions. We found that the initiatives improved handling of elder abuse cases and enhanced the criminal justice response to elder abuse in several ways, including: facilitating greater access to justice and better court outcomes for victims through court accommodations, increasing judges’ and other professionals’ knowledge about elder abuse, and providing emotional support throughout the court process; providing services to courts or to victims that enhance victim safety and prevent further abuse; connecting victims with services that may help address underlying problems and prevent future court cases; providing services to courts or to victims that may facilitate prosecution of elder abuse cases; and handling elder abuse cases more efficiently and with fewer delays. We also found that the initiatives do almost nothing to self-assess their impact and outcomes and should strengthen evaluation and data collection efforts. Each initiative does a better job of handling elder abuse cases than do courts and communities without such initiatives. Given the extent of elder abuse now, its anticipated growth, and its devastating effects on victims, we recommend that judges, court administrators, service providers, policymakers, and funders in other communities give serious consideration to implementing similar efforts. Details: American Bar Association and University of Kentucky Research Foundation, 2011. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 25, 2012 at http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/uncategorized/2011/2011_aging_ea_multi_assess.authcheckdam.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/uncategorized/2011/2011_aging_ea_multi_assess.authcheckdam.pdf Shelf Number: 124741 Keywords: Case ProcessingElder Abuse and NeglectProblem-Solving CourtsVictim Services |
Author: New Jersey Courts Title: A Model for Success: A Report on New Jersey's Adult Drug Courts Summary: The New Jersey Adult Drug Court Program is an alternative to incarceration for drug dependent offenders. Instead of imprisoning offenders, the Drug Court offers a voluntary, therapeutic program designed to break the cycle of addiction and crime by addressing the underlying cause of repeated criminal behavior. In New Jersey, the Drug Court process begins with a legal review of the offender’s current and prior offenses and a clinical assessment of his or her substance abuse history. Offenders who meet eligibility criteria and are found to be drug and/or alcohol dependent are placed in the Drug Court program and referred to a treatment level of care that meets their clinical need. Over several years, the individual receives substance abuse treatment, intensive probation supervision, frequent and random drug testing and may be referred to a variety of ancillary service providers. A unique element of the Drug Court program is that offenders must appear in court regularly, even weekly and report to the Drug Court judge on their compliance with program requirements. The personal intervention of the judge in the offenders’ lives is a major factor in the success of Drug Courts. This report tells the of the accomplishments of Adult Drug Courts in the State of New Jersey over the past ten years. Details: Trenton, NJ: New Jersey Courts, 2010. 26p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 12, 2012 at: Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 124940 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationDrug Courts (New Jersey)Drug OffendersProblem-Solving Courts |
Author: Rossman, Shelli B. Title: Criminal Justice Interventions for Offenders with Mental Illness: Evaluation of Mental Health Courts in Bronx and Brooklyn, New York Summary: Mental health courts (MHCs) emerged more than a decade ago. Initially implemented in Broward County, FL, in 1997, there are more than 250 MHCs now operating in the U.S., with others planned. The spread of mental health courts is likely due to the confluence of several trends (Denckla and Berman 2001; Fisher, Silver, and Wolff 2006; Pogrebin and Poole 1987; Rossman, Roman, et al. 2011; Teplin 1984), including: • Resources available for treating populations with mental health problems systematically shifted during the 1960s and early 1970s from residential, state-run psychiatric hospitals to community-based settings, resulting in the deinstitutionalization of individuals needing mental health services, without a concomitant increase in the availability of such services. • Law enforcement agencies have increasingly encountered offenders with mental illness who must be processed under their purviews. • Problem-solving courts⎯after which mental health courts are modeled⎯have evolved from an originally grassroots response (to burgeoning drug offender arrests and prosecutions that overwhelmed the capacity of courts) into a welldocumented successful strategy, employed in numerous jurisdictions, to mitigate offenders’ substance use, prevent relapse, support crime desistance, and achieve significant reductions in crime. By the early 2000s, it had become starkly clear that the criminal justice system, de facto, was not only the primary public response to inappropriate behaviors by persons with mental illness, but also that such individuals were over-represented within criminal justice populations. In response, various federal agencies supported programming and services targeting offenders with mental disorders. In line with this increasing awareness, the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) commissioned an Evaluation of Criminal Justice Interventions for Mentally Ill Offenders (now entitled Criminal Justice Interventions for Offenders With Mental Illness: Evaluation of Mental Health Courts in Bronx and Brooklyn, New York) to assess two distinct approaches to handling offenders with mental health problems in the criminal justice system: 1) the Brooklyn MHC, a specialized problem-solving court operating in the Supreme Court in Brooklyn, New York, and 2) the Pinellas County Mentally-Ill Diversion Program, operating in the 6th Judicial Circuit’s Public Defender’s Office in Clearwater, Florida. Subsequently, the Florida site was replaced by a second MHC in Bronx, NY. This report provides an overview of the study funded by NIJ; summarizes key findings from the process and impact components of the evaluation; and identifies implications for practice, policy, and future research. Details: Washington, DC: Urban Institute, 2012. 202p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 30, 2012 at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/238264.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/238264.pdf Shelf Number: 125107 Keywords: Mental Health Courts (New York)Mentally Ill OffendersProblem-Solving Courts |
Author: Waller, Mark S. Title: Benton County Adult Drug Treatment 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 late 2009, the Benton County Adult Drug Treatment Court (BCADTC) received a program grant from the Bureau of Justice Assistance. This grant included funds for evaluation. NPC Research was contracted to perform a process, outcome and cost evaluation. The process study included an examination of BCADTC practices in relation to the 10 Key Components of drug court (NADCP, 1997) and recommendations for enhancements to the program to meet research based best practices results. The outcome evaluation included a criminal justice recidivism study comparing outcomes for drug treatment court participants to a matched group of offenders who were eligible for the program but did not participate. Outcomes were examined for up to five years after drug treatment court entry. The cost evaluation was a cost-benefit analysis that calculated the cost of the program and the costs of participant and comparison group criminal justice related outcomes including rearrests, court cases, time on probation, in jail and in prison. Details: Portland, OR: NPC Research, 2011. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 7, 2012 at: http://www.npcresearch.com/Files/Benton_County_Adult_Drug_Treatment_Court_Final_Report_1211.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.npcresearch.com/Files/Benton_County_Adult_Drug_Treatment_Court_Final_Report_1211.pdf Shelf Number: 125493 Keywords: Cost-Benefit AnalysisDrug Courts (Oregon)Drug OffendersDrug Treatment ProgramsProblem-Solving Courts |
Author: Ziersch, Emma Title: The South Australian Drug Court: A Recidivism Study Summary: One of the primary aims of the South Australian Drug Court is to cease or reduce criminal activity amongst individuals whose offending is related to drug abuse. The court seeks to achieve this through a comprehensive program of intensive supervision, regular drug testing, sanctions and therapy and support services. This evaluation examines and compares the offending behaviour of persons who participate in the Drug Court between 2004 and 2008 with a sample of prisoners who did not take part in the Drug Court program, with the aim of determining the impact of the Drug Court on re-offending. Details: Adelaide: http://www.ocsar.sa.gov.au/docs/evaluation_reports/SADrugCourtRecidivismStudy.pdf, 2012. 34p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 9, 2012 at: http://www.ocsar.sa.gov.au/docs/evaluation_reports/SADrugCourtRecidivismStudy.pdf Year: 2012 Country: Australia URL: http://www.ocsar.sa.gov.au/docs/evaluation_reports/SADrugCourtRecidivismStudy.pdf Shelf Number: 125513 Keywords: Drug Courts (Australia)Drug OffendersProblem-Solving CourtsRecidivism |
Author: Minnesota. Judicial Branch. State Court Administrator's Office Title: Minnesota Statewide Adult Drug Court Evaluation Summary: The first drug court in Minnesota started in Hennepin County in 1996. However, not until the mid-2000s did drug courts spread throughout the state, primarily in counties where judges had interest in the drug court concept. By July 2007, Minnesota had 27 operational drug courts, covering one third of Minnesota counties. In 2007, the Judicial Council approved, upon the Drug Court Initiative Advisory Committee (DCI) recommendation, the Drug Court Standards, which became Judicial Council Branch Policy 511.1. The Standards, based on the 10 Key Components published by the U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of Justice Programs, and written by the National Association of Drug Court Professionals (NADCP), require all drug courts to follow uniform practices. The Standards allow flexibility at the local level, while keeping basic and foundational aspects of drug courts uniform across all locations. The Standards provide the foundation for the evaluation. The research questions evaluate if drug courts meet the three goals of drug courts, as well as the extent courts are employing the practices required and recommended by the Standards. A comparison group is used to evaluate outcome measures related to incarceration and recidivism. In June 2008 the DCI approved the Statewide Drug Court Evaluation plan. The plan focused on a cohort of adult and hybrid drug court participants entering drug courts from July 2007 to December 2008. All drug courts in Minnesota operational during the evaluation period are included in the evaluation. The evaluation measures drug court processes, compliance with the standards, outcomes for incarceration time served by participants, and recidivism rates of new charges and convictions. The comparison group includes court participants meeting drug court eligibility criteria (e.g. chemically dependent) and matching similar characteristics of the selected drug court participants (e.g. offenses, criminal history, and demographics). Details: St. Paul: Minnesota Judicial Branch, 2012. 157p., app. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 11, 2012 at: http://www.mncourts.gov/Documents/0/Public/Drug_Court/2012%20Statewide%20Evaluation/MN_Statewide_Drug_Court_Evaluation_Report_-_Final_Public.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.mncourts.gov/Documents/0/Public/Drug_Court/2012%20Statewide%20Evaluation/MN_Statewide_Drug_Court_Evaluation_Report_-_Final_Public.pdf Shelf Number: 125542 Keywords: Drug Courts (Minnesota)Drug OffendersProblem-Solving Courts |
Author: Nobles, Matthew Robin Title: Evaluating Philadelphia's Gun Court: Implications for Crime Reduction and Specialized Jurisprudence Summary: We evaluated the City of Philadelphia's specialized problem-solving gun court. The gun court program began in 2005, and features mandatory treatment elements in addition to enhanced processing celerity and intensive supervision protocols, with the ultimate goal of impacting aggregate levels of gun violence in Philadelphia. Although gun policy research from criminology and other fields has examined a variety of gun violence interventions with different levels of success, to date there are no peer-reviewed evaluations of a gun court program in the literature. Meanwhile, gun courts continue their expansion into jurisdictions of all sizes with varying levels of social problems, from Providence, Rhode Island (home to the nation's first gun court in 1994) to relatively newer programs including New York City (2003) and Boston (2006). This study first describes Philadelphia’s Gun Court program, reviews deterrence theory broadly implicated in anti-crime programs, and recounts what works and what’s promising in anti-gun interventions. It then presents an interrupted time series analysis to determine whether there are statistically significant treatment effects observed in Philadelphia after the intervention. The analysis includes a comparison site (Pittsburgh) and non-gun crime series while implementing the proper controls for autocorrelation, seasonality, and non-stationarity. Results indicate that there are no statistically significant declines in the aggregate rates of four gun-related crime categories in Philadelphia in the 24 months after the introduction of the court program, although this finding does not necessarily preclude individual-level effects for offenders processed through gun court. Implications for gun policy and problem-solving courts are discussed. Details: Tallahassee, FL: University of Florica, 2008. 122p. Source: Internet Resource: Dissertation: Accessed September 13, 2012 at: http://etd.fcla.edu/UF/UFE0022084/nobles_m.pdf Year: 2008 Country: United States URL: http://etd.fcla.edu/UF/UFE0022084/nobles_m.pdf Shelf Number: 126326 Keywords: Gun Control PolicyGun Courts (Philadelphia)Gun ViolenceGunsProblem-Solving Courts |
Author: Kurtz, Ellen Title: Philadelphia's Gun Court: Process and Outcome Evaluation Executive Summary Summary: Philadelphia’s gun court opened its doors on January 10, 2005. This report describes the results of the process and outcome evaluation conducted over the past 18 months. The evaluation of Philadelphia’s gun court focuses on two distinct pieces: the court itself and the probation department’s intensive supervision program. The evaluation of the court addresses questions about case processing. The evaluation of the probation program examines the impact of gun court supervision on VUFA offenders. Details: Philadelphia, PA: The Philadelphia Courts, 2007. 5p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 20, 2012 at http://www.courts.phila.gov/pdf/criminal-reports/Gun-Court-Evaluation-report-executive-summary.pdf Year: 2007 Country: United States URL: http://www.courts.phila.gov/pdf/criminal-reports/Gun-Court-Evaluation-report-executive-summary.pdf Shelf Number: 126385 Keywords: Evaluative StudiesGun Courts (Philadelphia)GunsProblem-Solving Courts |
Author: Schlueter, Max Title: Bennington County Integrated Domestic Violence Docket Project: Outcome Evaluation. Final Report Summary: The Bennington County Integrated Domestic Violence Docket (IDVD) Project was initiated in September, 2007, as a special docket within the Bennington County Criminal/Family Division Courts. The goal of the IDVD project was to provide an immediate response to domestic violence events by coordinating Family and Criminal Division cases. Dedicated to the idea of One Family, One Judge, the IDVD Project was designed to allow a single judge, one day each week, to have immediate access to all relevant information regardless of the traditional docket and to gather all appropriate players at the table regardless of any traditionally limited roles. The IDVD Project focused on: 1) protection and safety for victims and their children as well as other family members; 2) providing immediate access to community services and resources for victims, their children, and offenders to help overcome the impact of prior domestic abuse and prevent future abuse; and 3) providing an immediate and effective response to non-compliance with court orders by offenders. Details: Northfield Falls, VT: Vermont Center for Justice Research, 2011. 52p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 25, 2012 at: http://www.vcjr.org/reports/reportscrimjust/reports/idvdreport.html Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.vcjr.org/reports/reportscrimjust/reports/idvdreport.html Shelf Number: 126800 Keywords: Domestic Violence (Vermont, U.S.)Domestic Violence CourtsFamily ViolenceProblem-Solving CourtsVictims of Domestic Violence |
Author: Cheesman, Fred Title: Philadelphia Community Court Evaluation Final Report: Outcome/Impact Analysis and Update on Process Evaluation Summary: In the 1990s, the Center City District of Philadelphia began experiencing an increase in the number of what are generally termed “quality-of-life” crimes, such as vandalism, prostitution, disorderly conduct, and minor thefts. City and justice system officials recognized that because of jail and prison overcrowding, insufficient alternative sentencing options, and the need to focus limited resources on more serious crimes, quality-of-life crimes were a low priority for law enforcement and had become virtually decriminalized. This report presents the methodology and findings of the evaluation of the outcome and implementation of the Philadelphia Community Court (PCC), which was established to process “quality-of-life” crimes, such as vandalism, prostitution, disorderly conduct, and minor thefts. Details: Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Coruts, 2010. 78p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 1, 2012 at: http://dn2vfhykblonm.cloudfront.net/sites/default/files/philadelphia_community_court_final_report.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://dn2vfhykblonm.cloudfront.net/sites/default/files/philadelphia_community_court_final_report.pdf Shelf Number: 127089 Keywords: -Nuisance Behaviors and DisorderCommunitiy Courts (Philadelphia)Disorderly ConductProblem-Solving CourtsProstitutionPublic Order OffensesVandalism |
Author: Stageberg, Paul Title: Comprehensive Jail Diversion Program-Mental Health Courts Study Summary: On April 12, 2012 Governor Branstad signed Senate File 2312, an Act Relating to Persons with Mental Health Illnesses and Substance Related Disorders. Section 18. Comprehensive Jail Diversion Program-Mental Health Courts –Study. The Division of Criminal and Juvenile Justice Planning of the Department of Human Rights shall conduct a study regarding the possible establishment of a comprehensive statewide jail diversion program including: The establishment of mental health courts, for nonviolent criminal offenders who suffer from mental illness. The division shall solicit input from the Department of Human Services, the Department of Corrections, and other members of the criminal justice system including but not limited to judges, prosecutors, and defense counsel, and mental health treatment providers and consumers. The division shall establish the duties, scope, and membership of the study commission and shall also consider the feasibility of establishing a demonstration mental health court. The division shall submit a report on the study and make recommendations to the Governor and the General Assembly by December 1, 2012. This study draws primarily from existing reports and research findings of other programs. Included here are a review of the prevalence of mentally ill offenders in the criminal justice (CJ) system, the system’s response to the problem, findings of participant outcomes, reported costs, special considerations regarding mental health courts, the status of jail diversion programs and mental health courts in Iowa, and recommendations. One of the requirements of the legislation was to consider the feasibility of establishing a demonstration mental health court in Iowa. This directive was not examined because Iowa currently has two mental health courts in operation and one under consideration. Woodbury County has operated a mental health court since 2001 and Black Hawk County since 2009. Polk County has recently received funds from the Council of State Governments, Justice Center to review a mental health court curriculum for developing mental health courts. Recommendations for the establishment of a comprehensive statewide jail diversion program, including the establishment of mental health courts for nonviolent criminal offenders who suffer from mental illness, are limited to operational issues gleaned from existing reports and interviews. Due to limited staff resources and a lack of funding, no assessment of cost or delineation of funding responsibilities (state, local), or estimation of potential implementation timelines was undertaken. Details: Des Moines, IA: Iowa Department of Human Rights, Division of Criminal and Juvenile Justice Planning, Statistical Analysis Center, 2012. 60p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 25, 2013 at: https://www.legis.iowa.gov/DOCS/LSA/IntComHand/2013/IHJCP000.PDF Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: https://www.legis.iowa.gov/DOCS/LSA/IntComHand/2013/IHJCP000.PDF Shelf Number: 127399 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCommunity TreatmentJail Diversion (Iowa)Mental Health CourtsMental Health ServicesMentally Ill OffendersProblem-Solving Courts |
Author: Hynynen, Suvi Title: Community Perceptions of Brownsville: A Survey of Neighborhood Quality of Life, Safety, and Services Summary: In 2010, the Center for Court Innovation began exploring the possibility of creating a community court in Brownsville, Brooklyn. A community court is a neighborhood-focused court that attempts to harness the authority of the justice system to address local problems. As part of the planning process community members were asked to voice their opinions about their neighborhood and community through an “Operation Data” survey, a tool to assess community needs and inform future initiatives. In October 2010, 815 residents, merchants, or people who work in Brownsville completed the survey. Their perceptions of quality of life, safety, services, and youth issues in their neighborhood are presented in this report. The Brownsville neighborhood of Brooklyn covers less than two square miles and has a population of 113,484 (Citizens’ Committee for Children in New York, 2010). Median income for a family in Brownsville is $26,802 with 32.1 percent of families living below the poverty line (New York City Department of City Planning, 2011). Brownsville has the highest concentration of public housing developments in New York City (New York City Housing Authority) and 48 percent receive income support in the form of public assistance, SSI, and/or Medicaid (New York City Department of City Planning, 2011). The majority of residents (80 percent) are African- American. Crime is a major concern in Brownsville—in 2008 it had the highest homicide rate in the city, and along with the surrounding communities of East New York, Bushwick, and Bedford-Stuyvesant accounted for nearly a fifth of the city’s murders and almost half of those in Brooklyn (Wright 2008). The 2010 Brownsville survey was conducted by 25 members of the Juvenile Justice Corps (JJC), the Center for Court Innovation’s AmeriCorps program. The survey consisted of 82 questions asking respondents about their perceptions on a wide range of community issues including youth, the justice system, community problems and safety. Assigned to four teams of about six individuals each, the JJC members conducted surveys with people on the street in seven specific zones in Brownsville. For the purposes of the survey, Brownsville was defined by the official census boundaries that coincide with the area of the 73rd Precinct. The zones (see Appendix A for a map of the Brownsville zones) were high pedestrian traffic areas, such as around public housing complexes, in the main shopping district, and close to subway station entrances. In five of the zones, the volunteers conducted surveys at least twice a day (once in the morning and once in the afternoon). The other two zones (Zone 5 and Zone 6) were in the Ocean Hill part of Brownsville (north of Eastern Parkway) and were only surveyed once. The Juvenile Justice Corps members conducted surveys Monday through Saturday for one week in October. They approached individuals in public spaces and, with permission, in some businesses. They asked if they were interested in participating in the survey (no incentives were offered). The survey took approximately 10 to 15 minutes to complete. While a total of 815 surveys were completed, for some questions the number of responses was as low as 639. Descriptive statistics are reported for most of the questions. Where appropriate, t-tests and regression analysis were used to indicate any significant difference between results based on respondent background characteristics and the relationship between variables. Details: New York: Center for Court Innovation, 2011. 18p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 30, 2013 at: http://www.courtinnovation.org/sites/default/files/documents/Brownsville%20Op%20Data%20FINAL.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.courtinnovation.org/sites/default/files/documents/Brownsville%20Op%20Data%20FINAL.pdf Shelf Number: 127441 Keywords: Community CourtsNeighborhoods and Crime (New York City)Problem-Solving Courts |
Author: Adler, Robin Title: Domestic Violence Case Processing in Vermont 2004 -2008 Summary: In the criminal courts, domestic violence is best measured by domestic assault charges and violations of abuse order charges. This report examines the district court case processing and sentencing of these offenses during the study period of 2004 to 2008. Key findings: - A majority of convictions are for the same category of offense (domestic assault or violation of abuse orders) as the original charge. Ninety-nine percent of felony relief from abuse order convictions are for a violation of an order. - Race is not a statistically significant factor in determining which defendants are sentenced to incarceration for domestic assault. Women, however, are more likely to be sentenced to incarceration. - The Counties vary in their approach to sentencing domestic assault and violations of abuse orders. The county of conviction is statistically significant in determining which defendants are incarcerated for domestic assault. Details: Northfield Falls, VT: Vermont Center for Justice Research, 2011. 17p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 11, 2013 at: http://www.vcjr.org/reports/reportscrimjust/reports/dvcaseprocess.html Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.vcjr.org/reports/reportscrimjust/reports/dvcaseprocess.html Shelf Number: 127572 Keywords: Case ProcessingDomestic Violence (Vermont)Domestic Violence CourtsProblem-Solving Courts |
Author: South Dakota. Unified Judicial System Title: Drug Court Study Summary: In 2009, the South Dakota Legislature passed SB78, which required the Unified Judicial System (UJS) to provide a plan to “determin[e] the need for an additional drug court or drug courts to be established in judicial circuits with the highest volume of felony convictions” and for such findings to “be presented to the 2010 Legislature for possible implementation in fiscal year 2011”. The stated goal of this plan was to present proposals to reduce the prison population without jeopardizing the public safety. To effectuate this plan, the following study was conducted to analyze the need and interest of alternative sentencing options and make appropriate initial recommendations. Ultimately, by utilizing alternative sentencing programs, the final objective is to address the underlying problem of addiction, subsequently reducing recidivism and substance abuse related crime. An overall examination of literature relative to the subject was conducted and is included within this report. Overview information and statistical data specific to each of the three programs currently in place in South Dakota was examined and detailed. For expansion evaluation purposes, in order to determine the highest areas of need in the state, the ten counties with the highest numbers of felony drug and DUI charges for FY 08 were selected for consideration. The ten counties were: Beadle, Brookings, Brown, Brule/Buffalo, Codington, Davison, Lincoln, Pennington, Union, and Yankton. At their request, Walworth County’s DUI convictions were also examined for purposes of this report. All Fourth and Sixth Circuit counties and Minnehaha County were excluded from the study because these areas currently have drug/DUI alternative sentencing programs in place. Upon completion of the study, conclusions were drawn and the following recommendations were made: 1) Continued state allocation of general funds to support the Northern Hills Drug Court Program in the Fourth Circuit; future allocation of state general funds to support the Sixth Circuit STOP DUI Program, and continued state allocation of general funds to support the Adult Intensive Court Services Officer position for the Meth Sentencing Alternative Program in the Second Circuit. 2) Based upon this study’s conclusions, Pennington County, Brown, Yankton, and Davison Counties are identified as showing the greatest need and feasibility for establishing some form of sentencing alternative program. Therefore, these four counties should be pursued as possible candidates for expansion areas. 3) Further study is necessary and appropriate to identify alternative sentencing program specifications in the previously named counties. It is imperative to have a strong foundation and plan in place prior to implementation of any type of alternative sentencing program. The Unified Judicial System should conduct a Symposium to convene pertinent stakeholders from current programs and possible expansion areas to further determine feasibility and program specifics based upon jurisdictional need. From this additional study, specific recommendations regarding possible expansion of alternative sentencing programs, including funding needs, can be presented to the 2011 Legislative session. Details: Pierre, SD: South Dakota Unified Judicial System, 2009. 123p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 21, 2013 at: http://www.sdjudicial.com/Uploads/PublicDocuments/Final_2009_Drug_Court_Study_Reprinted_08_2010.pdf Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: http://www.sdjudicial.com/Uploads/PublicDocuments/Final_2009_Drug_Court_Study_Reprinted_08_2010.pdf Shelf Number: 127687 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationDriving Under the InfluenceDriving While IntoxicatedDrug Coruts (South Dakota)Drug OffendersProblem-Solving CourtsRecidivism |
Author: Marlowe, Douglas B. Title: Behavior Modification 101 for Drug Courts: Making the Most of Incentives and Sanctions Summary: Drug Courts improve outcomes for drug-abusing offenders by combining evidence-based substance abuse treatment with strict behavioral accountability. Participants are carefully monitored for substance use and related behaviors and receive escalating incentives for accomplishments and sanctions for infractions. The nearly unanimous perception of both participants and staff members is that the positive effects of Drug Courts are largely attributable to the application of these behavioral contingencies (Lindquist, Krebs, & Lattimore, 2006; Goldkamp, White, & Robinson, 2002; Farole & Cissner, 2007; Harrell & Roman, 2001). Scientific research over several decades reveals the most effective ways to administer behavior modification programs. Drug Courts that learn these lessons of science reap benefits several times over through better outcomes and greater cost-effectiveness (Rossman & Zweig, 2012). Those that follow nonscientific beliefs or fall back on old habits are not very effective and waste precious resources. Every Drug Court team should stay abreast of the research on effective behavior modification and periodically review court policies and procedures to ensure they are consistent with science-based practices. Details: Alexandria, VA: National Drug Court Institute, 2012. 12p. Source: Internet Resource: Drug Court Practitioner Fact Sheet: Accessed March 8, 2013 at: http://www.ndci.org/sites/default/files/BehaviorModification101forDrugCourts.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.ndci.org/sites/default/files/BehaviorModification101forDrugCourts.pdf Shelf Number: 127869 Keywords: Behavior ModificationDrug Courts (U.S.)Drug OffendersProblem-Solving Courts |
Author: Wicklund, Peter Title: Chittenden County Mental Health Court: Outcome Evaluation Summary: The Chittenden County Mental Health Court (CMHC) began operation in January 2003. It is a program for adults who have committed a crime and are having difficulty with issues related to severe and persistent mental illness but are deemed competent to stand trial. These mental illnesses could include schizophrenia, paranoia, clinical depression, and borderline personality disorders. The CMHC accepts participants with any mental health diagnoses, including personality disorders and intellectual disabilities, but the majority of participants also have a co-occurring substance use condition as well. Typically, their offenses are crimes such as disorderly conduct, unlawful trespass, drug possession, burglary, and retail theft. Occasionally, the court will hear felonies, such as arson, DWI, and assault, though all cases must first be approved by the State’s Attorney’s office. An outcome evaluation attempts to determine the effects that a program has on participants. In the case of the Chittenden County Mental Health Court (CMHC) the objective of this outcome evaluation was to determine the extent to which the CMHC reduced recidivism among program participants. For this outcome evaluation, the study cohort was divided into two groups – subjects who successfully completed the CMHC program (n=56), and a segment that was terminated or withdrew from the program (n=43). Six other subjects who were currently active in the CMHC were also on the participant list provided by the Court Administrator’s Office, but they were not included in this report. During the study period, 57% of CMHC participants (56 of 99) successfully graduated from the CMHC. An indicator of post-program criminal behavior that is commonly used in outcome evaluations of criminal justice programs is the number of participants who recidivate -- that is, are convicted of a crime after they complete the program. An analysis of the criminal history records of the 99 subjects who were referred to the CMHC from March 21, 2003 to May 24, 2012, was conducted using the Vermont criminal history records of participants as provided by the Vermont Criminal Information Center (VCIC) at the Vermont Department of Public Safety. The Vermont criminal history record on which the recidivism analysis was based included all charges and convictions prosecuted in a Vermont Superior Court-Criminal Division that were available as of July 13, 2012. The criminal records on which the study was based do not contain federal prosecutions, out-of-state prosecutions, or traffic tickets. SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS 1. The Chittenden County Mental Health Court (CMHC) appears to be a promising approach for reducing recidivism among participants who completed the program. An analysis of the Vermont criminal records for the 99 study subjects shows that significantly fewer CMHC graduates were reconvicted of some type of crime as compared to the subjects who were terminated/withdrew from the program (25.0% versus 51.2%). 2. The CMHC was shown to be effective in producing graduates that remained conviction free in the community during their first year after leaving the program. Approximately 82% of the successful graduates of the CMHC were conviction-free during their first year after leaving the program. The success rate dropped to 72% for the study group that was terminated or withdrew from the CMHC. 3. The CMHC appears to be a promising approach for reducing the number and severity of reconvictions for participants who completed CMHC. The reconviction rate of the successful CMHC participants was less than half the rate for the participants that were unsuccessful (91 compared to 225 reconvictions per 100, respectively). 4. The CMHC recidivists from both study groups tended to commit a majority of their post-CMHC crime in Chittenden County. 5. Subject characteristics that were found to have some correlation with the tendency to recidivate were the Age at First Conviction/Contact, Age at Referral to CMHC, the Base Charge Sentence Type, and Total Prior Misdemeanors. However, further analysis showed that these correlations were not strong enough to result in a useful model that could be used as a predictor of recidivism. Details: Northfield Falls, VT: Vermont Center for Justice Research, 2013. 23p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 2, 2013 at: http://www.vcjr.org/reports/reportscrimjust/reports/CMHCreport_files/CMHC%20Outcome%20Eval%20Rpt.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.vcjr.org/reports/reportscrimjust/reports/CMHCreport_files/CMHC%20Outcome%20Eval%20Rpt.pdf Shelf Number: 128186 Keywords: Mental Health CourtsMentally Ill Offenders (Vermont, U.S.)Problem-Solving CourtsRecidivism |
Author: Wicklund, Peter Title: Washington County Treatment Court: Outcome Evaluation Summary: In 2002, under Act 128, the Vermont Legislature established a pilot project to create drug court initiatives and begin implementing drug courts in three Vermont counties -- Rutland, Chittenden, and Bennington. Since the establishment of these drug courts, and the initial indications of their efficacy, additional Vermont counties have started drug court programs. The Washington County Treatment Court began official operation in September of 2006. It was established as a pilot program for combating drug crimes, not only drug possession, but drug-related crimes, both misdemeanors and felonies, such as retail theft, burglaries, and grand larceny. Offenders identified as drug-addicted are referred to the court by law enforcement, probation officers and attorneys and put into a treatment program whose goal is to reduce drug dependency and improve the quality of life for offenders and their families. In most cases, after their successful completion of drug court, the original charges are dismissed or reduced. The benefits to society include reduced recidivism by the drug court participants, leading to increased public safety and reduced costs to taxpayers. Details: Northfield Falls, VT: Vermont Center for Justice Research, 2013. 33p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 2, 2013 at: http://www.vcjr.org/reports/reportscrimjust/reports/wctcreport_files/WCTC%20Outcome%20Eval%20Rpt.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.vcjr.org/reports/reportscrimjust/reports/wctcreport_files/WCTC%20Outcome%20Eval%20Rpt.pdf Shelf Number: 128187 Keywords: Drug Courts (Vermont, U.S.)Drug OffendersProblem-Solving CourtsRecidivism |
Author: Wicklund, Peter Title: Rutland County Treatment Court: Outcome Evaluation Summary: In 2002, under Act 128 the Vermont legislature established a pilot project to create drug court initiatives and begin implementing drug courts in three Vermont counties: Rutland, Chittenden, and Bennington. The Rutland County Treatment Court (hereafter, the “RTC”) was one of the drug courts established by Act 128, and began operating in January 2004. It was established as a pilot program for combating drug crimes, not just possession, but drug-related crimes such as retail theft, burglaries, grand larceny – both misdemeanors and felonies. Offenders identified as drug-addicted are referred to the court by law enforcement, probation officers, and attorneys and put into a treatment program that will reduce drug dependency and improve the quality of life for themselves and their families. In most cases, after their successful completion of drug court, the original charges are dismissed or charges are reduced. The benefits to society include reduced recidivism by the drug court participants, leading to increased public safety and reduced costs to taxpayers. An outcome evaluation attempts to determine the effects that a program has on participants. In the case of RTC, the objective of this outcome evaluation was to determine the extent to which the RTC reduced recidivism among program participants. An indicator of post-program criminal behavior that is commonly used in outcome evaluations of criminal justice programs is the number of participants who recidivate -- that is, are convicted of a crime after they complete the program. An analysis of the criminal history records of the 165 subjects who were referred to and accepted into the RTC from January 6, 2004 to February 7, 2012, was conducted using the Vermont criminal history record of participants as provided by the Vermont Criminal Information Center at the Department of Public Safety. The Vermont criminal history record on which the recidivism analysis was based included all charges and convictions prosecuted in a Vermont Superior Court – Criminal Division that were available as of April 24, 2012. The criminal records on which the study was based do not contain Federal prosecutions, out-of-state prosecutions, or traffic tickets. SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS 1. The RTC appears to be a promising approach for reducing recidivism among participants who completed the program. People who graduated from the RTC had a recidivism rate of 35.4% which is significantly less than the recidivism rate of 54.0% for participants who were terminated or withdrew from the RTC. 2. The research showed that significantly more graduates of the RTC (84.6%) remained conviction-free for the first year after leaving the program, compared to the subjects who were unsuccessful in completing the RTC (69%). 3. The RTC appears to be a promising approach for reducing the number and severity of post-RTC reconvictions for participants who complete the RTC. The reconviction rate for the successful RTC participants was almost half the rate for the participants that were unsuccessful (109 compared to 226 reconvictions per 100, respectively). RTC graduates also had significantly fewer felony reconvictions than did the subjects that did not complete the RTC. 4. The RTC recidivists tended to commit post-project crime in Rutland County. For the total study group, 84% of new convictions were prosecuted in Rutland County. 5. The reduced recidivism rates observed for the graduates of the RTC compared with the subjects who were unsuccessful in completing the program were most likely due to the benefits of the RTC rather than due to differences in demographic, criminal history, or base charge characteristics of the study segments. 6. An investigation into the demographic and criminal history characteristics of the RTC participants showed correlations between base docket sentencing severity and type, and tendency to recidivate. However, the correlations were not strong enough to result in a useful model that could be used as a predictor of recidivism. Details: Northfield Falls, VT: Vermont Center for Justice Research, 2013. 39p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 2, 2013 at: http://www.vcjr.org/reports/reportscrimjust/reports/RTCreport_files/RTC%20Outcome%20Eval%20Rpt.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.vcjr.org/reports/reportscrimjust/reports/RTCreport_files/RTC%20Outcome%20Eval%20Rpt.pdf Shelf Number: 128189 Keywords: Drug Courts (Vermont, U.S.)Drug OffendersDrug TreatmentProblem-Solving CourtsRecidivism |
Author: Van Wormer, Jacqueline G. Title: Understanding Operational Dynamnics of Drug Courts Summary: Drug courts seek to provide a coordinated and comprehensive approach to addressing the complex intersection of defendant addiction and crime that plagues our court system. Under the layers of activity and services that occurs in a drug court model exists a team that is charged with carrying out the goals and objectives of the designed program. This program should represent, in most courtrooms, a drastic departure from business as usual. History has shown, however, that proper implementation and maintenance of criminal justice reform and program efforts over time is difficult, and mission creep or program drift is not uncommon. This research analyzes the ability of drug court teams to follow recommended operational standards and explores whether drug courts are able to reach a strong state of collaboration. In addition, this research examines philosophical and ideological program change over time to assess if drug courts have drifted away from the balanced approach that should be applied within the model. This study found that survey respondents report strong adherence to the recommended drug court components and strategies, although juvenile drug court team members are embracing components built for adult drug courts. Training was significantly correlated across many scales and revealed that as training increases for team members, so to does perceptions of model adherence. As training increases, so to does perceptions of personal and system wide benefits associated with drug court operations. Findings also reveal that the prosecutor and probation officer express less overall systems and personal benefit with participation on the team and within the drug court. In terms of assessing program drift, those team members that have received varied types of training perceive more drift and mission creep of the program over time. These findings offer important new insights into the inner working of the drug court model. Policy implications and recommendations for standardization are discussed. Details: Pullman, WA: Washington State University, 2010. 235p. Source: Internet Resource: Dissertation: Accessed April 9, 2013 at: https://research.wsulibs.wsu.edu:8443/xmlui/bitstream/handle/2376/2810/vanWormer_wsu_0251E_10046.pdf?sequence=1 Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: https://research.wsulibs.wsu.edu:8443/xmlui/bitstream/handle/2376/2810/vanWormer_wsu_0251E_10046.pdf?sequence=1 Shelf Number: 128318 Keywords: Drug CourtsDrug OffendersProblem-Solving Courts |
Author: Hoffart, Irene Title: Calgary Drug Treatment Court: 2010 Evaluation Report Summary: The CDTC program seeks to accomplish several outcomes for its clients, for the service providers who are involved with the program and for the community as a whole. Service provider outcomes, including enhanced collaboration and communication as well as the enhanced knowledge of court processes and issues were measured and evaluated for this report. Also measured were pro-social lifestyle indicators as well as participant behavior, relapse and recidivism outcomes. This document represents a second evaluation report, summarizing information about CDTC activities from its inception up to July of 2010. The first evaluation report was produced in December of 2008 and covered the period between February 2007 and November 2008. Recommendations in the first report were directed at responding to clients’ treatment needs, defining roles and structures, clarifying screening policy and criteria, involving the community and seeking new funding. Nineteen program participants were interviewed and their perspectives were gathered regarding the functioning of the program and its effectiveness. Interviews with key program stakeholders helped reflect the perspective of those who work with CDTC on a regular basis. The interviews were used to help identify areas of strength and challenges with respect to program implementation and to gather opinions about the program’s effectiveness in achieving its goals. A total of 12 stakeholders were interviewed. The CDTC evaluation was based on multiple sources of data, was consistent with promising practices in drug court program evaluations and included both qualitative and quantitative data collection and analysis methods. As all other evaluations, however, this study was subject to several limitations, such as a comparatively small sample of participants (n=31), limited follow-up information available and comparatively short follow-up period, missing client information, and dated information. In the period between January 2007 and July 13, 2010, CDTC Crown reviewed a total of 141 applications. Over the four years of program operations, the Crown has consistently accepted between 36% and 30% of the applicants, or a total of 44 out of 141 applications received. The reasons for refusing admission were grouped in 18 different categories and often there were more than one reason for Crown decision. Perceived risk to the community was the most frequently cited reasons for non-acceptance (documented in over 55% of the cases) followed by offences for commercial gains cited as the reason for refusal in 14% of the cases. At the time of this report, there were a total of 21 clients who either graduated or were still in the program (68%). Further review showed that seventeen clients (about 56%) remained in the program for a year or longer and an additional 16% were in the program for a period between 9 months and a year. Calgary’s graduation rate of 16% is on the higher end of the graduation rates elsewhere in Canada that range between 7% and 16%. One of CDTC’s objectives is efficient movement of offenders through the process as measured by reduced time from charge to treatment initiation. Presently, there is no system in place that allows CDTC to measure the time required for screening activities, and, particularly, the time between the initial charge and Crown referral to program. It is recommended that a measurement system be developed to accurately capture the time between original charge and Crown referral to the program. There are some trends indicating interaction between client retention and some client characteristics. These characteristics include client age, client gender and client ethno cultural background. Visible minority clients are the most likely group to be discharged early (57% as compared to 40% and 39% of the other groups). Caucasian clients are also more likely to graduate or remain in the program for a long period of time (62% as compared to 60% and 43% of the other ethno-cultural groups). Recommendations to increase retention and success in the program include ensuring programming reflects the needs of younger clients (i.e., more structure, physical activity and attention to relationship issues) and adding addiction treatment programs that specifically target Aboriginal or immigrant clients. The recidivism analysis demonstrated that CDTC program leads to a reduction in criminal behaviour associated with drug use such as theft, assault and trafficking. This result is particularly consistent for CDTC graduates, but is also true for some of the discharged clients, particularly those who appear to have been more engaged with the program, as demonstrated by length of time sober, but also longer program stays and positive attitudes towards program participation. Conclusive recidivism analysis is only possible with continued and long-term access to recidivism information. Information that is currently collected describing CDTC outcomes does not include treatment indicators such as knowledge about substance abuse and drug avoidance skills as well as well-being indicators such as enhanced self-esteem, mental and physical health and enhanced social skills. The specific definition of those outcomes and indicators as well as the relevant tools and measures would need to be developed collaboratively with the treatment providers. Details: Calgary, Alberta: Synergy Research Group, 2011. 56p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 9, 2013 at: http://calgarydrugtreatmentcourt.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/FinalEvaluationReport-2010.pdf Year: 2011 Country: Canada URL: http://calgarydrugtreatmentcourt.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/FinalEvaluationReport-2010.pdf Shelf Number: 128327 Keywords: Drug Courts (Calgary, Canada)Drug Offender TreatmentDrug OffendersProblem-Solving Courts |
Author: Hoffart, Irene Title: Calgary Drug Treatment Court: 2012 Evaluation Report Summary: Since the pilot start-up in May of 2007, the program was granted full Charity Status by Canada Revenue Agency, secured funding until March 2013 from Safe Communities and the City of Calgary and has expanded its roster of treatment agencies. The current CDTC Board of Directors includes representation from the City of Calgary, Calgary Police Services, Private-Corporate sector, Prosecution Branch of Canada, Court Manager and other Not for Profit sector organizations. This document represents a third evaluation report, summarizing information about CDTC activities from its inception up to March 2012. This document builds on the information collected in earlier evaluation reports. It describes and summarizes all evaluative information that has been collected since the inception of the program, including client documentation, client feedback, stakeholder feedback, and the Social Return on Investment Analysis (SROI). In addition to cumulative analysis, and to address specific requirements from the Safe Communities Innovation Fund (SCIF), the report also highlights 2011/2012 fiscal year program activities and results. The CDTC evaluation was based on multiple sources of data, was consistent with promising practices in drug court program evaluations and included both qualitative and quantitative data collection and analysis methods. The research that was gathered on evaluation of drug courts provided the context for the development of the evaluation methodology and the analysis of the results. As all other evaluations, however, this study was subject to several limitations, such as a comparatively small sample of participants, limited follow-up information available, comparatively short follow-up period, and missing and/or dated client information. During the period between January 2007 and March 2012, CDTC Crown reviewed a total of 244 applications. Over the five years of program operation, the Crown has accepted 31% or 76 of the applications received. In the period between April 1st 2011 and March 31st 2012 the CDTC Crown reviewed 64 applications and accepted a substantially higher proportion of the applicants (n=25 or about 40%). Reasons for rejection have changed substantially in the 2011/2012 fiscal year. The applicants in that fiscal year were more likely to be rejected as a result of serious mental health issues (39% as compared to 17%), but much less likely to be rejected because they were judged to be risk to the community (36% as compared to 62% of the applicants overall). This shift in the last fiscal year is a reflection of some changes in Crown screening criteria, better clarity among referring sources as to the CDTC eligibility requirements, a larger emphasis in the program on mental health screening to ensure a good fit between participant’s needs and CDTC services, and, in general, the experience gained over time by the court team. Twenty-eight clients have been formally discharged since program start up (a rate of about 42%). The clients were generally discharged for a combination of reasons which often included multiple relapses, behaviour problems in the program, their own choice to withdraw from the program, and/or a team decision that the services did not represent a good match for the needs of the participant. Fourteen clients (21%) successfully graduated and, as of August 17 2012, 25 clients (37%) were still in the program. Of those 17 clients who were in the program after one month in the 2011/2012 fiscal year, to-date 2 have been discharged, 3 graduated, 1 remains in program in Stage I and 11 clients or almost two-thirds of all those admitted in 2011/2012 (65%) are transitioning into the community in Stage II of the program. Efforts were made to complete a comparative analysis of the CDTC retention rates to the retention rates of other Canadian Drug Courts. Unfortunately, this has proven to be a daunting task because of several significant differences among the drug courts. Specifically, the CDTC program may differ from other programs in its admission of higher risk clients and more stringent rules governing discharge and graduation. These differences could lead to lower graduation and higher discharge rates compared to other drug courts. In addition, as compared to most other programs in Canada, CDTC did not receive early Federal funding and this lack of resources may impact CDTC retention rate. Given the limitations above, it is difficult to determine precisely how CDTC retention rates compare to the retention rates in other Canadian courts. However, even with all these limitations, Calgary’s discharge rate of about 42% is lower than the rates in other courts, specifically Toronto (84%) and Vancouver (51%), but is comparable to or higher than the rates in Winnipeg (17%) and in Edmonton (39%). Most notably, Calgary’s graduation rate of 21% is on the higher end of the graduation rates compared to other drug treatment courts elsewhere in Canada that range between 7% and 16%. In general, the information presented in this report demonstrates that CDTC is valuable to the community and the clients that it serves. Some highlights are as follows: •The Social Return on Investment analysis showed that, for every dollar spent, $2.25 are created in savings to the community in the first year of program and $6.50 are created in the second year. •Over half of the program participants remained drug free and sober for a period of 6 months or longer; •Clients describe the program as life changing and the CDTC staff and court team as supportive, caring and helpful; •A comprehensive employment program is in place that provides the participants with crucial work experience as well as long-term employment opportunities. 65% of CDTC participants were employed at the time of graduation and all of these clients have been long-term unemployed at the time of their entry into the program; •The program helps clients develop long-term stability by linking them with multiple supports such as individual and family counseling, skill development programs, money management services, medical, vision and dental services and services needed to acquire necessary identification; •For the engaged participants, the length of time between relapses increases and the nature of the relapse incidents becomes less serious over time. The issue of Governance and sustainable program funding is a barrier to CDTC capacity building and ongoing progressive success in deliverables. Similar programs embedded within the criminal justice system receive better access to services and resources for their designated offender population, than CDTC does as a Not-for-Profit Organization. The evaluation shows that some challenges continue to exist for some client groups in CDTC. There is a shortage of treatment beds for women in Calgary, younger clients tend to leave the program earlier, and the program is less successful with visible minority or First Nations, Métis and Inuit (FNMI) clients than with clients of European backgrounds. Expansion to include day treatment will help address some of these concerns by providing an opportunity to have gender-specific groups, groups for FNMI participants and groups for younger clients. The Day Program will also integrate best practices from both justice and treatment paradigms in a curriculum that is trauma informed and grounded in culturally appropriate approaches. Day programming will also provide treatment opportunities designed to stop the cycle of addictions in families. Those supports may include parenting classes, helping parent participants reconnect with their children and providing programming for women with children. Details: Calgary, Alberta: Calgary Drug Treatment Corut Society, 2012. 69p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 9, 2013 at: http://calgarydrugtreatmentcourt.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/CDTC2012_FinalEvaluationReportOctober2012.pdf Year: 2012 Country: Canada URL: http://calgarydrugtreatmentcourt.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/CDTC2012_FinalEvaluationReportOctober2012.pdf Shelf Number: 128328 Keywords: Drug Courts (Calgary, Canada)Drug Offender TreatmentDrug OffendersProblem-Solving Courts |
Author: Cheesman, Fred L. Title: Virginia Adult Drug Treatment Courts Impact Study Summary: To date, Virginia has formally implemented 16 adult drug treatment courts. Data from twelve of Virginia’s adult drug treatment courts are included in this report. The twelve adult drug court sites included in this study are: • Charlottesville/Albemarle Adult Drug Court • Chesterfield/Colonial Heights Adult Drug Court • Hampton Adult Drug Court • Henrico Adult Drug Court • Loudoun Adult Drug Court • Newport News Adult Drug Court • Norfolk Adult Drug Court • Portsmouth Adult Drug Court • Rappahannock Regional Adult Drug Court • Roanoke Adult Drug Court • Richmond Adult Drug Court • Staunton Adult Drug Court The other four operational adult drug treatment courts - Tazewell Adult Drug Court, Hopewell/Prince George Adult Drug Court, Bristol Adult Drug Court and Chesapeake Adult Drug Court – were excluded from the study due to limited available data. A total of 1,156 drug court participants were included in the primary analysis of demographics and service level information. For all of the remaining analysis, only the participants that were matched with the comparison group are included (n=972). This report summarizes evaluation findings with respect to several primary issues, such as post-program recidivism, within-program outcomes, and drug treatment court performance measures. Several interesting findings have emerged which are consistent with prevailing drug treatment court trends. Key findings are summarized below. • Virginia drug courts provide a variety of services, substance abuse and ancillary, to participants while at the same time holding them accountable by means of drug testing, sanctions and incentives, and frequent contacts with the court and court staff. • The profile of the typical drug court participant is a young male, unemployed, with limited education, and prior felony, misdemeanor, and drug convictions. This suggests that Virginia’s adult drug courts service high-risk, high-needs offenders. • Virginia drug court participants report cocaine, alcohol, and opiates as their primary drugs of choice. Frequent drug testing indicates that while most participants test positive for illicit drugs at some point in the program, drug use decreases dramatically over time. Lengthy periods of continuous sobriety are observed among drug court participants while enrolled in drug court. Results also indicate that participants are more likely to be employed when they exit their respective programs than when they entered their programs. • About 50 percent of dug court participants successfully graduate their program, very much in-line with national estimates. On average, graduates spend around 1.7 years in their respective programs before graduation, which is slightly higher than recommended best practices. Participants that do not graduate spend about a year in drug court before termination. It is recommended that Virginia drug court programs critically examine their termination policies and strive to reduce their rate of terminations. • Drug court graduates are significantly less likely than terminated clients to recidivate than drug court participants as a whole (combining graduates with non-graduates). • A carefully selected comparison group was used to allow for comparisons between the drug court group, as a whole, and a “business as usual” comparison group. Propensity score matching eliminated or reduced most of the differences between drug court participants and offenders convicted of drug court eligible offenses who did not go to drug court, enabling valid comparisons of program outcomes and impacts described in subsequent analyses. • Drug court participants (graduates and non-graduates combined) are significantly less likely than the propensity score matched comparison group to recidivate while participating in their respective programs. The latter result suggests that Virginia’s drug courts are doing a good job of protecting public safety. • Recidivism was measured using different indices, including arrests, convictions, felony convictions, misdemeanor convictions, and drug offense convictions. When the recidivism rates of drug court participants as a whole (i.e., including both graduates and terminations) are compared to those of the propensity score matched comparison group using all of these indices, drug court participants far out-perform the comparison group. A similar pattern was observed when post-exit recidivism was examined in isolation from in-program recidivism (with the exception of new drug convictions, where no significant difference was observed). These findings, combined with those of the Kaplan-Meier Survival functions, suggest a robust and sustained impact of drug court on recidivism compared to the business-as-usual alternative (probation, jail, and/or prison). These findings need to be confirmed by a multivariate analysis that will control for differences noted between the drug court participants and the comparison group that persisted after propensity score matching. Details: Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts, 2012. 64p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 18, 2013 at: http://ncsc.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/singleitem/collection/spcts/id/244/rec/55 Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://ncsc.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/singleitem/collection/spcts/id/244/rec/55 Shelf Number: 128406 Keywords: Drug Abuse TreatmentDrug Courts (Virginia)Drug OffendersProblem-Solving Courts |
Author: Caron, Anne Title: Fourth Judicial District Veterans Court – Two Year Review: July 2010 – June 2012 Summary: • The Fourth Judicial District Veterans Court began in July 2010 as a voluntary problem-solving court for veteran offenders with treatable chemical dependency and/or mental health issues. It is a hybrid of the drug court and mental health court models. • Veterans Court promotes sobriety, recovery, and stability through a coordinated response that involves the cooperation and collaboration of court and probation personnel along with the addition of the VA Medical Center, VA Benefits Administration, and volunteer veteran mentors. • In its first two years of operation, 131 individuals entered Veterans Court. Nearly all (97%) are male, two-thirds are white, the average age at entry is 44 years, and nearly half have gross misdemeanor offenses. The most common offense type is gross misdemeanor DWIs (40%), followed by misdemeanor domestic offenses (20%). Nearly half (47%) have been deployed overseas at least once, most commonly to Iraq (60%). • At the end of two years, there are seventy-three active participants (56%), forty-one graduates (31%), eight individuals terminated by the Court (6%), seven who voluntarily withdrew (5%), and two who are no longer active due to other reasons (death, transfer out of state). • This review of Veterans Court includes a pre-post analysis of participants at this point in the program. A full evaluation, with a matched comparison sample, will ensue once the number of graduates reaches 100 and those graduates have one year of street-time post Veterans Court. • Since this is a program review, all goals should be considered in progress o Goal 1: Reduce criminal recidivism During the first six months after entry into Veterans Court, 83% of participants commit fewer offenses than during the six months just prior to entry. This pattern maintains through both years of data: 72% of participants who have at least 24 months post-entry commit fewer offenses than during the 24 months just prior to entering the Court (Table 6, page 17). The majority of Veterans Court participants have no new offenses while in the program, and those who do commit new offenses generally do so at a non-felony level (Table 8, page 18). o Goal 2: Promote participant sobriety Not all participants are in Veterans Court for drug or alcohol related issues: indeed only two-thirds of graduates and terminated defendants were required to take alcohol and drugs tests while in the program. Graduates test positive at a lower rate than terminated defendants do (Table 9, page 19). o Goal 3: Increase compliance with treatment and other court-ordered conditions Between two-thirds and three-fourths of all participants are ordered to complete chemical dependency treatment and/or domestic abuse programming. No graduate or active participant has failed to complete treatment, while nearly half of the non-completers do not enter treatment before terminating from the Court. More than half (57%) of graduates complete inpatient treatment while 39% of active participants do so (Table 10, page 21). If needed, active participants may be required to complete a more intensive level of treatment prior to their graduation. o Goal 4: Improve access to VA benefits and services Veterans Court works closely with a VA benefits specialist and the Hennepin County Veterans Service Office to assist participants in filing claims as needed to begin receiving benefits or to increase benefits to the level to which they are entitled. Nearly three-fourths (73%) of participants already receive benefits prior to entering the Court, while others connect while in Veterans Court (21%). A few participants (5%) are not eligible for VA benefits - for example, due to income level, dishonorable discharge status, or because they are currently active in the Guard/Reserves. o Goal 5: Improve family relationships and social support connections The Hennepin County Veterans Court has established a mentor program, in which participants are matched with veterans in the community if they so choose in order to help them navigate the court and VA Medical Center system as well as to provide support and friendship in the community. o Goal 6: Improve life stability More than half of graduates maintain or increase their level of employment from entry to graduation (Table 11, page 23). Nearly three-fourths of graduates live on their own in a private residence at both entry and exit from the program, while another 15% increase their housing stability from entry to graduation (Table 12, page 23). • Overall, participants are extremely satisfied with the services they receive through Veterans Court and its partners. On the uSPEQ® survey scores can range from one (strongly disagree) to four (strongly agree), and in both the first and second years of Veterans Court the average score on all five question categories (service responsiveness, informed choice, respect, overall value, and participation) was 3.8 or higher. Although slight, scores on all five measures increased in the second year (Table 13, page 25). Details: Minneapolis: Minnesota Judicial Branch, Fourth Judicial District Research Division, 2013. 37p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 15, 2013 at: http://www.mncourts.gov/Documents/4/Public/Research/Veterans_Court_Two_Year_Review.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.mncourts.gov/Documents/4/Public/Research/Veterans_Court_Two_Year_Review.pdf Shelf Number: 128726 Keywords: Drug Abuse and AddictionMentally Ill OffendersProblem-Solving CourtsVeterans Court (U.S.) |
Author: Holbrook, Justin G. Title: Veterans’ Courts and Criminal Responsibility: A Problem Solving History & Approach to the Liminality of Combat Trauma Summary: In September 2010, a federal judge dismissed a criminal case involving a veteran accused of assaulting a federal police officer to allow the case to be heard by the Buffalo Veterans Treatment Court, a division of Buffalo City Court. For those involved in veterans’ advocacy and treatment, the case is significant for a number of reasons. First, it is the first criminal case nationwide to be transferred from federal court to a local veterans treatment court where the goal is to treat - rather than simply punish - those facing the liminal effects of military combat. Second, the case reignites the still unsettled controversy over whether problem-solving courts generally, and veterans courts specifically, unfairly shift the focus of justice away from the retributive interests of victims to the rehabilitative interests of perpetrators. Third, the case serves as a signal reminder to all justice system stakeholders, including parties, judges, attorneys, and treatment professionals, of the potential benefits of sidestepping courtroom adversity in favor of a coordinated effort that seeks to ameliorate victim concerns while advancing treatment opportunities for veterans suffering from combat-related trauma. This chapter explores these issues in light of the history of combat-related trauma and the development of veterans’ treatment courts around the country. Details: Chester, PA: Widener University School of Law, 2010. 53p. Source: Internet Resource: Widener Law School Legal Studies Research Paper Series no. 10-43: Accessed May 15, 2013 at: https://d3gqux9sl0z33u.cloudfront.net/AA/AT/gambillingonjustice-com/downloads/205863/Veterans_Courts-Law_Article_Widener_Law_School.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: https://d3gqux9sl0z33u.cloudfront.net/AA/AT/gambillingonjustice-com/downloads/205863/Veterans_Courts-Law_Article_Widener_Law_School.pdf Shelf Number: 128736 Keywords: Post-Traumatic Stress DisorderProblem-Solving CourtsVeteransVeterans Courts |
Author: Holbrook, Justin G. Title: Veterans Courts: Early Outcomes and Key Indicators for Success Summary: The growing trend within the judicial, treatment, and advocacy communities toward specialized courts for military veterans raises important questions about the effectiveness of such courts in rehabilitating veterans. Both principally and practically, veterans courts observers may take opposing positions regarding the appropriateness and effectiveness of placing veterans in a specialized, treatment-based court program simply because of their military service. This chapter explores these challenging issues in two parts. First, we undertake a discussion of first principle concerns related to veterans courts by reviewing research studies examining the link between veterans and criminal misconduct. The return of 1.6 million veterans from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan has re-ignited the still unsettled controversy over whether veterans suffering from combat trauma are more likely than their non-veteran counterparts to commit criminal misconduct after returning home. While firm conclusions may be difficult (and unpopular) to draw, the issue warrants attention in any serious discussion about the merits and best practices of veterans court programs. Second, we present early findings from an assessment we conducted of the practices, procedures, and participant populations of certain veterans courts operating as of March 2011. Of the 53 courts invited to participate, 14 provided a response by completing either an online or paper survey. Of these, seven submitted sample policies and procedures, participant contracts, plea agreements, and mentor guidelines for our review. Drawing on these courts’ common practices and procedures, we identify key operational components courts should consider in implementing veterans court programs. We also conclude that veterans court outcomes, at least at present, appear at least as favorable as those of other specialized treatment courts. Details: Chester, PA: Widener University School of Law, 2011. 42p. Source: Internet Resource: Widener Law School Legal Studies Research Paper No. 11-25: Accessed May 15, 2013 at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1912655 Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1912655 Shelf Number: 128737 Keywords: Post-Traumatic Stress DisorderProblem-Solving CourtsVeteransVeterans Courts |
Author: Perlin, Michael Title: 'John Brown Went off to War': Considering Veterans’ Courts as Problem-Solving Courts Summary: In this paper, I seek to contextualize veterans courts in light of the therapeutic jurisprudence (TJ) movement, the turn to problem-solving courts of all sorts (especially focusing on mental health courts), and the societal ambivalence that we have shown to veterans in the four decades since the Vietnam war. I argue that TJ’s focuses on how law actually impacts people’s lives, on the law’s influence on emotional life and psychological well-being and on the need for law to value psychological health and avoid the imposition of anti-therapeutic consequences whenever possible can serve as a template for a veterans courts model (if we are to expand these courts robustly). TJ is the explicit inspiration for many of the most important problem-solving courts (including Judge Ginger Lerner-Wren’s mental health court in Broward County), but it is also clear that many such courts – specifically, some drug courts – do not follow TJ principles, existing, instead in a “due process-free zone” (implicitly rejecting the basic TJ premise that therapeutic outcomes cannot trump due process). Just as mental health courts should ensure that defendants receive dignity and respect, and are given a sense of voice and validation, so should veterans courts. And we must also recognize that our treatment of injured war veterans provides a vivid example of society’s general ambivalence toward guaranteeing robust social rights. Thirty years ago, in Falter v. Veterans’ Administration, a case seeking to force the VA into implementing a “patients’ bill of rights” at VA hospitals, the trial judge observed that the case was basically about “how [plaintiffs] are treated as human beings.” This observation must be at the forefront of any assessment of veterans courts. Despite general low recidivism rates, Veterans Courts have received criticism as some have argued that they provide veterans with a “hall pass“ to certain criminal-defense rights that others do not have, and that, from an entirely different perspective, they are stigmatizing because they perpetuate the stereotype that veterans are returning “war-crazy.” I address these and other criticisms in my paper. One critical issue that has received almost no attention we are just beginning to take seriously in the mental health courts context: how can we assure that there is experienced, dedicated, knowledgeable counsel assigned to represent defendants in such tribunals? We know that if there has been any constant in modern mental disability law in its thirty-five-year history, it is the near-universal reality that counsel assigned to represent individuals at involuntary civil commitment cases are likely to be ineffective. How can we be sure that counsel in these cases be more effective?. I offer some conclusions and suggestions for those jurisdictions that are implementing veterans courts, so as to optimally assure adherence to TJ values in a court setting that continues to provide litigants with the full range of constitutional rights to which they are entitled. Details: New York: New York Law School, 2013. 59p. Source: Internet Resource: NYLS Legal Studies Research Paper No. 12/13 #52; NYLS Clinical Research Institute Paper No. # 30/ 2012: Accessed May 15, 2013 at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2221375 Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2221375 Shelf Number: 128741 Keywords: Post-Traumatic Stress DisorderProblem-Solving CourtsVeterans (U.S.)Veterans Courts |
Author: Haisley, Stephane Jackson Title: The Drug Treatment Court Concept: The Jamaican Drug Courts Summary: The drug treatment court model (DTC) model was conceived out of the need to solve the numerous and intractable problems that drug-related cases create for court systems. A DTC is generally seen as a court that deals specifically with offenders who have committed offenses while under the influence of drugs and provides an alternative to incarceration. DTCs make use of a multidisciplinary team involving judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, probation officers, treatment providers, police officers, and educational and vocational experts. The criminal justice and health service systems join to provide drug-dependent offenders with the mechanisms to recover from drug addiction and lead a productive and crime-free life. The purpose of this paper is to explore the concept of DTCs. After providing an overview of the origins of the DTC, looking at its roots in the United States and Canada, the paper examines the foundation and present-day experiences of DTCs in Jamaica. It also refers to some efforts among various countries in the Western Hemisphere to monitor DTCs and evaluate their effectiveness. The paper concludes with a return to the achievements of DTCs in Jamaica and a brief look at the future of the DTC program worldwide. Details: Washington, DC: The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank, 2013. 39p. Source: Internet Resource: Justice & Development Working Paper Series 20/2013: Accessed May 20, 2013 at: http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2013/05/08/000445729_20130508115817/Rendered/PDF/774300NWP0J0D000Box377296B00PUBLIC0.pdf Year: 2013 Country: Jamaica URL: http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2013/05/08/000445729_20130508115817/Rendered/PDF/774300NWP0J0D000Box377296B00PUBLIC0.pdf Shelf Number: 128758 Keywords: Drug Courts (Jamaica)Drug OffendersProblem-Solving Courts |
Author: Ray, Bradley R. Title: Reintegrative Shaming in Mental Health Court Summary: Reintegrative shaming theory suggests that shame can be either stigmatizing or reintegrative and predicts that, stigmatizing shame increases the likelihood of crime, while reintegrative shame reduces criminal behavior recidivism (Braithwaite 1989). Stigmatizing shame involves labeling offenders as deviant and casting them out of the community. Reintegrative shaming focuses on condemning the deviant behavior without condemning the individual. Thus, the behavior is punished but the individual is reaccepted to the community after completing the punishment. Unlike stigmatizing shaming, reintegrative shaming is finite, ends with words or gestures of forgiveness, and, throughout the shaming process, there is an effort to maintain respect for the shamed individual. The theory suggests that when shaming is reintegrative, offenders are unlikely to recidivate because they are accepted back into the community and their morality is strengthened. This dissertation examines reintegrative shaming theory in a mental health court which is a type of problem-solving court that divert persons with mental illness out of the cycle of arrest, incarceration, release and re-arrest, by motivating them to connect with treatment and services and to change their behaviors. The body of empirical research on these courts is still small but finds support for mental health courts’ effectiveness in reducing recidivism, reporting that mental health court participants are less likely to offend than before entering the court. The first three studies in this dissertation attempt to validate the whether reintegrative shaming occurs in the observed mental health court setting. The first is a qualitative observation study which links the components of reintegrative shame to the court process to the mental health court process. The second and third studies use research instruments designed to objectively and subjectively measure reintegrative and stigmatizing shame in the Australian Reintegrative Shaming Experiments. The second study used systematic observation instruments, completed by multiple observers in both mental health court and traditional criminal court setting, and finds that the mental is more likely to practice reintegrative shaming and less likely to practice stigmatizing shame. The third study employed a survey instrument to interview individuals who had recently completed the mental health court process and found that those who completed the process are more likely to have experienced reintegrative shame than stigmatizing shame. The collective finding from these studies are that the mental health is more likely to practice observed reintegrative shame than the traditional criminal court and that those who complete the mental health court were likely to perceive this process as reintegrative rather than stigmatizing. The final study uses exit statuses from court as indirect measures shaming types to test the prediction of reintegrative shaming theory. Mental health court completion is used as a proxy measure for reintegrative shame, and being found guilty in traditional criminal court as a proxy measure for stigmatizing shame. This study found that those who have an exit status consistent with a reintegrative experience are less likely to recidivate than those who have a shame or stigmatizing experience. Details: Raleigh, NC: North Carolina State University, 2012. 161p. Source: Internet Resource: Dissertation: Accessed June 1, 2013 at: http://repository.lib.ncsu.edu/ir/bitstream/1840.16/7812/1/etd.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://repository.lib.ncsu.edu/ir/bitstream/1840.16/7812/1/etd.pdf Shelf Number: 128901 Keywords: Mental Health CourtsProblem-Solving CourtsReintegrative Shaming (U.S.) |
Author: Latessa, Edward J. Title: Final Report: Outcome and Process Evaluation of Juvenile Drug Courts Summary: This study adds to the existing juvenile drug court literature by providing a national multi-site outcome and process evaluation of nine juvenile drug courts from across the U.S. This study assesses the relative effect of each court, as well as their combined effectiveness in reaching the overall goal of reducing recidivism and improving youths' social functioning. It also identifies, where possible, the characteristics of youth and programs associated with successful outcomes. The goals of this research are consistent with those stated in the OJJDP-approved grant proposal. There were six original goals. One additional goal was added at the request of OJJDP. The goals of this research are: 1) To determine if there is a reduction in recidivism and substance abuse associated with participation in a juvenile drug court program, relative to comparison groups. 2) To determine if there are increases in social functioning related to participating in juvenile drug court programs relative to comparison groups. 3) To identify the characteristics of successful juvenile drug court participants. 4) To determine if juvenile drug courts are operating in a manner consistent with evidence-based approaches. 5) To identify the programmatic characteristics of effective juvenile drug courts. 6) To provide policymakers with information about the effectiveness of juvenile drug courts. 7) To determine if the 16 strategies for juvenile drug courts recommended by the National Drug Court Institute (NDCI) are effective practices (Bureau of Justice Assistance, 2003). The nine juvenile drug courts participating in this research study are located in: Ada County, Idaho; Clackamas County, Oregon; Jefferson County, Ohio; Lane County, Oregon; Lucas County, Ohio; Medina County, Ohio; Rhode Island (the state); San Diego County, California; and Santa Clara County, California. As discussed above, the study included both process and outcome evaluation components. Details: Cincinnati, OH: Center for Criminal Justice Research, University of Cincinnati, School of Criminal Justice, 2013. 421p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 4, 2013 at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/grants/241643.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/grants/241643.pdf Shelf Number: 128931 Keywords: Drug Abuse and AddictionDrug Abuse and CrimeDrug OffendersJuvenile Drug CourtsJuvenile OffendersProblem-Solving CourtsRecidivism |
Author: Kunkel, Tara L. Title: Arkansas SWIFT Courts: Implementation Assessment and Long-Term Evaluation Plan Summary: In 2011, the Arkansas legislature provided for the establishment of five pilot programs, known as SWIFT Courts. These pilots are modeled after the successful Hawaii HOPE program and are designed to reduce probation failure among high-risk probationers by concentrating on a small number of easily verifiable behaviors (drug use and showing up for appointments) to ensure compliance. The five pilot SWIFT Courts became operational between March and October 2012. An implementation review of the SWIFT Courts, conducted by the National Center for State Courts, suggests that the programs have successfully implemented the majority of the HOPE benchmarks. Preliminary data suggests the programs are having a positive short-term impact on the probationers enrolled in the program. A number of suggestions for strengthening the pilot programs are offered throughout this review. Finally, the report concludes with a long-term evaluation plan for the SWIFT Court programs. Details: Williamsburg, VA; National Center for State Courts, 2013. 49p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 18, 2013 at: http://ncsc.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/singleitem/collection/criminal/id/219 Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://ncsc.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/singleitem/collection/criminal/id/219 Shelf Number: 129014 Keywords: Court Administration (Arkansas)ProbationersProblem-Solving Courts |
Author: Baldwin, Julie Marie Title: Executive Summary: National Survey of Veterans Treatment Courts Summary: This summary reports the major results from the author’s dissertation research using data collected from a national survey administered to 79 Veterans Treatment Courts (VTCs) in 2012. This research produced a comprehensive national overview of VTCs; the complete findings, additional analysis, and an in-depth case study of a VTC can be found in her dissertation titled “Veterans Treatment Courts: Studying Dissemination, Implementation, and Impact of Treatment-Oriented Criminal Courts” (University of Florida). Details: Little Rock, AR: University of Arkansas at Little Rock, Department of Criminal Justice, 2013. 32p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 26, 2013 at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2274138 Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2274138 Shelf Number: 129168 Keywords: Problem-Solving CourtsVeteransVeterans Treatment Courts |
Author: 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: Blodgett, Janet C. Title: A Structured Evidence Review to Identify Treatment Needs of Justice-Involved Veterans and Associated Psychological Interventions Summary: In order to better serve the population of justice-involved Veterans, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has developed targeted Veterans Justice Programs (VJP), including Veterans Justice Outreach (VJO) and Health Care for Reentry Veterans (HCRV). To support the mission of VJP, this review synthesizes research relevant to (1) the unique treatment needs of justice-involved Veterans, with a primary focus on mental health needs, and (2) evidence-based and promising treatments for addressing these needs. This synthesis of unique treatment needs and best practices can serve as a guide for VJP that will allow it to capitalize on existing strengths of the program and promote further development of evidenced-based programs to address the needs of justice-involved Veterans both within and outside of VA. Details: Menlo Park, CA: Center for Health Care Evaluation VA Palo Alto Health Care System, 2013. 126p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 26, 2013 at: http://www.ilapsc.org/pdfs/Justice-InvolvedVeteransStructuredEvidenceReviewFINAL.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.ilapsc.org/pdfs/Justice-InvolvedVeteransStructuredEvidenceReviewFINAL.pdf Shelf Number: 129188 Keywords: Inmates, VeteransMental Health TreatmentProblem-Solving CourtsReentryVeteransVeterans Treatment Courts |
Author: Knaggs, Trish Title: The Waitakere and Manukau Family Violence Courts: An evaluation summary Summary: Family Violence (FV) Courts in New Zealand are a judicial initiative, and incorporate some aspects of problem-solving courts. Therapeutic jurisprudence is also reflected in the Waitakere FV Court process. The Waitakere FV Court began in 2001. The Manukau FV Court was implemented in 2005 after long-standing collaboration with community organisations that had previously introduced fast-tracking and victim advocacy within the Henderson District Court. These courts aim to provide a more holistic response to family violence than that currently available in the conventional court setting. FV Courts also seek to provide a more timely response to family violence, enhance safety for victims and families experiencing family violence, and encourage accountability among offenders. The Waitakere FV Court has an additional aim to provide specialist services to victims, offenders and those involved in the operation of this court. This research indicates Waitakere and Manukau FV Courts are doing much to provide this type of response. Alongside a desire to process family violence matters swiftly, FV Courts seek to do everything possible to maintain the safety of victims and families. These courts also focus on encouraging offenders to attend programmes, not only because they are seen as an opportunity for offenders to accept they are accountable for their offending, but also because in the longer term the safety of victims will be enhanced. Operationalising and maintaining such an approach requires considerable commitment and the findings describe how this is being achieved at both courts. Details: Wellington, NZ: Ministry of Justice, 2008. 78p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 28, 2013 at: http://www.justice.govt.nz/publications/global-publications/t/the-waitakere-and-manukau-family-violence-courts-an-evaluation-summary-august-2008/publication Year: 2008 Country: New Zealand URL: http://www.justice.govt.nz/publications/global-publications/t/the-waitakere-and-manukau-family-violence-courts-an-evaluation-summary-august-2008/publication Shelf Number: 129194 Keywords: Domestic ViolenceFamily Violence Courts (New Zealand)Problem-Solving Courts |
Author: Young, N.K. Title: Guidance to States: Recommendations for Developing Family Drug Court Guidelines Summary: As States, courts and service providers strive to use evidence‐based or evidence‐informed practices in their services, determining which practices are best can be challenging. Children and Family Futures produced this document with the National Drug Court Institute and with Federal, State, and other stakeholders to offer guidelines to help states and programs create systems changes that will have a lasting impact on FDCs, the policies of courts and child welfare and treatment service systems, and community‐based organizations serving parents, children, and families. The document provides guidance for implementing an FDC, including the development of FDC partnerships and a common vocabulary for describing FDC components, with a focus on improving services to families who are involved with the child welfare system and are affected by substance use disorders. The authors hope that this document will help jurisdictions select and improve practices and, ultimately, outcomes for children and families. After the introduction, the next two sections of this document describe the methods used to develop the 10 recommendations in the document and how to use the document. Each of the following 10 sections focuses on one of the 10 recommendations. These sections explain each recommendation, summarize the research supporting it and list Effective Strategies (practices that States can use to assess their progress). Asterisks identify Effective Strategies that are supported by research conducted in FDCs. The 10 recommendations are: 1. Create a shared mission and vision 2. Develop interagency partnerships 3. Create effective communication protocols for sharing information 4. Ensure cross‐system knowledge 5. Develop a process for early identification and assessment 6. Address the needs of parents 7. Address the needs of children 8. Garner community support 9. Implement funding and sustainability strategies 10. Evaluate shared outcomes and accountability. Details: Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Programs, 2013. 108p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 3, 2013 at: http://www.cffutures.org/files/publications/FDC-Guidelines.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.cffutures.org/files/publications/FDC-Guidelines.pdf Shelf Number: 129249 Keywords: Child WelfareEvidence-Based PracticesFamily Drug Courts (U.S.)Problem-Solving Courts |
Author: Cissner, Amanda B. Title: Testing the Effects of New York’s Domestic Violence Courts: A Statewide Impact Evaluation Summary: Over the past 15 years, a growing number of jurisdictions have established specialized domestic violence courts. With more than 200 such courts operating in the United States, they represent an important new strategy for handling the massive number of domestic violence cases that flood state courts nationwide. Domestic violence courts typically handle a jurisdiction’s domestic violence cases on a separate calendar, presided over by a specially assigned judge who gains expertise in the unique legal and personal issues that these cases pose. Despite their common structure, domestic violence courts lack a unifying set of goals and policies (Keilitz 2001; Labriola et al. 2009; Shelton 2007). The diversity embodied in today’s domestic violence courts presents a particular challenge for research, with previous single-site evaluations unable to provide a definitive answer to whether domestic violence courts, on the whole, produce better outcomes. This study seeks to make a significant contribution to the knowledge of the field, focusing on whether and how domestic violence courts work. The study is a quasi-experimental evaluation of 24 domestic violence courts throughout New York State. New York is a particularly suitable state for a study of this nature, as it is home to 64 (31%) of the country’s 208 total domestic violence courts (Labriola et al. 2009). New York’s domestic violence courts exhibit comparable diversity to that found nationwide, enabling this study to have greater external validity than most prior efforts. Details: New York: Center for Court Innovation, 2013. 89p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 9, 2013 at: http://www.courtinnovation.org/sites/default/files/documents/statewide_evaluation_dv_courts.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.courtinnovation.org/sites/default/files/documents/statewide_evaluation_dv_courts.pdf Shelf Number: 129282 Keywords: Domestic Violence Courts (U.S.)Family ViolenceIntimate Partner ViolenceProblem-Solving Courts |
Author: Buffalo Veterans Treatment Court Title: Buffalo Veteran's Court and Veterans Mentor Handbook Summary: As the veteran population in the United States continues to rise, so too does the need for greater understanding of the impact of military service. As of October 2008, the estimated United States veteran population was 23,442,000. Since October 2001, approximately 1.64 million U. S. troops have been deployed for Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom . . . in Afghanistan and Iraq." Military service can impact the lives of veterans and their families in countless ways. Many returning veterans and their families cope with serious issues such as: alcohol and substance abuse, mental illness, homelessness, unemployment, and strained relationships. Often times, these serious issues go unaddressed, and many of the veterans end up in our criminal justice system. With the increase of veterans with serious needs in our criminal justice system, comes the need for the system to develop innovative ways of working to address these issues and needs. One court in Buffalo, New York, has developed a plan for meeting the serious needs of veterans within the criminal justice system and created the nations first specialized Veterans Treatment Court. Details: Buffalo, NY: Buffalo Veterans Treatment Court, 2009. 35p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 9, 2013 at: http://www.nadcp.org/sites/default/files/nadcp/Buffalo%20Mentor%20Handbook_0.pdf Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: http://www.nadcp.org/sites/default/files/nadcp/Buffalo%20Mentor%20Handbook_0.pdf Shelf Number: 129343 Keywords: Military VeteransProblem-Solving CourtsVeterans Treatment Courts (U.S.) |
Author: National Crime Council (Ireland) Title: Problem Solving Justice: The Case for Community Courts in Ireland Summary: A report presented by the National Crime Council to Mr. Michael McDowell, Tánaiste and Minister for Justice, Equality & Law Reform today recommends the establishment of Community Courts in Ireland, the first such Court to be located in Dublin’s inner city. Community Courts, which started in the United States, are now being developed in many countries as an example of "problem solving justice" to deal with offenders of less grave crimes which have a material impact on the "quality of life" of citizens. Padraic White, Chairman of the National Crime Council, in presenting the Report to Minister McDowell, said that there was an outstanding opportunity to develop a successful Community Court in Dublin city centre covering the Store Street and Pearse Street Garda station areas. The proposed Community Court would, he said, "complement the planned Business Improvement Districts (BIDs) initiative in Dublin city centre which will involve businesses contributing a special levy to a fund for the enhancement and upgrading of the area." He said that a third positive element in the area is the North Inner City Community Policing Forum which is well established and whose work would complement the new Community Court and the BIDs initiative. Padraic White cited examples of the type of offence to be dealt with by the Community Court as drunk and disorderly conduct, assault, criminal damage, graffiti and petty theft. He said that "Community Courts take a problem-solving approach to such offenders, using a range of health and social services while some defendants may be required to undertake community work in the neighbourhood to make some reparation for their offending in that neighbourhood." Details: Dublin: Stationery Office, 2007. 68p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 10, 2013 at: http://www.crimecouncil.gov.ie/downloads/NCC_Problem_Solving_Justice.pdf Year: 2007 Country: Ireland URL: http://www.crimecouncil.gov.ie/downloads/NCC_Problem_Solving_Justice.pdf Shelf Number: 110513 Keywords: Community Courts (Ireland)Problem-Solving Courts |
Author: Lee, Cynthia G. Title: A Community Court Grows in Brooklyn: A Comprehensive Evaluation of the Red Hook Community Justice Center. Summary: In April 2000, a new courthouse opened its doors in a vacant schoolhouse in the Red Hook neighborhood of Brooklyn. Over the course of the five previous decades, Red Hook had declined from a vibrant, working-class waterfront community into a notorious hotbed of drug-related violence, cut off from the rest of Brooklyn by an elevated highway and a lack of public transportation. Following in the footsteps of the nation's first community court, established in Manhattan seven years earlier, the Red Hook Community Justice Center aimed to help transform the neighborhood by cleaning up misdemeanor crime and offering defendants treatment for the drug addictions and other social dislocations believed to fuel their criminal behavior. The Justice Center would also handle juvenile delinquency cases, hear landlord-tenant disputes, and provide a wide variety of youth and community programs open to all residents. The ultimate goal was to create a court that "would both respond constructively when crime occurs and work to prevent crime before it takes place," halting the "revolving door" of the traditional criminal justice system. "By bringing justice back to neighborhoods and by playing a variety of non-traditional roles," Justice Center planners asserted, "community courts foster stronger relationships between courts and communities and restore public confidence in the justice system". More than a decade later, the Red Hook Community Justice Center (RHCJC) is a prominent fixture in the Red Hook neighborhood. The Justice Center is the product of an ongoing partnership among the New York State Unified Court System, the Center for Court Innovation, the Kings County District Attorney's Office, the Legal Aid Society of New York, and a number of other governmental and nonprofit organizations. As a demonstration project, it is also arguably the best known community court in the world, welcoming visitors from as far away as South Africa, Australia, and Japan and serving as a model for other community courts across the nation and the globe. In 2010, the National Institute of Justice funded the first comprehensive independent evaluation of the Red Hook Community Justice Center. Conducted by the National Center for State Courts in partnership with the Center for Court Innovation and the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, this evaluation represents a rigorous multi-method investigation into the impact of the Justice Center on crime, incarceration, and costs; the mechanisms by which the Justice Center produces any such results; and how policymakers and court planners in other jurisdictions can adapt the Justice Center's vision of the community court model to suit the unique needs of their own communities. The evaluation consists of four major components: a process evaluation that documents the planning and operations of the Red Hook Community Justice Center and investigates whether the program was implemented in accordance with its design; an ethnographic analysis that examines community and offender perceptions of the Justice Center; an impact evaluation that analyzes the Justice Center's impact on sentencing, recidivism, and arrest rates; and a cost-efficiency analysis that quantifies the Justice Center's costs and benefits in monetary terms. Details: Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts, 2013. 286p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 23, 2013 at: http://www.courtinnovation.org/sites/default/files/documents/RH%20Evaluation%20Final%20Report.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.courtinnovation.org/sites/default/files/documents/RH%20Evaluation%20Final%20Report.pdf Shelf Number: 131668 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCommunity Courts (U.S.)Community JusticeProblem-Solving CourtsRestitution |
Author: Machin, Juliette R. Title: Marion County Fostering Attachment Treatment Court Follow-Up Process and Outcome Evaluation 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 increase treatment participation and decrease criminal recidivism. As of June 30, 2012, there were 2,734 drug courts, including 1,896 adult and juvenile drug courts, 334 family courts, and 503 other types of drug courts active in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands (NDCRC, 2013). Over approximately the last 17 years, the drug court model, originally developed for adult criminal offenders, has been expanded to address the poor outcomes substance-abusing parents traditionally experienced in traditional family reunification programs (Marlowe & Carey, 2012). Family Drug Treatment Courts (FDCs) work with the child welfare system. There have been a modest number studies of FDCs (e.g., Burrus, Mackin, & Finigan, 2011; Green, Furrer, Worcel, Burrus, & Finigan, 2007; Carey, Sanders, Waller, Burrus, & Aborn, 2010a, 2010b). Many of these studies show promising outcomes for families in the child welfare system, including higher treatment completion rates, higher family reunification rates, less time in out-of-home placements for the children, and lower arrest rates (Marlowe & Carey, 2012). 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 performed full process, outcome and cost-benefit evaluations of two family drug court sites, the Marion and Jackson County Family Drug Court Programs. This study is a follow-up to that evaluation of the Marion County program. This summary contains process and outcome evaluation results for the Marion County Fostering Attachment Family Treatment Court (FATC). Details: Portland, OR: NPC Research, 2013. 98p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 22, 2014 at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/grants/244165.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/grants/244165.pdf Shelf Number: 132121 Keywords: Drug Abuse TreatmentDrug CourtsDrug OffendersProblem-Solving CourtsSubstance Abuse Treatment |
Author: Harwin, Judith Title: Changing Lifestyles, Keeping Children Safe: an evaluation of the first Family Drug and Alcohol Court (FDAC) in care proceedings Summary: This report presents the findings from an independent evaluation of the pilot Family Drug and Alcohol Court (FDAC). FDAC is an innovative approach to care proceedings where parental drug or alcohol misuse is a key feature of the case. The FDAC pilot began in January 2008 at the Inner London Family Proceedings Court in London. The pilot was funded by the Department for Education, the Ministry of Justice, the Home Office, the Department of Health and three inner-London local authorities (Camden, Islington, and Westminster) - the pilot local authorities. Since April 2012, when government funding came to an end, the FDAC specialist team has been funded by a consortium of five London authorities, including Southwark and Hammersmith & Fulham as well as the original three. The specialist team is provided by a partnership between the Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust and the children's charity, Coram. Parental substance misuse is a formidable social problem and a major risk factor for child maltreatment. It is a factor in up to two-thirds of care applications and parents with substance misuse problems are often involved in repeat care proceedings in relation to subsequent children. There has also been a rise in the number of care proceedings since 2008, so the scale of the problem is substantial. FDAC has been adapted to English law and practice from a model of Family Treatment Drug Courts (FTDCs) that is used widely in the USA and shows positive results. The US national evaluation of over 2,000 cases found that, compared to proceedings in the ordinary court, more FTDC parents and children were able to remain together safely, and there were swifter alternative permanent placement decisions for children if parents were unable to stop misusing, all of which meant savings on the cost of foster care during and after proceedings. The catalysts for the UK pilot were the encouraging evidence from the US evaluation and concerns about the response to parental substance misuse through ordinary care proceedings in England. These concerns were about poor child and parent outcomes; insufficient co-ordination between adult and children's services; late intervention to protect children; delay in reaching decisions; and the soaring costs of proceedings, linked to the length of proceedings and the cost of expert evidence. Details: Uxbridge, UK: Brunel University, 2014. 188p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 17, 2014 at: http://www.nuffieldfoundation.org/sites/default/files/files/FDAC_May2014_FinalReport_V2.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.nuffieldfoundation.org/sites/default/files/files/FDAC_May2014_FinalReport_V2.pdf Shelf Number: 1322487 Keywords: Child Abuse and NeglectChild MaltreatmentChild ProtectionDrug Abuse and AddictionFamily CourtsProblem-Solving CourtsSubstance Abuse |
Author: Mayfield, Jim Title: Drug Court Outcomes. Outcomes of Adult Defendants Admitted to Drug Courts Funded by the Washington State Criminal Justice Treatment Account Summary: This report describes chemical dependency treatment participation and crime outcomes of 1,671 adults charged with felonies who were admitted to formally established drug courts in Washington State from July 2007 through June 2009. Three-year treatment and crime outcomes are compared to a matched comparison group of 1,671 adults charged with similar felonies in the same jurisdictions and time period and who were in need of treatment but not admitted to a drug court. Arrests, incarceration rates, and treatment participation over a three-year follow-up period are examined, as are net benefits associated with the reductions in crime attributed to admission to drug court. This is part of a series of analyses for DSHS' Division of Behavioral Health and Recovery examining the experiences of recipients of treatment funded by the Criminal Justice Treatment Account, which pays for chemical dependency treatment for offenders who are chemically dependent or have a substance abuse problem that could, if untreated, lead to addiction. Details: Olympia, WA: Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, 2013. 10p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 14, 2014 at: http://www.dshs.wa.gov/pdf/ms/rda/research/4/89.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.dshs.wa.gov/pdf/ms/rda/research/4/89.pdf Shelf Number: 133064 Keywords: Drug Courts (Washington State)Drug OffendersDrug TreatmentProblem-Solving Courts |
Author: Lucenko, Barbara Title: Washington Court and Recovery Enhancement System: Program, Participants, Services and Preliminary Findings Summary: The Washington Court and Recovery Enhancement System (WA-CARES) project addresses the need for improved, cross-system coordination for drug courts and provides recovery support services for high-risk clients who access substance use disorder treatment through the drug court system. The two components of the project addressed in this report are: 1) implementation of an automated drug court case management system; and 2) provision of recovery support services (RSS) to drug court participants in select drug courts. This report provides details on WA-CARES participant characteristics, services received and preliminary outcomes for participants in RSS and non-RSS sites. Details: Olympia, WA: Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, 2014. 18p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 14, 2014 at: http://www.dshs.wa.gov/pdf/ms/rda/research/4/90.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.dshs.wa.gov/pdf/ms/rda/research/4/90.pdf Shelf Number: 133065 Keywords: Drug Courts (Washington State) Drug Offenders Problem-Solving Courts |
Author: Estee, Sharon Title: Characteristics and Criminal Histories of Adult Offenders Admitted to Treatment under Washington State's Criminal Justice Treatment Account Summary: This is the first in a series of reports prepared for the DSHS Division of Behavioral Health and Recovery to help evaluate and monitor the effectiveness of the treatment funded by the state's Criminal Justice Treatment Account. This account pays for chemical dependency treatment for criminal offenders who are chemically dependent or have a substance abuse problem that could lead to addiction if left untreated. The intent is to reduce recidivism and increase the likelihood that defendants and offenders will become productive and law-abiding persons. We compare key demographic, criminal history, and geographic differences between two groups of offenders whose treatment is funded through the account: 1) those involved with formally established drug courts, and 2) those charged through non-drug court programs in either Superior Courts or Courts of Limited Jurisdiction. We found that 39 percent of offenders entering treatment were from a drug court program. One in three offenders in both programs was a young adult (age 18 to 25). Felonies were the most serious charge for 94 percent of drug court offenders and 19 percent of non-drug court offenders. Felony drug offenses were the most serious charge for 65 percent of those from drug courts. The most serious charge for half of non-drug court offenders was a traffic-related offense with 36 percent charged with driving under the influence or driving while intoxicated. Drug court offenders had more arrests and convictions in the prior ten years than those from non-drug court programs. And drug-court felons entered treatment sooner than other offenders. Details: Olympia, WA: Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, 2012. 10p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 14, 2014 at: http://www.dshs.wa.gov/pdf/ms/rda/research/4/86.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.dshs.wa.gov/pdf/ms/rda/research/4/86.pdf Shelf Number: 133066 Keywords: Drug CourtsDrug TreatmentProblem-Solving CourtsSubstance Abuse Treatment (Washington State) |
Author: Keaton, Sandy Title: Enhancing Treatment in a Drug Court Setting: An Evaluation of San Diego County's Pilot Vivitrol Project Summary: In 2012, the North County Drug Court began a pilot project administering Vivitrol to drug court clients with a primary opiate addiction. Vivitrol is an extended-release injectable formulation of naltrexone that was approved in 2006 by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (USFDA) for the treatment of alcohol dependence and in 2010 for the treatment of opiate dependence (USFDA, 2010). The County of San Diego Health and Human Services Agency (HHSA) contracted with the San Diego Association of Governments' (SANDAG) Criminal Justice Research Division to conduct a two-year evaluation of the Vivitrol Pilot Project to determine if the program was implemented as planned and if the expected outcomes were achieved. This is the fourth and final evaluation report and provides the findings from data collected between August 2012 and June 2014. Key Findings of Vivitrol Pilot Project This report constitutes a two-year evaluation of the North County Vivitrol Pilot Project. It is one of the first studies to look at the longer term impacts of Vivitrol among opioid dependents. While the evaluation was limited by small sample size and available comparison group, the findings support further exploration of intramuscular injections of Vivitrol to support engagement and retention in drug treatment among individuals involved in the criminal justice system. Some key findings included: Regardless of the number of shots received, program clients generally reported that Vivitrol helped to control their cravings and supported their recovery. Program clients who completed the prescribed six or more doses of Vivitrol experienced decreased desire to use, did not relapse, and did not reoffend during the study period (a total of 18 months). While positive outcomes were realized for those clients who received the full dosage amount, only around one quarter (26%) received six or more shots. Older clients (36 years old on average) whose primary method of heroin administration was injection were more likely to receive six or more doses than those who were younger and reported other primary modes of use. Program stakeholders surveyed recommended that the Vivitrol project continue because of the success of the clients they witnessed during the pilot project including decreased cravings and greater focus on treatment. Details: San Francisco: Criminal Justice Research Division, SANDAG, 2014. 19p. Source: Internet Resource: CJ Bulletin: Accessed October 9, 2014 at: http://www.sandag.org/uploads/publicationid/publicationid_1873_17990.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.sandag.org/uploads/publicationid/publicationid_1873_17990.pdf Shelf Number: 133626 Keywords: Drug Abuse and Addiction (California)Drug Abuse TreatmentDrug CourtsDrug OffendersProblem-Solving CourtsSubstance Abuse Treatment |
Author: Boehm, Steve Title: Exploring the Process of Desistance in Two High-Risk Probation Populations Summary: Problem-solving courts were developed in the 1980s and 1990s to reduce recidivism and probation revocations. The first problem-solving courts focused primarily on treating drug abuse, but the missions have expanded to include issues such as domestic violence and the problems faced by returning war veterans. Research has found these courts to be generally effective, but there is wide variation in their outcomes, and there are questions about the process offenders undergo as their identity shifts from offender to non-offender. This dissertation presents qualitative and quantitative analysis of interview data for a group of problem-solving court probationers (n = 19) and a similar group of regular probationers (n = 19) that explores the differences and similarities in how these groups describe the probation experience. In general, the groups' descriptions are more similar than they are different, but those small differences suggest that the problem-solving court may be a qualitatively better experience for probationers than regular probation. Details: San Marcos: Texas State University, 2013. 170p. Source: Internet Resource: Dissertation: Accessed October 15, 2014 at" https://digital.library.txstate.edu/handle/10877/4852 Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: https://digital.library.txstate.edu/handle/10877/4852 Shelf Number: 133909 Keywords: DesistanceProbationProbationersProblem-Solving Courts |
Author: Great Britain. Home Office Title: Drugs: international comparators Summary: Covers approaches to drugs misuse and drug addiction in other countries: - detailing drug consumption rooms; - heroin-assisted treatment; - dissuasion commissions; - drug courts; - prison-based treatment; - prison-based harm-reduction; - new psychoactive substances; - supply-side regulation of cannabis; - decriminalising the possession of drugs for personal use Details: London: Home Office, 2014. 59p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 3, 2014 at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/368489/DrugsInternationalComparators.pdf Year: 2014 Country: International URL: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/368489/DrugsInternationalComparators.pdf Shelf Number: 133934 Keywords: Drug Abuse and AddictionDrug Abuse and CrimeDrug Abuse TreatmentDrug CourtsDrug OffendersProblem-Solving Courts |
Author: Lord Carlile of Berriew Title: Independent Parliamentarians' Inquiry into the Operation and Effectiveness of the Youth Court Summary: The Parliamentary Inquiry into the Operation and Effectiveness of the Youth Court was launched in September 2013. It seeks to determine whether the system of criminal courts for children who offend is meeting its stated aim of preventing offending and having regard to the welfare of the children that appear before them. The inquiry received a total of 55 written submissions and heard from 43 witnesses; these included academics, practitioners, policy makers and young people. Challenges and opportunities - We heard that reductions in the number of children entering the system and coming to court as well as closures of courts has created particular challenges. A key issue of concern is that children are increasingly likely to appear in adult magistrates' courts when they are detained overnight and over the weekend, because there will be no youth court sitting. We were informed too that the youth courts are seeing a greater concentration of children with complex needs in court, likely due to the success in reducing the number of children coming into the system for low level matters. However, the decrease in critical mass offers an opportunity to better focus resources on improving the system for child defendants, victims and their families. Diversion - There was wide support for high levels of diversion among inquiry respondents, with many referring to the strong body of evidence that contact with the criminal justice system can increase the likelihood of offending. There was concern that out-of-court diversion schemes share some of the same negative features as formal system contact, such as Disclosure and Barring Service disclosures, and that this was often not made sufficiently clear to children. Most believed that diversion was effectively preventing children from entering the criminal courts system unnecessarily. However a number of responses argued that some children were still "falling through the net", leading to unnecessary prosecution, particularly children in care. Addressing underlying needs - Submissions emphasised that children's offending flows from a wide range of needs. There was a widely held view that welfare services are often failing to address such needs, which results in children falling into the youth justice system, and struggling to free themselves from it. Particular concern was expressed that resource constraints on children's social services are such that only the most acute cases receive support - typically babies and young children - while vulnerable older children are left out. Involvement of Youth Offending Teams (YOTs) frequently has the effect of further raising the threshold for support, as there is often a perception that YOTs should be the sole body tackling the welfare needs of children who offend. A number of organisations reported that there had been some improvement in children's services involvement with children who offend following the introduction of new remand arrangements. However, it is often the case that courts are only able to focus on the offence, and not the child and the wider circumstances contributing to their behaviour. Lack of engagement and understanding - Submissions highlighted young people's lack of understanding of proceedings or language, owing to the prevalence of neuro-developmental disorders and other problems, that hinder participation and the lack of any systematic court processes to identify these. Additional factors that impede child defendant's understanding include their young age and developmental immaturity and the fact that the cohort of children in the youth court have had fewer educational opportunities. Specialisation - Magistrates and District Judges in youth proceedings must undergo specialist youth training, yet there are no such requirements for defence practitioners or Crown Court judges. Youth specialist prosecutors are only used for part of the court process. To compound the issue, the youth court is often used as a place for legal practitioners to "cut their teeth" and Crown Court judges tend to have little experience of dealing with youth cases. Respondents were virtually unanimous in their belief that all practitioners in youth proceedings should have youth specialist training; many believed that this should be a mandatory requirement. Crown Court - The overwhelming majority of responses argued that the Crown Court was inappropriate for children; its intimidating nature and lack of youth specific expertise was said to prevent effective sentencing and participation and, ultimately, contravene the right of children to a fair trial. There was subsequently strong support for a presumption retaining youth cases in the youth court. The role of the youth court - The prevailing view was that youth proceedings are struggling to meet their principal aim of preventing offending and their duty to have regard to the welfare of the child. Criminal courts do not possess the means to address the wide range of welfare issues that so often underlie a child's offending. There was subsequently wide support for the adoption of a more problem-solving approach to children who offend. Key recommendations - - We recommend that Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunal Service direct all magistrates' courts to introduce a rota system, to ensure that a senior youth magistrate or youth ticketed District Judge is always sitting in the adult magistrates' court when the youth court is not in session - Children who have committed non-serious and non-violent offences, who have stopped offending, should have their criminal record expunged when they turn 18. - We recommend that all legal practitioners representing children at the police station and practising in youth proceedings be accredited to do so. - There should be a clear presumption "in law" that all child defendants are dealt with in the youth court. - We recommend the piloting of a problem solving approach in court for children, which would include judicial monitoring and continuity in cases, and powers to ensure children's underlying needs are met. - We advocate building upon the existing referral order to place greater emphasis on the involvement of victims as well as the participation of families and wider support services to enable the process to address the harm of the offence as well as its underlying causes. The "Problem Solving Conference" would be available to under-16s coming to court and should be initially piloted. Details: London: National Children's Bureau, 2014. 85p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 25, 2014 at: http://www.ncb.org.uk/media/1148432/independent_parliamentarians__inquiry_into_the_operation_and_effectiveness_of_the_youth_court.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.ncb.org.uk/media/1148432/independent_parliamentarians__inquiry_into_the_operation_and_effectiveness_of_the_youth_court.pdf Shelf Number: 134242 Keywords: Juvenile Court SystemJuvenile DiversionJuvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Justice Systems (U.K.)Juvenile OffendersProblem-Solving CourtsYouthful Offenders |
Author: Downey, P. Mitchell Title: Cost-Benefit Analysis: A Guide for Drug Courts and other Criminal Justice Programs Summary: Policymakers and practitioners face difficult decisions when they allocate resources. As resource constraints have tightened, the role of researchers in informing evidence-based and cost-effective decisions about the use of funds, labor, materials and equipment - and even the skills of workers - has increased. We believe research that can inform decisions about resource allocation will be a central focus of criminal justice research in the years to come, with cost-benefit analysis (CBA) among the key tools. This report about the use of CBA is aimed at not only researchers but also practitioners and policymakers who use research to make choices about how to use limited resources. Although we include NIJ's Multi-site Adult Drug Court Evaluation (MADCE) as an example of CBA in practice, this report is not just about using CBA in drug courts. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice, 2014. 32p. Source: Internet Resource: National Institute of Justice Research in Brief: Accessed November 25, 2014 at: https://ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/246769.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: https://ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/246769.pdf Shelf Number: 134243 Keywords: Cost-Benefit Analysis (U.S.)Costs of Criminal JusticeCriminal Justice PolicyDrug CourtsEvidence-Based PracticesProblem-Solving Courts |
Author: KPMG Title: Evaluation of the Drug Court of Victoria: Final Report Summary: The Drug Court of Victoria (DCV, 'the Court') was established in May 2002 to further improve the safety of the community by focusing on the rehabilitation of offenders with a drug and/or alcohol dependency, and by providing assistance in reintegrating them into the community. It was designed using international best practice principles on the basis of the 10 key principles defined by the National Association of Drug Court Professionals and U.S. Department of Justice in 1997. Since 2005, the DCV has received ongoing funding, including additional national drug strategy funding, and has had an operating budget of approximately $1.6 million per annum. The Court has not been evaluated since 2005, however in 2010, the Victorian Auditor General released a report finding that problem solving approaches to justice in Victoria had reduced recidivism. In response to this, the government at the time confirmed that problem solving courts would remain in operation, and the then Attorney-General stated 'we are looking to identify successful elements which can be taken up and implemented more widely'. To this end, it is understood that the Magistrates' Court of Victoria (MCV) is considering how the DCV may deliver its services to the wider community, including a proposal for expansion to additional locations. KPMG has been engaged by the MCV to undertake an evaluation of the DCV over the period 1 July 2010 to 30 June 2013. The objectives of the evaluation are to: - assess the performance of the DCV against its specified activities and anticipated outcomes; - document key lessons learnt from the Court; and - provide an evidence base to inform government decision-making. Key evaluation questions have been drawn from the Department of Treasury and Finance (DTF) evaluation policy and standards for evaluating lapsing programs, to facilitate the use of the evaluation in any potential future funding bid. These include consideration of: - What is the evidence of a continued need for the DCV and the role for government in delivering it? - Has the DCV been effective, considering progress made towards its stated objectives and outcomes and the alignment between the Court, its outputs, MCV's objectives and government priorities? - Has the DCV been delivered within its scope, budget, expected timeframes and in line with appropriate governance and risk management practices? - Has MCV demonstrated efficiency and economy in delivering the DCV? The evaluation has sought to collect both quantitative and qualitative evidence to support key findings and recommendations, and this has included analysis of DCV participant related data, finance data, a recidivism study undertaken by the Department of Justice (DoJ) for the purposes of this evaluation, a review of publicly available literature and data, and widespread consultation with key stakeholders, including program participants. Details: Melbourne: Magistrates' Court of Victoria, 2015. 138p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 8, 2015 at: http://www.magistratescourt.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/141218%20Evaluation%20of%20the%20Drug%20Court%20of%20Victoria.pdf Year: 2014 Country: Australia URL: http://www.magistratescourt.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/141218%20Evaluation%20of%20the%20Drug%20Court%20of%20Victoria.pdf Shelf Number: 135191 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationDrug Courts (Australia)Drug OffendersProblem-Solving CourtsRecidivism |
Author: Hornby Zeller Associates, Inc. Title: Fairbanks Juvenile Treatment Court: Evaluation Report Summary: The Fairbanks Juvenile Treatment Court (FJTC) began in 2008 as an innovative response to youth with mental health and co-occurring disorders (mental health and substance use disorders together). As in other parts of the country, it grew from the recognition that mental health disorders, sometimes paired with substance abuse, frequently contribute to the reason juveniles commit offenses and appear before the Court. The FJTC targets youth whose mental illness likely contributed to the commission of their offense. Like most therapeutic courts, the FJTC is managed by a multi-disciplinary team which uses a collaborative (as opposed to an adversarial) approach. Members step out of their traditional roles to encourage treatment of the juvenile while still promoting public safety. FJTC's mission is to "promote public safety while moving adolescents from the traditional juvenile justice system into a mental health/substance use treatment system that can sustain health and non-criminal behavior." The Alaska Court System (ACS), in collaboration with the Alaska Mental Health Trust Authority, have sponsored this evaluation to analyze outcomes of participants in the FJTC in state fiscal years (SFY) 2009 through 2012, and to measure the effectiveness of the FJTC at improving the lives of juveniles with mental health and substance use disorders. The purpose of the study is to help guide the FJTC in its future development by providing information on: 1. the functioning of the FJTC in relation to mental health and juvenile drug court standards; 2. the clinical and demographic characteristics of FJTC participants and their corresponding service needs; 3. the services available and used by FJTC participants to identify any unmet needs or gaps in the service delivery system; 4. the clinical and criminal recidivism outcomes of FJTC participants, and factors associated with and predictive of those outcomes; 5. characteristics of FJTC participants appropriate for diversion; and 6. evidence-based programs and services which could be employed to divert youth from court or reduce recidivism. The FJTC is a diversion program, meaning that the juvenile's current charges are held in abeyance, or not adjudicated, pending the agreement of the youth to participate in FJTC. Agreement means the youth must accept treatment for his or her mental health and/or substance use, attend court hearings and obey the conditions of conduct set out by the court. The youth's agreement to participate includes admission to the charges, and an explanation of the consequences in the plea agreement, which may include detention should the youth not complete the program. To qualify for participation, the youth must have a current Diagnostic and Statistical Manual IV3 (DSM IV) Axis I mental health diagnosis, qualifying criminal charges, and must be willing to accept services and will preferably be supported by a parent or caregiver. Details: South Portland, ME: Hornby Zeller Associates, Inc., 2014. 107p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 20, 2015 at: http://www.hornbyzeller.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/FJTC-2014-Report-FINAL-May-2014.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.hornbyzeller.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/FJTC-2014-Report-FINAL-May-2014.pdf Shelf Number: 135306 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationJuvenile CourtsJuvenile Diversion ProgramsJuvenile Offenders (Alaska)Mental Health CourtsProblem-Solving CourtsSubstance Abuse Treatment |
Author: Blair, Lesli Title: Juvenile Drug Courts: A Process, Outcome, and Impact Evaluation Summary: This bulletin provides an overview of an Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention-sponsored evaluation of drug court intervention programs, their processes, and key outcome features. The authors evaluated nine juvenile drug courts from three regions nationwide, assessing the relative effect of each court and the courts' combined effectiveness in reducing recidivism and improving youth's social functioning. Some of the authors' key findings follow below. - Seven of nine sites saw higher rates of new referrals for drug court youth when compared with youth on traditional probation, and six of nine sites saw higher rates of new adjudications for drug court youth when compared with youth on traditional probation. - Only one of nine sites evidenced significant reductions for both new referrals and new adjudications. These positive outcomes may be due to the referral agencies providing treatment on the court's behalf adhering more closely to evidence-based practices. - Many of the juvenile drug courts were not adequately assessing their clients for risk, needs, and barriers to treatment success. - Juvenile drug courts in general were not adhering to evidence-based practices. Only two of the nine courts performed well in the process evaluation that measured adherence to evidence-based correctional treatment practices, and only one court's referral agencies performed well in the process evaluation. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2015. 12p. Source: Internet Resource: OJJDP Juvenile Justice Bulletin, 2015: Accessed May 30, 2015 at: http://www.ojjdp.gov/pubs/248406.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.ojjdp.gov/pubs/248406.pdf Shelf Number: 135806 Keywords: Drug CourtsDrug TreatmentJuvenile CourtsJuvenile Drug CourtsJuvenile OffendersProblem-Solving Courts |
Author: Prince, Kort Title: 2013 Outcome Evaluation of Salt Lake County's Felony Drug Court Program Summary: Background Salt Lake County's Adult Felony Drug Court (FDC) program began in 1996. Three previous evaluations of the efficacy of the Salt Lake County FDC were conducted in 2000, 2001, and 2005. These studies generally showed a positive effect of drug court participation with lower recidivism rates for drug court participants compared to other offenders (Harrison & Parsons, 2000; Utah Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice (CCJJ), 2001). However, the 2005 study (Van Vleet, Hickert, & Becker) indicated that the lower recidivism rates associated with drug court participation were not significant when other covariates were included. Pre-intervention arrests were the only significant predictor of rearrest. Purpose The purpose of the present study is to provide a current outcome evaluation of the Salt Lake County FDC program. FDC participants who exited in the years 2009-2011 (referred to as participants for the remainder of the report) were selected in order to allow for a sufficient post-exit follow-up period (approximately two years) for the majority of the cohort. Because the identification of a comparison group was outside the scope of this study, the analyses focus on pre- to post-exit changes in recidivism (new charges and convictions), examining the influence of length of program participation, exit status (positive, negative, neutral) and demographic factors. Participant Characteristics The 2009-2011 cohort of participants was primarily White (85%) and male (59%), with an average age of 30 years. The graduation rate for this group was 82% (positive exits; compared to 5% neutral exits and 13% negative exits). Average length of participation was 18-21 months (Mn = 84 weeks; Md = 71 weeks). Recidivism Regardless of exit status, participants had fewer new charge arrests, including drug and property crime charges, in the 18 months after program completion when compared to the 18 months before. This decline cannot be confidently attributed to FDC participation, however, because successful program completion and program duration were not associated with significant reductions in recidivism for any crime except person crimes (though other marginally significant results were found). When comparing pre- and post-program recidivism for person offenses, participants who spent comparatively more time in drug court had fewer new charge arrests in the 18-month post-program follow-up period. Similarly, participants with positive and neutral exits showed significant pre-post decline in person offenses, and participants with negative exits did not. Regardless of exit status, participants had fewer new convictions for any crime, including drug crimes, in the 24 months after program completion when compared to the 24 months before. Longer time in the program was a marginally significant predictor of reductions in convictions for any crime from pre- to post-program. Client Factors Related to Outcomes After controlling for pre-program convictions, there were no differences between males and females or whites and minorities in terms of the number of post-program convictions for either drugs or any crime. When compared to younger clients, clients who were older at the time of intake had less post-program recidivism. An increase in client age of one year was associated with a 1% decrease in the likelihood of post-program convictions. Similarly, neither sex nor minority status was a significant predictor of successful program exit (graduating), but age was. Each one-year increase in age increased the likelihood of successful program completion by 1%. Discussion The most consistent finding of this report is the considerable reduction in criminal recidivism for all FDC groups (positive, neutral or negative exit statuses) from pre- to post-program. It is important to note that pre-program new charge arrests and convictions include the episode that led to their placement in the FDC program if the timing of the offense(s) fell within the time window (e.g., 12 months, 18 months). Longer program duration was occasionally (though often only marginally) associated with less recidivism. This outcome suggests that the FDC program, with respect to some criminal behavior, may (with respect to some criminal behavior) reduce recidivism as a function of exposure to the program and its procedures (e.g., treatment, continual monitoring). Regardless of exit status, the program may have some positive benefits on participants simply as a result of their length of program participation (i.e., whether the participant graduates or not). This interpretation should be regarded with caution, however, as the finding was not robust across all variables and timeframes, and program duration was not associated with lower drug related recidivism (which one might assume would be the area most affected by the FDC program and its procedures). Although all recidivism variables showed remarkable pre to post-program reductions, results should be interpreted with caution until a comparison group can be included in a research design. If a statistically matched comparison group were included in a future analysis (even with retrospective data), and the FDC group showed greater reductions in recidivism compared to the comparison group, it could be more confidently asserted that the FDC program was the cause of the differential improvement. Details: Salt Lake City, UK: Utah Criminal Justice Center, University of Utah, 2013. 22p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 20, 2015 at: http://ucjc.utah.edu/wp-content/uploads/FDC-Outcome-Evaluation-Final-2013-Report.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://ucjc.utah.edu/wp-content/uploads/FDC-Outcome-Evaluation-Final-2013-Report.pdf Shelf Number: 136115 Keywords: Drug CourtsDrug OffendersFelony OffendersProblem-Solving CourtsRecidivism |
Author: Stuckey, Skyler Title: Enhancing Public Safety and Saving Taxpayer Dollars: The Role of Mental Health Courts in Texas Summary: Measures that divert suitable offenders with mental illness from lockups to effective treatment programs can produce net savings while furthering public safety and offender accountability. States have begun implementing problem-solving courts to accommodate offenders with specific needs that traditional courts cannot adequately address. These problem-solving courts focus on outcomes that benefit society by reducing crime and saving correction costs. Mental health courts are one of these problem-solving courts designed to reduce recidivism by requiring offenders with mental illness to be directly accountable to the court on an ongoing basis for compliance with a supervision and treatment plan. Jails and prisons have become some of the largest providers of mental health care across Texas and the country. Offenders with mental illness often move through these facilities as if they were a revolving door. Mental health courts that use best practices can help break this cycle by offering an alternative that holds offenders accountable and provides treatment. Many issues related to mental illness in the criminal justice system stem from deinstitutionalization, which began in the 1950s. Throughout the decade, popular sentiment and litigation led to significant reductions in the mandatory institutionalization of people with mental illness in state-sponsored psychiatric hospitals. In 1963, President Kennedy pushed the Community Mental Health Act, which closed many of these state-run institutions. Although these institutions were imperfect, the current challenges at the intersection of mental illness and corrections are partly attributable to lack of a replacement. Thus, people with mental illness who come in contact with law enforcement are often funneled into jails and prisons. Mental health courts could help Texas break the cycle of mental illness and crime. To reduce recidivism and spending on corrections, many states have established mental health courts. For example, New York has handled over 7,124 cases in mental health courts since December 2013. And in Texas, the Harris County Felony Mental Health Court began screening defendants for court admission in March 2012. Given this progression the time seems ideal for examining the role these courts can play in Texas' future criminal justice policy. Details: Austin: Texas Public Policy Foundation, 2015. 12p. Source: Internet Resource: Policy Perspective: Accessed July 20, 2015 at: http://www.texaspolicy.com/library/doclib/PP-The-Role-of-Mental-Health-Courts-in-Texas.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.texaspolicy.com/library/doclib/PP-The-Role-of-Mental-Health-Courts-in-Texas.pdf Shelf Number: 136117 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCosts of Criminal JusticeMental Health CourtsMental Health ServicesMentally Ill OffendersProblem-Solving Courts |
Author: Steinberg, Darrell Title: When did prisons become acceptable mental healthcare facilities? Summary: We can no longer ignore the massive oppression we are inflicting upon the mentally ill throughout the United States. Over a century ago, Dorothea Dix began a movement to improve the deplorable conditions of mentally ill prisoners. Despite her success in changing the country's perception and treatment of the mentally ill in prison, we are now right back where we started in the nineteenth century. Although deinstitutionalization was originally understood as a humane way to offer more suitable services to the mentally ill in community-based settings, some politicians seized upon it as a way to save money by shutting down institutions without providing any meaningful treatment alternatives. This callousness has created a one-way road to prison for massive numbers of impaired individuals and the inhumane warehousing of thousands of mentally ill people. We have created conditions that make criminal behavior all but inevitable for many of our brothers and sisters who are mentally ill. Instead of treating them, we are imprisoning them. And then, when they have completed their sentences, we release them with minimal or no support system in place, just counting the days until they are behind bars once again. This practice of seeking to save money on the backs of this population comes with huge moral and fiscal cost. It is ineffective because we spend far more on imprisonment of the mentally ill than we would otherwise spend on treatment and support. It is immoral because writing off another human being's life is utterly contrary to our collective values and principles. The numbers are staggering: over the past 15 years, the number of mentally ill people in prison in California has almost doubled. Today, 45 percent of state prison inmates have been treated for severe mental illness within the past year. The Los Angeles County Jail is "the largest mental health provider in the county," according to the former official in charge of the facility. California was at the forefront of the spiral towards imprisonment rather than treatment, when it turned its back on community based mental health programs. As usual, what started in California spread throughout the country. In 1971 there were 20,000 people in California prisons; by 2010 the population had increased to 162,000 people, of which 45 percent are estimated to be mentally ill. We in California now have an opportunity to lead again - this time to show that there is a better approach. We can begin a counter-revolution by setting a new standard for how we deal with people whose mental illness manifests through criminal activity. We will prove to the country that there is another, better approach - an approach that saves money and saves lives from being forsaken. Details: Palo Alto, CA: Stanford law School, Three Strikes Project, 2015. 23p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 29, 2015 at: https://www.law.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/child-page/632655/doc/slspublic/Report_v12.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: https://www.law.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/child-page/632655/doc/slspublic/Report_v12.pdf Shelf Number: 136255 Keywords: Jail InmatesMental Health CourtsMental Health ServicesMentally Ill InmatesMentally Ill OffendersProblem-Solving Courts |
Author: Gentles, Peggy Title: Non-Felony Driving While Intoxicated: Case Processing in Wright County Minnesota Summary: Driving while impaired incidents in Minnesota have significant public safety and criminal justice impacts. This project studied 2013 non-felony impaired driving (DWI) dispositions in Wright County, Minnesota. The Minnesota Judicial Branch has timing objectives for the disposition of cases, including non-felony criminal cases. The project sought to analyze the disposed cases to identify changes in case processing that could positively impact time to disposition in non-felony DWI cases. Additionally, the possibility of triaging first-time offenders' cases to both improve performance on the timing objectives as well as to reduce recidivism of those offenders is investigated. The source data for the project were large data extracts from the Court's case management system. Case-level and hearing level data on non-felony DWI disposed cases were examined. The data sets were analyzed using descriptive statistics and variance analysis to identify any independent variable's impact on time to disposition. The level of offense, defendant's representation status (private counsel, public defender, and self-represented), and number of hearings were found to significantly impact time to disposition. Prosecuting agency and blood alcohol content were not found to impact time to disposition. A random sample of first-time offender cases was evaluated based on factors identified in research as predictive of recidivism. At the beginning of the project, the author assumed that triaging cases could identify cases requiring less judicial intervention, freeing up court calendar time, without increasing recidivism. The analysis revealed that cases identified through triage for less judicial intervention already were disposing quickly and with few hearings. Therefore, the hope that formal triage could be adopted to further reduce time to disposition was not borne out by the data. The project concludes that Wright County District Court's non-felony 2013 DWI dispositions did not meet state timing objectives. The Court's time to disposition compared favorably neither to the statewide averages nor to similarly sized counties. The Court should establish a more active case management strategy for non-felony DWI cases. A committee of stakeholders should be formed to look specifically at the variables that were found to impact time to disposition and evaluate the necessity of their impact. The project also identified limitations in data quality and availability of data to court managers and therefore recommends improvements both for local court administration and the state court administrator's offices. Finally, the proposal to use the concept of triage based on anticipated outcomes rather than case characteristics should be investigated further. While the sample data in this project did not prompt a recommendation for further consideration in this project's context, additional scholarship may develop the efficacy, as well as potential ethical concerns, of such an approach. Details: Williamsburg, VA: Institute for Court Management, 2015. 60p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 17, 2015 at: http://ncsc.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/singleitem/collection/spcts/id/291/rec/1 Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://ncsc.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/singleitem/collection/spcts/id/291/rec/1 Shelf Number: 136438 Keywords: Case ProcessingDriving Under the InfluenceDrunk DrivingProblem-Solving CourtsRecidivism |
Author: Landsem, Kari M. Title: Who Salutes? - Handling Veterans in North Dakota Courts Summary: This paper explores the traditional and alternative models of justice and the development of veterans treatment courts. Different models of veterans treatment courts are examined, along with considerations necessary to establish a veterans treatment court. Finally, the feasibility of establishing a veterans treatment coutt in North Dakota is explored. Details: Williamsburg, VA: Institute for Court Management, 2015. Source: Internet Resource: ICM Fellow Program: Accessed August 19, 2015 at: http://ncsc.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/spcts/id/299 Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://ncsc.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/spcts/id/299 Shelf Number: 136460 Keywords: Problem-Solving CourtsVeterans Courts |
Author: U.S. Department of Justice. Civil Rights Division Title: Investigation of the St. Louis County Family Court, St. Louis, Missouri Summary: Following a comprehensive investigation, the Justice Department today announced its findings regarding the Family Court of the Twenty-First Judicial Circuit of the state of Missouri, commonly known as the St. Louis County Family Court. The Justice Department found that the family court fails to provide constitutionally required due process to children appearing for delinquency proceedings, and that the court's administration of juvenile justice discriminates against Black children. The investigation was conducted under the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, which gives the department the authority to seek a remedy for a pattern or practice of conduct that violates the constitutional or federal statutory rights of youths in the administration of juvenile justice. "The findings we issue today are serious and compelling," said Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Vanita Gupta, head of the Civil Rights Division. "Missouri was at the forefront of juvenile corrections reform when it closed its large juvenile institutions and moved to a smaller, treatment-focused system and we are hopeful that Missouri will rise to this challenge to, once again, be a leader in juvenile justice reform. This investigation is another step toward our goal of ensuring that children in the juvenile justice system receive their constitutionally guaranteed rights to due process and equal protection under the law." Since opening this investigation in November 2013, the Civil Rights Division has analyzed data relating to nearly 33,000 juvenile cases, including all delinquency and status offenses resolved in St. Louis County Family Court between 2010 and 2013; and has reviewed over 14,000 pages of documents, including family court records, transcripts, policies, procedures and external reports. In June 2014, Justice Department attorneys and its consultants-a law school clinical professor and experienced juvenile defense attorney and a nationally-recognized expert on measuring juvenile justice disparities through statistical analysis-visited the family court and interviewed a number of court personnel, including all of the judges and commissioners as well as the heads of many of family court programs and services. They also collected information from both the state and local public defender's offices, private attorneys with experience in the family court and the parents of youth who had been involved in delinquency proceedings with the family court. The Justice Department found a number of constitutional violations, including: -Failure to ensure youth facing delinquency proceedings have adequate legal representation; -Failure to make adequate determinations that there is probable cause that a child committed the alleged offense; -Failure to provide adequate due process to children facing certification for criminal prosecution in adult criminal court; -Failure to ensure that children's guilty pleas are entered knowingly and voluntarily; -An organizational structure that is rife with conflicts of interest, is contrary to separation of powers principles and deprives children of adequate due process; and -Disparate treatment of Black children at four key decision points within the juvenile justice system. The department has opened four cases examining whether juvenile justice systems comply with children's rights since 2009. In 2012, the department settled its first investigation of this kind, reaching an agreement with the Juvenile Court of Shelby County, Memphis, Tennessee that calls for comprehensive due process, equal protection and facility reforms. On June 19, 2015, the Justice Department announced a partial settlement of its lawsuit alleging violations of children's due process rights in Lauderdale County, Mississippi. In March 2015, the department announced its investigation of due process and disability discrimination issues in the Dallas County Truancy Court and Juvenile District Courts. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, 2015. 60p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 16, 2015 at: http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/crt/legacy/2015/07/31/stlouis_findings_7-31-15.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/crt/legacy/2015/07/31/stlouis_findings_7-31-15.pdf Shelf Number: 136300 Keywords: Child ProtectionDue ProcessFamily CourtsJuvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile OffendersProblem-Solving CourtsRacial BiasRacial Disparities |
Author: National Center for School Engagement Title: Innovations in Truancy Prevention Practice: An Inventory of Selected Collaborations from around the United States Summary: In June 2004, The National Center for School Engagement (NCSE) was commissioned by the National Truancy Prevention Association (NTPA) to examine truancy programs nationwide1. The purpose of doing this research was to inform NTPA about best practices in court-based truancy reduction programs, identify truancy efforts that are currently in existence nationwide, and determine training needs for truancy programs. To do this, NCSE completed three phases of work which included creating and marketing an online database of truancy programs, completing in-depth programmatic exploration of court involved truancy efforts, and dissemination of results. The first phase of the NTPA project began with the development of an online database to capture information about truancy programs across the country and to aid in the identification of court involved truancy programs. NCSE actively marketed the online registration system, which appeared on the NCSE website at www.truancyprevention.org (currently named www.schoolengagement.org). As of March 20, 2005, 65 programs/projects were registered. Fifty-four percent (35) of the programs in the registry provide direct services to truants. Sixty-two of the 65 programs reported taking a family-wide approach to serving their clients. The three most common barriers these programs reported are poor parental involvement and communication, difficulties collaborating with schools and school staff, and funding and budget concerns. One-third of the programs in the registry receive funding through a combination of sources and 22% receive federal grants. The second phase was to gain an in-depth look into court-based truancy programs. To do this NCSE conducted 12 interviews with judges and staff of selected promising programs that were specifically court involved. The goals of these interviews were to obtain more detailed information of court-based programs, identify challenges they face, ascertain effective practices, and find out whom the programs serve. These programs serve truant youth in a variety of ways. However, seven of the 12 programs included in this study are similar in that the main practice is to identify truant youth who are typically not delinquent and hold weekly truancy courts with Judges at the students' schools. These programs are similar in many ways and are discussed as a group called "Truancy Court Programs". Each program addresses truancy in a unique way, but all attempt to identify and help meet the needs of the family as a whole, rather than just the student. The judges and program staff often perform similar roles. For instance, the judges and other court personnel in NE, GA, and both programs in WI primarily provide referrals to the program, participate in collaboration and are seen as partners, but do not necessarily lead the program. The judges in the "Truancy Court Programs" are more often seen as leaders of the program, are active weekly participants, act as catalysts for change, and coordinate the program. In all programs, collaboration with entities outside of the courts exists. Partners vary widely, but often include the schools, superintendents, law enforcement, and social and community services. Identifying best practices is difficult because most court-based truancy reduction efforts have neither time nor staff to engage in formal external evaluation. In fact, funding and evaluation needs, in addition to program development and stakeholder buy in, were the most common challenges identified by these programs. Regardless of the lack of formal evaluation, many programs do have access to attendance and court records, and some track these as indicators of success. The majority report improved attendance since the programs' inceptions, and all have anecdotal data about individual students' successes. Best practices were identified mainly through what the interviewees have experienced to have worked. Details: National Center for School Engagement, 2005. 107p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 8, 2015 at: http://schoolengagement.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/InnovationsinTruancyPreventionPracticeAnInventoryofSelectedCollaborationsfromaroundtheUnitedStates.pdf Year: 2005 Country: United States URL: http://schoolengagement.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/InnovationsinTruancyPreventionPracticeAnInventoryofSelectedCollaborationsfromaroundtheUnitedStates.pdf Shelf Number: 136973 Keywords: At-Risk YouthDelinquency PreventionProblem-Solving CourtsSchool AttendanceStatus OffendersTruancy |
Author: Harrison, Paige M. Title: Otter Tail County DWI Court Fergus Falls, MN. Process, Outcomes, and Cost Evaluation Report Summary: WI courts are complex programs designed to deal with some of the most challenging problems that communities face. DWI courts bring together multiple and traditionally adversarial roles plus stakeholders from different systems with different training, proessional language, and approaches. They take on groups of clients that frequently have serious substance abuse treatment needs. Adults with substance abuse issues involved in the criminal justice system must be seen within an ecological context; that is, within the environment that has contributed to their attitudes and behaviors. This environment includes their neighborhoods, families, friends, and formal or informal economies through which they support themselves. The DWI court must understand the various social, economic, mental health and cultural factors that affect their participants. In late 2011, NPC Research was contracted by the State of Minnesota's Department of Public Safety, Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) to conduct an assessment of Minnesota's DWI courts and to determine the work necessary and the feasibility of performing process, outcome, and cost evaluations in these programs. The overall goal of the DWI court project is to have a credible and rigorous evaluation of Minnesota's DWI courts. In June 2012, it was decided to move forward with a full evaluation including a detailed process evaluation and outcome evaluation in all nine of Minnesota's DWI court programs and a cost benefit evaluation in seven of these programs. This is the site-specific report for the Otter Tail County DWI Court (OTC-DWI). The OTC-DWI was implemented in February 2008. This program, designed to take 18 months to complete, takes post-conviction participants, but also allows some participants to enter the pro-gram pre-plea (offenders who know they are pleading guilty and want to start the program before their court hearing). The general program population consists of repeat DWI offenders (with two or more DWI offenses) charged in Otter Tail County with a gross misdemeanor or felony level DWI, who are determined substance dependent. Process Evaluation Summary. The OTC-DWI has been responsive to the community needs and strives to meet the challenges presented by substance-dependant individuals. This program is demonstrating some exemplary practices within each of the 10 Key Components of Drug Courts including good communication between team members, rapid results from drug testing, an appropriate range of services, written incentive and sanctions guidelines, and swift response to participant behaviors. The process evaluation did reveal some recommendations that could further enhance program outcomes that the court was considering or was in the process of implementing in our last discussion. These recommendations included the following: - Flexible hours for the probation officer. The probation officer currently works 24 hours per week on a set schedule of every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. It is strongly recommended that the probation officer position have flexible hours. This would allow for more random drug testing (especially for the female participants) and allow the probation officer to do more home and workplace visits. - Ensure that the home and workplace visits are truly random and ensure appropriate training for the surveillance position. Participants reported that the visits mostly occur in the evening and they are often able to determine when the visit will occur (or were actually told when the next visit would occur). It is recommended that the OTC-DWI develop procedures to ensure that participants are unable to determine the visit schedule. In addition, due to reports of frequent turnover in the surveillance officer position, it is recommended that guidelines be created for this role and training instituted to ensure that all surveillance officers are following appropriate procedures. - Schedule staffing meetings and court sessions for a recurring day and time when all team members are able to attend. Participant feedback and site visit observations indicated that many team members do not regularly attend court sessions. It is strongly recommended that the staffing meeting and court session be held at a time when all team members are able to regularly attend. - Continue efforts toward getting a defense attorney on the team. It was reported that some public defenders support the program and some do not (because they feel their clients do not receive due process and are better served by taking jail time instead of participating in DWI court). The OTC-DWI has made efforts to reach out to and educate the public defenders about DWI court, but due to a severe lack of funding the public defender office does not have time or resources to participate. - Consider sentencing more offenders into the program, specifically felons and high-risk offenders. It was reported that the option of sentencing an offender into the OTC-DWI is rarely used. It is recommended that the program be explained to all judges and that they consider it among their sentencing options. In addition, the OTC-DWI currently has only two felons in the program, and only four felons have been in the program over the past year. It is recommended that the team make an effort to take on more felons in the program since it is the higher risk offenders who most need the services and intensive supervision provided in the OTC-DWI. Outcome Evaluation Summary. The outcome analyses were primarily performed on OTC-DWI participants who entered the DWI court program from January 2009 through December 2011, and a matched comparison group of offenders eligible for DWI court but who received the traditional court process rather than OTC-DWI. Figure A illustrates the average number at 1 year and 2 years after program entry for OTC-DWI graduates, all OTC-DWI participants, and the comparison group. DWI court participants were rearrested about half as often as comparison group members across both years; this difference was statistically significant in Year 1 (p <.05). The results of the outcome analysis for the OTC-DWI are positive. Overall the data showed few-er average arrests among DWI court participants than the comparison group. While most differences were not statistically significant, some of this is attributable to the small sample size. We recommend the program continue to track participants and perhaps conduct another study several years hence. Cost Evaluation Summary. Although the OTC-DWI is a substantial taxpayer investment, over time it results in significant cost savings and a return on its investment. Recommendations. Based on the outcome and cost evaluation, there are some key possibilities for program adjustments that may improve program outcomes. These include: - Ensuring that the program is targeting high-risk/high-need offenders (e.g., felony DWIs) - Decreasing the frequency of court sessions in Phase 2, or seeing some participants who are doing well less often so that the judge can spend at least 3 minutes per participant and also decrease the costs of court appearances. Details: Portland, OR: NPC Research, 2014. 120p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 28, 2015 at: http://npcresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/MN-DWI-Process-Outcome-and-Cost-Report_Otter-Tail-FINAL-FOR-OTS.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://npcresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/MN-DWI-Process-Outcome-and-Cost-Report_Otter-Tail-FINAL-FOR-OTS.pdf Shelf Number: 137164 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCost-Benefit AnalysisDriving While IntoxicatedDrugged DrivingDrunk DrivingDrunk Driving CourtsProblem-Solving Courts |
Author: Harrison, Paige M. Title: Borderland Substance Abuse Court, Lake of the Woods County, MN: Process and Outcome Evaluation Report Summary: There are two key policy questions of interest to policymakers about DWI courts. The evaluation of Borderland Substance Abuse Court (BSAC) provided answers to these questions. This study included participants who entered the program between 2008 and 2012, and a matched comparison group of DWI offenders who were eligible but were not referred to the program. Just over half of the participants were assessed as high-need (54%) and two-thirds were assessed as high risk (69%). Participants had an average of 2.4 DWI arrests in the ten years before DWI court entry. DWI Recidivism. Out of 33 DWI court participants, there were only two new DWI arrests in the two years after DWI court entry, an indicator of reduced driving while using alcohol, and increased public safety. Compared to DWI offenders who experienced traditional court processes, the BSAC participants (regardless of whether they graduated from the program): - Had 24% fewer rearrests two years after program entry; - Were 32% less likely to be rearrested for any charges - Had no rearrests for person crimes - Had a longer time to the first rearrest for any charge (20 months versus 18 months) - Had a substantially higher graduation rate than the national average (77% versus 57%) Research indicates that drug and DWI courts should target high-risk/high-need individuals, as lower risk participants require different intervention methods and may not benefit (or may actually be harmed) from the intense supervision provided by the full drug court model (NADCP, 2013). These positive results indicate that the BSAC is targeting the correct population and should continue or increase its focus on high risk individuals. In general, these outcomes provide some evidence that the BSAC is implementing its program with good fidelity to the DWI court model and is having the intended impact on its participants. Details: Portland, OR: NPC Research, 2014. 92p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 28, 2015 at: http://npcresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/Lake-of-the-Woods-MN-DWI-Process-and-Outcome-Report_FINAL-FOR-OTS.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://npcresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/Lake-of-the-Woods-MN-DWI-Process-and-Outcome-Report_FINAL-FOR-OTS.pdf Shelf Number: 137165 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationDriving While IntoxicatedDrug CourtsDrug OffendersDrugged DrivingProblem-Solving CourtsRecidivism |
Author: Zil, Charlene E. Title: South St. Louis County DWI Court, St. Louis County, MN: Process, Outcome, and Cost Evaluation Summary: WI courts are complex programs designed to deal with some of the most challenging problems that communities face. These courts bring together multiple and traditionally adversarial roles plus stakeholders from different systems with different training, professional language, and approaches. They take on groups of clients that frequently have serious substance abuse treatment needs. Adults with substance abuse issues involved in the criminal justice system must be seen within an ecological context; that is, within the environment that has contributed to their attitudes and behaviors. This environment includes their neighborhoods, families, friends, and formal or informal economies through which they support themselves. The DWI court must understand the various social, economic, mental health, and cultural factors that affect their participants. In late 2011, NPC Research was contracted by the State of Minnesota's Department of Public Safety, Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) to conduct an assessment of Minnesota's DWI courts and to determine the work necessary and the feasibility of performing process, outcome, and cost evaluations in these programs. The overall goal of the DWI court project is to have a credible and rigorous evaluation of Minnesota's DWI courts. In June 2012, it was decided to move forward with a full evaluation including a detailed process evaluation and outcome evaluation in all nine of Minnesota's DWI court programs and a cost benefit evaluation in seven of these pro-grams. This is the site-specific report for the South St. Louis County DWI Court (SSLC). The SSLC was implemented in February 2008. The program is designed to take 12 to 24 months to complete and takes pre-plea, post-plea/pre-conviction, and post-conviction participants. All offenders must be in the post-adjudication stage upon phase advancement and cannot graduate if not in that stage. The general program population consists of repeat DWI offenders, with gross misdemeanors and felonies accepted into the program. Process Evaluation Summary. The SSLC has been responsive to the community needs and strives to meet the challenges presented by substance-dependant individuals. This program is demonstrating exemplary practices within each of the 10 Key Components of Drug Courts and the 10 DWI Court Guiding Principles including having a dedicated, collaborative, team with members from all key agencies (a law enforcement representative, prosecutor, defense attorney, probation, treatment, coordinator, and judge); a focus on regular training on the drug court model and other relevant topics for the team; a swift referral process; the use of evidence-based treat-ment models, rapid results from drug testing; a random and fully observed drug testing process; a judge who has been with the program long term (well over 2 years); and good communication among the team with a coordinated response to participant behavior. Although this program is functioning well, NPC's review of program operations resulted in some recommendations for program enhancements, which the program has already begun work on implementing. These recommendations included: Modify the current team member Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) to include language about the use and disclosure of protected health information at staffing sessions. Protected health information, particularly around the topic of participant re-lapse, may need to be disclosed by treatment providers at staffing sessions so that the team can make an appropriate and informed decision regarding incentives and sanctions for the participant. - Continue to assess transportation needs of participants and look for resources to provide transportation to those participants who need it. Team members noted significant challenges in providing transportation to participants. - Reevaluate the required length of sobriety to help make program completion a more realistic goal for participants. The SSLC requires that all participants complete 300 days of sobriety in order to graduate. Although there is a clear relationship that indicates the longer a person remains clean (as shown through negative drug tests) the less likely he/she will be to relapse, there are diminishing returns to the participant remaining in the program for an extended length of time (Carey et al., 2005). - Increase the focus on rewards for participants who are doing well. The SSLC has identified the need to provide more meaningful incentives to their DWI court participants. The SSLC currently provides a wide range of intangible rewards, such as praise from the judge and applause for participants, but only occasionally provides tangible re-wards, such as gift cards or tickets to sports games. Focus group participants mentioned the value of overnight passes. The team might consider raffling off or awarding overnight stays or similarly valued rewards for positive behaviors or advancement in the program. - Consider holding graduation ceremonies separate from the drug court hearing or implementing practices that would make them more distinct from regular drug court hearings. Graduations provide an opportunity for community partners to witness DWI court program successes. Inviting community partners to observe and participate in graduations is a low-cost way to highlight the effectiveness of the program and garner interest for continued and future involvement with the program. - Apply to be a DWI Academy Court. Based on the success of its operations, its commitment to best practices, and its strong team, we recommend that the SSLC apply to the National Center for DWI Courts in the next round of applications to be a NCDC DWI Academy Court. Outcome Evaluation Summary. The outcome analyses were primarily performed on SSLC participants who entered the DWI court program from February 1, 2008, to August 23, 2012, and a matched comparison group of offenders eligible for DWI court but who received the traditional court process rather than SSLC. The study groups were tracked for 2 years from program entry. Outcomes measured included graduation rate, rearrests with associated charges (including new DWI charges), crashes, and license reinstatements. The results of the outcome analysis for the SSLC were positive. Figure A illustrates the rearrest rates over a 3-year period for graduates, all participants and the comparison group. (Graduates should not be compared directly to the comparison group as the two groups are not equivalent.) Compared to offenders who experienced traditional court processes, the SSLC participants (re-gardless of whether they graduated from the program) had: - 3 times fewer rearrests for any charge in Year 1 - 66% fewer rearrests, and 66% fewer new DWI arrests 3 years after program entry - Half as many victimizations (person and property arrests) 2 years after entry - 60% fewer felony arrests 2 years after entry Overall the data showed that DWI court participants were rearrested less often than the comparison group, despite the fact that the DWI court group had more offenders with felony DWI arrests than the comparison group. Moreover, and of particular interest, high-risk participants (individuals with three or more prior arrests) had the highest reductions in recidivism (showing the greatest benefit from this program), while lower risk participants (those with two or fewer prior arrests) show little reductions in recidivism. Details: Portland, OR: NPC Research, 2014. 128p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 30, 2015 at: http://npcresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/St-Louis-County-DWI-Court-Process-Outcome-and-Cost-Report-FINAL-FOR-OTS1.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://npcresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/St-Louis-County-DWI-Court-Process-Outcome-and-Cost-Report-FINAL-FOR-OTS1.pdf Shelf Number: 137176 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationDriving Under the InfluenceDrugged DrivingDrunk DrivingDWI CourtsProblem-Solving CourtsRecidivism |
Author: Judicial Council of California, Administrative Office of the Courts Title: Judicial Council Report to the Legislature: California Parolee Reentry Court Evaluation Report Summary: Judicial Council staff recommend that the Judicial Council receive the California Parolee Reentry Court Evaluation Report and direct the Administrative Director to submit this report to the California Legislature and Governor, as mandated by Penal Code section 3015. Under the statute, the Judicial Council is required to submit a final evaluation report that assesses the pilot reentry court program's effectiveness in reducing recidivism no later than three years after the establishment of a reentry court. The report was developed in consultation with the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Details: San Francisco: Judicial Council of California, 2014. 35p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 20, 2015 at: http://npcresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/CA-Parolee-Reentry-Court-Evaluation-Report.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://npcresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/CA-Parolee-Reentry-Court-Evaluation-Report.pdf Shelf Number: 137177 Keywords: Drug CourtsParoleesPrisoner ReentryProblem-Solving CourtsRecidivism |
Author: Thompson, Michael Title: Improving Responses to People with Mental Illnesses: The Essential Elements of a Specialized Law Enforcement-Based Program Summary: This publication articulates 10 essential elements for specialized law enforcement-based response programs in interacting with people with mental illnesses and provides a common framework for program design and implementation that will promote positive outcomes while being sensitive to every jurisdiction's distinct needs and resources. This project was coordinated by the Council of State Governments Justice Center with support from the Bureau of Justice Assistance, U.S. Department of Justice. Details: New York: Council of State Governments Justice Center, 2008. 26p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 3, 2015 at: https://csgjusticecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/le-essentialelements.pdf Year: 2008 Country: United States URL: https://csgjusticecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/le-essentialelements.pdf Shelf Number: 137189 Keywords: Mental Health CourtsMental Health ServicesMentally Ill OffendersPolice Specialized TrainingProblem-Solving Courts |
Author: Kissick, Katherine Title: Clark County Family Treatment Court: Striding Towards Excellent Parents (STEP) Vancouver, WA - Process, Outcome, and Cost Evaluation Report Summary: 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 June 2014, there were nearly 3,0000 drug courts including more than 1,900 adult and juvenile drug courts and 300 family treatment courts in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands (NDCRC, 2015). 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 enforcement officers, and parole and probation officers who work together to provide needed services to drug court participants. Family Drug Treatment Courts (FTCs) work with substance-abusing parents with child welfare cases. FTCs are a "problem-solving" court modeled after the adult drug court approach. Similar to adult drug courts, the essential components of FTCs include regular, often weekly, court hearings, intensive judicial monitoring, timely referral to substance abuse treatment, frequent drug testing, rewards and sanctions linked to service compliance, and generally include wraparound services (Center for Substance Abuse Treatment, 2004; Edwards & Ray, 2005). The FTC team always includes the child welfare system along with the judicial and treatment systems, (Green, Furrer, Worcel, Burrus, & Finigan, 2007). Second, while adult drug courts work primarily with criminally involved adults who participate in the drug court in lieu of jail time, participants in FTCs may not be criminally involved; rather, FTC participants typically become involved in drug court due to civil family court matters. NPC Research partnered with the Clark County Family Treatment Court to conduct an evaluation of the Family Treatment Court as part of their Children Affected by Methamphetamines (CAM) grant, awarded to Clark County in 2010 by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). The purpose of the grant was to enhance the FTC program by adding more services for parents and their children, specifically mental health/family counseling, an at home support specialist, parenting assistance (including home, in office one-on-one and group classes around parenting skills) and evidenced based practices for parenting (Triple P and Parent Child Interaction Therapy). Participants opting into CAM services also received a neuropsychological exam intended to help identify participant and family needs to better plan which additional services were most appropriate. Details: Portland, OR: NPC Research, 2015. 161p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 27, 2016 at: http://npcresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/Clark-County-CAM-Process-Outcome-Cost-Evaluation_1015.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://npcresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/Clark-County-CAM-Process-Outcome-Cost-Evaluation_1015.pdf Shelf Number: 137668 Keywords: Child AbuseChild Abuse PreventionChild ProtectionDrug CourtsDrug OffendersParenting ProgramsProblem-Solving CourtsSubstance Abuse Treatment |
Author: Carnevale Associates, LLC Title: Findings from the Economic Analysis of JDC/RF: Policy Implications for Juvenile Drug Courts Summary: Findings from the National Cross-Site Evaluation of Juvenile Drug Courts and Reclaiming Futures (JDC/RF) indicate that costs associated with providing services in accordance with the JDC/RF integrated model are offset by substantial savings to society. The integrated model, which was created as a combination of two existing models: Juvenile Drug Courts: Strategies in Practice (JDC: SIP) & Reclaiming Futures (RF), is part of an effort by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's (SAMHSA) Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT), in partnership with the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, to improve the effectiveness and efficacy of JDCs. The JDC/RF National Cross-Site Evaluation includes five sites that received funding under this initiative. This brief describes a two-part study of JDC/RF program costs, meaning the monetary value of time and resources required to operate the program, and estimated net economic benefits, meaning the monetary value of program benefits minus the program costs. Adolescent treatment program costs and associated net benefits are not studied as frequently as adult programs, despite the fact that studies of this nature for adults have become more numerous in recent years. The findings of the current study help fill this gap, lending an important contribution to the adolescent treatment research community. The study found that the five sites participating in the JDC/RF National Cross-Site Evaluation experienced net benefits to society that greatly exceeded JDC/RF program costs. These benefits were directly related to data collected before and after the JDC/RF intervention on traditional measures of JDC programmatic success such as crime, substance abuse, education, physical health, and mental health. Findings provide preliminary economic justification for the JDC/RF program. Details: Tucson: University of Arizona: Accessed February 29, 2016 at: 6p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 29, 2016 at: https://sirow.arizona.edu/sites/sirow.arizona.edu/files/Policy%20Brief%20%23%20Cost%20Study_FINAL_upload2_1.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: https://sirow.arizona.edu/sites/sirow.arizona.edu/files/Policy%20Brief%20%23%20Cost%20Study_FINAL_upload2_1.pdf Shelf Number: 137992 Keywords: Cost-Benefit AnalysisDrug CourtsJuvenile Drug CourtsJuvenile OffendersProblem-Solving Courts |
Author: Stevens, Sally Title: National Cross-Site Evaluation: Juvenile Drug Courts and Reclaiming Futures: Final Report: 7/1/2011-6/30/2015 Summary: As jurisdictions throughout the country continue to seek solutions to juvenile justice issues, several jurisdictions have merged two existing models to create an innovative approach: Juvenile Drug Courts: Strategies in Practice (JDC:SIP; National Drug Court Institute [NDCI] & National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges [NCJFCJ], 2003) and Reclaiming Futures (RF; http://reclaimingfutures.org/). The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's (SAMHSA) Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT), in partnership with the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF), funded an initiative to improve the effectiveness and efficacy of juvenile drug courts (JDCs) by integrating these two models. Five JDC sites that received funding under this initiative were included in the National Cross-Site Evaluation of Juvenile Drug Courts and Reclaiming Futures (i.e., the JDC/RF National Cross-Site Evaluation). The JDC/RF National Cross-Site Evaluation was led by The University of Arizona's Southwest Institute for Research on Women (SIROW) in partnership with Chestnut Health Systems and Carnevale Associates, LLC. Its purpose was to conduct an independent evaluation of the combined effects of the JDC:SIP and the RF models to identify the factors, elements, and services that perform best with respect to system and client outcomes and cost-effectiveness. The JDC/RF National Cross-Site Evaluation had multiple foci addressing five research objectives and eleven research questions. Generally, the JDC/RF National Cross-Site Evaluation was charged with: (a) assessing the influence of the implementation of the integrated JDC/RF model on system and client outcomes; (b) assessing the influence of program characteristics on client receipt of services and on client outcomes; (c) evaluating the economic impact of JDC/RF programs; (d) expanding on previous evaluations to further describe the process of the integration and implementation of JDC:SIP and RF; (e) evaluating the services provided by the JDC/RF programs; and (e) assessing the potential for replication of the integrated model. Key findings include: - JDC/RF programs appropriately identify, enroll and provide services to youth in need. - JDC/RF program clients consistently and frequently receive evidence-based substance abuse treatment and other services and are retained in treatment as needed. - JDC/RF programs are more effective at reducing criminal behavior than non-RF JDCs and intensive outpatient treatment programs (IOPs) among youth with relatively more criminal activity at program intake. - Compared to IOPs, JDCs overall are more effective at reducing substance use among youth with relatively more substance use at program intake. - Integrated systems of care and treatment tailored to the target population are particularly critical to effectively serving the substance abuse treatment needs of JDC/RF program clients. - Substance abuse treatment program characteristics including having a defined target population and eligibility criteria, utilization of gender-appropriate treatment, utilization of policies and procedures responsive to cultural differences, utilization of a non-adversarial approach, coordination with the school system, utilization of sanctions to modify non-compliance, and utilization of random and observed drug testing are associated with improved client outcomes. - JDC/RF programs produce net benefit to society at a savings of $84,569 per youth making it a cost saving intervention for juvenile offenders with substance use disorders. - JDC/RF programs can increase cost savings by taking advantage of available in-kind resources (e.g., volunteers), targeting clients who self-report more clinical problems or have committed more violent crimes, and by maintaining clients in treatment. - JDC/RF team members work to increase community collaboration and utilize a wide range of community resources to meet the needs of program clients. - JDC/RF programs are viewed as actively working towards and as achieving collaboration among local youth-serving agencies. - Family Engagement is a challenge for JDC/RF programs. - Representatives from JDC/RF sites perceive Reclaiming Futures as an opportunity to refine internal processes rather than as an entirely new approach. Details: Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona, Southwest Institute for Research on women, 2015. 177p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 26, 2016 at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/grants/249744.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/grants/249744.pdf Shelf Number: 138423 Keywords: Drug Abuse and CrimeDrug Courts, JuvenilesJuvenile OffenderProblem-Solving Courts |
Author: Indiana University Public Policy Institute Title: Addressing Mental Illness in the Central Indiana Criminal Justice System Summary: Persons with mental illness are disproportionately represented in jail and prison, both nationally and in Central Indiana. To address the needs of this population, representatives from the Marion Superior Court partnered with the Indiana Judicial Center, the Indiana Department of Corrections, the United Way of Central Indiana, and Mental Health America of Greater Indianapolis to establish the Mental Health Alternative Court (MHAC). The United Way of Central Indiana, in cooperation with the MHAC team, requested the assistance the Indiana University Public Policy Institute in evaluating the MHAC development and implementation processes, and to conduct a preliminary assessment of MHAC referrals and the population currently being served by the program. This issue brief discusses the development and initial implementation of the MHAC program and provides a summary of socio-demographic characteristics of program participants during the first year of implementation. Details: Indianapolis: Indiana University Public Policy Institute, 2016. 8p. Source: Internet Resource: Issue 16-C03: Accessed March 29, 2016 at: http://policyinstitute.iu.edu/Uploads/PublicationFiles/MentalHealthBrief_Final20031516.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://policyinstitute.iu.edu/Uploads/PublicationFiles/MentalHealthBrief_Final20031516.pdf Shelf Number: 138375 Keywords: Mental Health Courts Mental Health Services Mentally Ill Offenders Problem-Solving Courts |
Author: Molloy, Jennifer K. Title: Utah Cost of Crime. Drug Court (Juveniles): Technical Report Summary: The drug court model emerged to provide an intervention option to address the substance abuse treatment needs of offenders. As of 2009, there were 2,459 operational drug courts in the United States, of which 476 were specifically for juveniles (Huddleson & Marlowe, 2011). In general, drug courts are specialized courts that combine treatment with court supervision, using a non-adversarial model, in order to reduce offenders' substance abuse and criminal behavior (General Accounting Office (GAO), 1997). The main components of a drug court are: the use of a judge to preside over monthly status hearings, mandatory drug testing, court monitoring of individualized drug treatment, and use of immediate sanctions and incentives to ensure compliance with court demands. While eligibility requirements vary across jurisdictions, the majority of programs restrict eligibility to non-violent offenders with an identified substance abuse problem. Offenders typically participate in drug court for one to two years; those who complete court requirements generally have their charges dismissed or reduced, while those who do not complete often receive jail or prison sentences. In the juvenile drug court model the developmental needs of the adolescent, as well as negative peer influences and the family environment are taken into account when planning program requirements (BJA, 2005). In addition, confidentiality and involvement of parents and/or families in the treatment program are considerations when implementing interventions with juvenile offenders. This report details the results of a systematic review and meta-analysis of drug courts for juvenile offenders. Details: Salt Lake City: Utah Criminal Justice Center, University of Utah, 2012. 14p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 6, 2016 at: http://ucjc.utah.edu/wp-content/uploads/Drug-Court-Juvenile-Tech-Report_updateformat.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://ucjc.utah.edu/wp-content/uploads/Drug-Court-Juvenile-Tech-Report_updateformat.pdf Shelf Number: 138957 Keywords: Cost of Criminal JsuticeDrug CourtsJuvenile Drug OffendersProblem-Solving Courts |
Author: Molloy, Jennifer K. Title: Utah Cost of Crime. Mental Health Court (Adults): Technical Report Summary: Mental Health Courts (MHC) are specialized, treatment-oriented courts that divert non-violent, mentally-ill defendants from the criminal justice system into court-monitored, community-based treatment and social services. Lamb, Weinberger, Marsh, and Gross (2007) estimated that more than 300,000 of the 2.1 million prisoners in the United States (U.S.) suffered from a serious mental illness. Given this estimate, criminal justice professionals and policy makers have been under pressure to explore strategies to meet the unique needs of persons with mental illness who have histories of involvement with the justice system and who have not been successfully engaged by community mental health treatment agencies. MHCs emerged in the 1990s with the goal of decreasing the frequency of mentally ill persons' contacts with the criminal justice system by providing courts with resources to improve clients' social functioning, while linking them to employment, housing, treatment, and support services. As of 2008, the Council of State Governments Justice Center estimated there were 150 operational MHCs in the U.S. with many more in the planning and development phases (Thompson, Osher, & Tomasini-Joshi, 2008). In particular, MHCs have: (1) a separate docket for mentally ill defendants; (2) a dedicated judge for all court hearings and monitoring sessions; (3) dedicated prosecution and defense counsel; (4) collaborative decision making between criminal justice, mental health professionals, and other support systems; (5) voluntary participation in court and treatment by defendants; (6) intensive supervision with ongoing court monitoring and emphasis on accountability; and (7) dismissal of charges or avoidance of incarceration with successful completion of program requirements (Goldkamp & Irons-Guyunn, 2000). A large body of work provides guidelines for the development and implementation of MHCs; however, limited research has been conducted on the impact of MHCs on offenders' criminal behavior. Details: Salt Lake City: Utah Criminal Justice Center, University of Utah, 2012. 13p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 19, 2016 at: http://ucjc.utah.edu/wp-content/uploads/Mental-Health-Tech_v031920131.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://ucjc.utah.edu/wp-content/uploads/Mental-Health-Tech_v031920131.pdf Shelf Number: 139113 Keywords: Mental Health CourtsMentally Ill OffendersProblem-Solving Courts |
Author: VanGeem, Stephen Guy Title: An Evaluation of the Utah First District Mental Health Court: Gauging the Efficacy of Diverting Offenders Suffering With Serious Mental Illness Summary: The decision to establish a mental health court in Utah's First District was largely a political one prompted by the growing popularity of problem-solving courts throughout the country. Because this motivation was policy-driven and not needs-driven, the court was established without an ongoing data collection schedule. As a result, barring anecdotal evidence from program participants, the current impact of the court on two key goals - reducing recidivism and increasing community-based treatment contact - is entirely unknown. The current study aims to provide a summative program evaluation of the first sixty-eight months of specialty court operation by (1) estimating basic demographic and clinical information about program referrals, participants, and graduates; and (2) measuring program effectiveness by examining between-group differences in key outcome measures (e.g., new charges, use of therapeutic services, time to rearrest, etc.) for those referrals who are accepted into the program as participants versus those referrals who are rejected from the program and sentenced to treatment-as-usual. Ideally, the current study will not only provide an evidence-based assessment of local practices at the current study site but will also empirically inform the greater community of mental health practitioners, researchers, and policymakers who are operating in smaller, more rural districts. Details: Tampa: University of South Florida, 2015. 180p. Source: Internet Resource: Dissertation: Accessed May 23, 2016 at: http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6789&context=etd Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6789&context=etd Shelf Number: 139140 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationMental Health CourtsMentally Ill OffendersProblem-Solving Courts |
Author: Miner-Romanoff, Karen Title: An Evaluation Study of a Criminal Justice Reform Specialty Court - CATCH Court: Changing Actions to Change Habits Summary: This article reports on an evaluation of a program for convicted prostitutes who are victims of human trafficking, the Changing Actions to Change Habits (CATCH) specialized docket in Franklin County, Columbus, Ohio. Founded by Judge Paul M. Herbert in 2009, CATCH blends punitive sentences with a 2-year treatment-oriented non-adversarial program for rearrested prostitutes who suffer from posttraumatic stress syndrome, depression, and drug addiction. Based on therapeutic jurisprudence, in its 5 years of existence CATCH has served 130 participants (12% graduation rate in first 4 years). The researcher was invited by the Franklin County Municipal Court to conduct the evaluation, the first of the program, with criminal justice referrers and program participants. Data were collected from Court records, a 9-item survey for referrers by email, a 20-item survey for participants, and a roundtable discussion with 20 volunteer participants. In the quantitative component, five goals and objectives were formulated. Results of descriptive statistics on participants' experiences indicated that from 48% to 100% were positively affected by the program. Program completers had fewer jail days, arrests, and recidivism, as well as improved living conditions, than noncompleters (those who were rejected or dropped out). Results of inferential statistics for completers and noncompleters indicated that for jail time and arrests, no significant differences were found among the groups. For recidivism, a significant difference was found, indicating that program completers had a statistically significant lower recidivism rate than the other groups. The five goals and objectives were partially met. In the qualitative component, participants singled out caring by the judge and staff, lack of judgment, encouragement of their self-esteem, improved family relationships, and the difficulty of asking for help. For increased awareness, participants suggested education of law enforcement officers about the program, education in communities of young girls, and creation of CATCH-type programs in other cities. Recommendations for future research included more frequent and discrete data collection by the court, larger sample sizes, and individual participant in-depth interviews. The success of the CATCH program indicates its use as a model for similar courts in Ohio and nationally. Details: Columbus, OH: Franklin University, 2015. 95p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 9, 2016 at: https://ext.dps.state.oh.us/OCCS/Pages/Public/Reports/CATCH%20FULL%20REPORT%20for%20Court%20CL%205.30.15.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: https://ext.dps.state.oh.us/OCCS/Pages/Public/Reports/CATCH%20FULL%20REPORT%20for%20Court%20CL%205.30.15.pdf Shelf Number: 139342 Keywords: Human TraffickingProblem-Solving CourtsProstitutesProstitutionRehabilitationVictims of Trafficking |
Author: DeVall, Kristen Title: Evaluation of Michigan's Swift and Sure Sanctions Probation Program Summary: The swift and sure sanctions probation program (SSSPP) is an intensive probation supervision program that targets high-risk felony offenders with a history of probation violations or failures. Governed by MCL 771A.1 et seq., SSSPP is modeled on Hawaii's Opportunity Probation with Enforcement (HOPE) program, which studies have shown to be very successful in improving the rate of successful completion of probation among high-risk probationers. SSSPP participants are closely monitored, including being subjected to frequent random testing for drug and alcohol use and being required to attend frequent meetings with probation and/or case management staff. SSSPP aims to improve probationer success by promptly imposing graduated sanctions, including small amounts of jail time, for probation violations. Judges in Michigan's SSSPP courts have reported a reduction in positive drug tests and failures to appear at scheduled meetings with probation officers among their SSSPP participant population. This evaluation sought to assess the effectiveness of the Swift and Sure Sanctions Probation Program in the State of Michigan. The Swift and Sure Sanctions program is based on the principle that sanctions for probation violations, no matter how small the transgressions, are met with swift (within 72 hours) and certain (jail time) sanctions. The short-term outcomes of Swift and Sure are to decrease the: 1. time between violations and the imposition of sanctions. 2. number of probation violations. 3. number of probation revocations. 4. number of participants sentenced to prison. The long-term goal of the program is to reduce the recidivism rate among participants and thus reduce costs to the taxpayers. Details: Lansing, MI: Michigan Supreme Court, State Court Administrative Office, 2013. 95p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 28, 2016 at: http://courts.mi.gov/Administration/admin/op/problem-solving-courts/Documents/SS-Eval.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 139514 Keywords: Community Supervision Drug Courts Drug Offenders Offender Supervision Probation Violations Probationers Problem-Solving Courts |
Author: Molloy, Jennifer K. Title: Utah Cost of Crime: Drug Court (Adults): Technical Report Summary: A systematic review was conducted, in accordance with the protocol outlined by PRISMA (Moher, Liberati, Tetzlaff, & Altman, 2009), to identify studies for inclusion in this meta-analysis. The study authors identified eligibility criteria for population, intervention, setting, outcome, and methodology (see Methods Report for further explanation of inclusion criteria and search strategies). The search was restricted to studies written in English and conducted between 1987 and 2011. Studies had to meet the following criteria to be eligible: a) The study must evaluate a criminal justice intervention. Primary prevention programs and programs serving non-court involved populations were excluded. Drug court was defined as a specialized, non-adversarial court that included the following components: use of judges presiding over monthly status hearings; use of mandatory drug testing; compliance monitoring of individualized drug treatment; and employment of sanctions and incentives to encourage compliance with court demands. Other specialized courts, such as DUI/DWI courts, speedy case processing drug courts, and evaluations of the Breaking the Cycle (BTC) demonstration project were not eligible for inclusion in this study. b) Both experimental and quasi-experimental evaluations were eligible for inclusion. Quasi-experimental studies had to use matching or statistical methods to demonstrate equivalence between the treatment and comparison group. The comparison group could receive treatment as usual or no treatment (e.g., probation with or without treatment); however, the comparison group could not be made up of offenders receiving intensive drug treatment (treatment-treatment comparisons). Treatment dropouts were not considered an appropriate comparison group; comparison groups consisting of offenders who refused treatment were included only if the authors conducted analyses that demonstrated that the groups were similar. c) Both the treatment group and the comparison/control group must consist of adult offenders (ages 18 years and older). The intervention must target the criminal behavior of substance abusing offenders. d) The study must include a measure of recidivism - which could be arrest, conviction, or incarceration - as an outcome. The measurement period had to be longer than 6 months following the start of the program. Recidivism data from official sources was preferred, but studies using only self-report recidivism measures were also eligible. Non-criminal outcome measures - such as measures of drug use - were excluded from this analysis. The study must report quantitative results than could be used to calculate an effect size. Given the interest in recidivism, dichotomous data were preferred (e.g., odds ratios). If the study only included continuous measures, effect sizes were calculated and converted into odds ratios (Lipsey & Wilson, 2001) using log odds. The initial literature search identified 1,085 citations, from which researchers pulled 118 studies for further evaluation. Full articles were screened by one researcher, which resulted in 42 studies that met inclusion criteria. Twenty-one of the included studies reported results on duplicate samples and were therefore excluded. Five of the remaining 42 studies included multiple comparison groups, which resulted in 51 effect sizes that were included in the analysis. Twenty-percent (20%) of the full articles (k=25) were double-screened for inclusion by a researcher (see Appendix A for PRISMA chart). Details: Salt Lake City: Utah Criminal Justice Center, University of Utah, 2012. 20p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 28, 2016 at: http://ucjc.utah.edu/wp-content/uploads/Drug-Court-Technical-Report_updateformat.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://ucjc.utah.edu/wp-content/uploads/Drug-Court-Technical-Report_updateformat.pdf Shelf Number: 139520 Keywords: Drug CourtsDrug OffendersDrug Treatment ProgramsProblem-Solving Courts |
Author: Michigan. Supreme Court. State Court Administrative Office Title: Michigan's Problem-Solving Courts: Solving Problems, Saving Lives. 2015 Performance Measures and Outcomes Summary: Executive Summary Making a Difference and Leading the Nation Problem- solving courts are making a difference in the lives of people throughout Michigan. That difference ripples out across the state - to their families, to their neighborhoods, and to their communities. Based both on the data in this report and amazing individual success stories, problem-solving courts not only help participants, but also strengthen families and make communities safer and stronger. Michigan is a national leader in giving the public access to treatment courts. In fact, our 179treatment courts provide access to 97 percent of our state's population. For example, with 23 veterans treatment courts (as of 2016), Michigan has more of these innovative courts than any other state in the nation. Participants are Much Less Likely to Commit Another Crime In particular, the key measure of court success is the rate at which participants commit new crimes. That's why expert analysts carefully keep track of recidivism rates compared to similar groups of nonparticipants. The cut in crime rates is impressive: - Participants in Michigan drug and mental health courts are two times less likely to commit another offense after two years. - Participants in Michigan sobriety courts are more than three times less likely to commit another offense after two years. Unemployment Among Graduates Cut Significantly Problem-solving courts successfully keep offenders out of costly jail cells while reducing crime. But those are not the only benefits to graduates and to society. As shown in the chart below, unemployment among drug and sobriety court graduates was cut significantly. Details: Lansing, MA: Michigan Supreme Court, 2015. 80p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 11, 2016 at: http://courts.mi.gov/Administration/admin/op/problem-solving-courts/Documents/PSC%202015%20Report%20FINAL_4-7-16.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://courts.mi.gov/Administration/admin/op/problem-solving-courts/Documents/PSC%202015%20Report%20FINAL_4-7-16.pdf Shelf Number: 139614 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCost-Benefit AnalysisProblem-Solving Courts |
Author: Epperson, Matthew Title: Comparative Evaluation of Court-Based Responses to Offenders with Mental Illnesses Summary: 1 FINAL SUMMARY OVERVIEW Purpose of Study Persons with serious mental illness (SMI) are over-represented in the criminal justice system and criminal justice agencies have struggled for years with managing and serving this population. In recent years, probation departments have forged new collaborative relationships with mental health treatment providers and adopted problem-solving approaches in responding to the needs of people with SMI in the criminal justice system. These efforts have resulted in two prevailing court-based models for offenders with mental illnesses: mental health courts and specialized probation. Both mental health courts and specialized probation units have experienced rapid growth over the past decade. However, most evaluation research on these programs has been criticized for studying new programs that are still in development, employing short follow up periods that are unable to examine sustained effectiveness, and utilizing less than ideal comparison conditions. In response to these methodological issues, this study employed a mixed methods comparative evaluation of three established court-based programs that serve offenders with SMI: mental health court, specialized probation, and standard probation. The primary aims of the study were to examine and compare each program's: 1)Structure; 2)Operation; and 3)Effectiveness. Research Methods The study was conducted in Cook County, Illinois; data were collected from three distinct court-based programs. The Cook County Felony Mental Health Court (MHC) was implemented in 2004 and serves individuals with SMI who have been arrested for nonviolent felonies. The Specialized Mental Health Probation Unit (herein "specialized probation") has been in operation in Cook County for more than 25 years and involves specially trained probation officers who supervise a reduced caseload of probationers diagnosed with SMI. The Cook County Adult Probation Department (herein "standard probation") has an active caseload of approximately 25,000 probationers, a portion of whom have SMI. Details: Chicago: University of Chicago, School of Social Service Administration, 2014. 12p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 12, 2016 at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/249894.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/249894.pdf Shelf Number: 139623 Keywords: Mental Health CourtsMentally Ill OffendersProbationProblem-Solving Courts |
Author: Zafft, Kathryn Marie Title: Can Drug Courts Improve Public Safety? Exploring the Impacts of Drug Court on Crime Summary: Drug courts represent one of the largest and most widespread criminal justice programs specifically developed to provide treatment and intensive supervision to drug-involved offenders. Most of the literature about the effects of drug court programs involves individual-level analyses of recidivism or drug use for program participants. Very little is known about the broader community-wide impact of drug courts on public safety measures. The current research uses a subset of 63 drug court jurisdictions (cities and counties) drawn from a systematic review of drug court programs to assess the impact of program implementation on crime and arrest rates. A fixed-effects analysis was used to assess whether drug court implementation was associated with significant changes in specific types of violent and property crime rates. Changes in arrest rates for violent, property and drug crimes were also examined, and differential effects were explored based on effectiveness of the drug court in reducing participant recidivism and jurisdictional population size. Results indicate that drug courts are associated with decreases in overall crime rates, with marked decreases in burglary, property, and robbery rates. Drug court implementation was associated with increases in drug arrests and decreases in homicide arrests. Small jurisdictions with average populations of less than 100,000 people were found to have a different pattern of results when measuring both crime and arrest rates. These results are discussed within the context of understanding the broader policy impacts of drug court implementation. Details: College Park, MD: University of Maryland, College Park, 2014. 105p. Source: Internet Resource: Dissertation: Accessed October 17, 2016 at: http://drum.lib.umd.edu/bitstream/handle/1903/16267/Zafft_umd_0117E_15765.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://drum.lib.umd.edu/bitstream/handle/1903/16267/Zafft_umd_0117E_15765.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y Shelf Number: 144871 Keywords: Drug CourtsDrug OffendersDrug TreatmentProblem-Solving CourtsSubstance Abuse Treatment |
Author: Harwin, Judith Title: After FDAC: Outcomes 5 Years Later Summary: This report presents the findings from a continuation study of outcomes of cases heard in the first Family Drug and Alcohol Court (FDAC) in England. It builds on earlier findings reported in 20142 . It provides information on child and maternal outcomes at the end of the care proceedings using a larger number of FDAC cases than before. It also has a longer followup period, reporting on outcomes up to five years after the end of proceedings. This is the first report in which the longer term outcomes of non-reunified FDAC mothers and their children five years on are also presented. The FDAC evaluation team has been following up the same cohort of cases that entered the London FDAC between 2008 and 2012 and similar cases entering ordinary care proceedings in the same court over the same period (140 FDAC and 100 comparison). It provides a unique opportunity to track cases with the aim of finding out whether the FDAC approach achieved better substance misuse and family reunification outcomes than ordinary court and service delivery. Details: Bailrigg, Lancaster, UK: Lancaster University, 2016. 89p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 25, 2017 at: http://wp.lancs.ac.uk/cfj-fdac/files/2016/12/FDAC_FINAL_REPORT_2016.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://wp.lancs.ac.uk/cfj-fdac/files/2016/12/FDAC_FINAL_REPORT_2016.pdf Shelf Number: 145423 Keywords: Child Abuse and Neglect Child Maltreatment Child Protection Drug Abuse and Addiction Family Courts Problem-Solving Courts Substance Abuse |
Author: Roberts, Ellie Title: Family Drug and Alcohol Court National Unit: independent evaluation Summary: The Family Drug and Alcohol Courts (FDAC) aim to improve outcomes for children and families by providing an alternative way of working with parents involved in care proceedings who are experiencing substance misuse. FDAC encourages parents to believe recovery and change are possible, alongside a realistic understanding of the challenges they face. Research published by Brunel University in 2014 indicated that the FDAC model was promising; showing that a higher proportion of parents whose case was heard in FDAC had ceased misusing substances by the end of proceedings, and more FDAC than comparison families were reunited with their children. Additionally, proportionately fewer children in FDAC families experienced new neglect or abuse in the first year following reunification (Harwin et al., 2014). Following the publication of the initial research by Brunel University, careful consideration was given to how best to scale-up FDAC in order to improve outcomes for more children and families. This resulted in a successful funding application to the Department of Education’s (DfE) Children’s Social Care Innovation Programme (hereafter the Innovation Programme) to create the FDAC 'National Unit'. The National Unit was originally commissioned to support 4 new sites to set-up FDACs. However, over the course of the first month, the number of sites increased to 9 due to the inclusion of 5 West Yorkshire local authorities, and Southampton joining the community of practice. Recent research, conducted by Brunel University London, Lancaster University and RyanTunnardBrown with methodological guidance from NatCen, has found evidence of the sustained benefits of FDAC. For example, the 'After FDAC: outcomes 5 years later' study, funded by the Innovation Programme, estimated that a higher proportion of FDAC than comparison reunification mothers abstained from drugs or alcohol over the 5 year follow-up (Harwin et al., 2016). Overview of evaluation In 2015 NatCen Social Research was commissioned by DfE to evaluate the FDAC National Unit. The evaluation aimed to gather an in-depth understanding of the work and contribution of the National Unit from the perspective of key stakeholders. The evaluation was underpinned by a theory of change and involved 32 in-depth qualitative interviews with individuals from new FDAC sites and 13 interviews with other stakeholders including members of the National Unit; individuals from sites who launched their FDAC before the National Unit was established; and key government stakeholders. NatCen was also commissioned to provide independent methodological advice and guidance on 2 further studies on FDAC: • NatCen acted as a critical friend on the methodology of the 2016 evaluation of FDAC, 'After FDAC: outcomes 5 years later', funded by the Innovation Programme and conducted by Brunel University London, Lancaster University and RyanTunnardBrown (Harwin et al., 2016) • NatCen provided methodological guidance to the Centre for Justice Innovation on their research assessing the value for money of FDAC, 'Better Courts: the financial impact of the London Family Drug and Alcohol Court' (Reeder et al., 2016). Details: London: UK Department of Education, 2017. 58p. Source: Internet Resource: Children’s Social Care Innovation Programme Evaluation Report 12: Accessed January 30, 2017 at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/585193/Family_drug_and_alcohol_court_national_unit_evaluation.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/585193/Family_drug_and_alcohol_court_national_unit_evaluation.pdf Shelf Number: 144881 Keywords: AlcoholismDrug CourtFamily Drug CourtsProblem-Solving Courts |
Author: Lurigio, Arthur Title: A Statewide Examination of Mental Health Courts in Illinois: Program Characteristics and Operations Summary: Background Mental Health Courts (MHCs) are designed to serve the challenging, multifarious, and extensive service needs of people with serious mental illness (PSMI). The current report describes the findings of an evaluation of MHCs in Illinois. First implemented nearly 20 years ago, MHCs provide treatment and programming in comprehensive case management strategies, which draw on permanent partnerships with community-based agencies and a wealth of providers through a brokered network of interventions. Most employ a team approach to supervision with dedicated stakeholders (prosecutors, defense attorneys, probation officers, mental health professionals), individualized treatment plans, voluntary and informed participation, specialized dockets and caseloads, and highly involved and proactive judges who preside over frequent court hearings and non-adversarial proceedings. Satisfactory program completion is defined by predetermined criteria. Clients are motivated to succeed by the threat of sanctions and the promise of rewards. Methods The current evaluation of Illinois’ MHCs was performed in stages with overlapping data collection procedures. The first phase of the research was intended to yield a snapshot of MHC programs in the state: jurisdictions in the planning stages of MHC implementation, those with operational programs, and those still deciding whether an MHC was feasible or warranted in terms of clients’ needs for services and the availability of local resources to support court operations and client interventions. All 23 court jurisdictions in Illinois were contacted for the screener survey. Given the critical role of services in client recovery and adjustment, the second stage of the evaluation involved a telephone survey of major providers in a wide variety of service domains. The next stages of the evaluation involved on-site triangulating data collection procedures in the 9 operational MHCs: court observations, focus groups with program staff members, and archival analyses. Client interviews and recidivism analyses were also performed in three programs, which were carefully selected for this purpose due to the distinctive nature of their location, size, program structure, and client population. Major Findings The Landscape: In spring 2010, 19 of the state’s 23 court circuits participated in the screener survey. At the time of the study, 6 courts reported no plans for MHC implementation, 6 were in the planning process to establish one, and 9 had operational programs. From spring 2010 to spring 2014, the number of operational MHCs grew from 9 to 21, an increase of 133%. At the time of the screener survey, the 9 operational MHCs served a total of 302 participants; 46% were women. African Americans were overrepresented among participants relative to the local population, whereas Latinos (measured as ethnicity) were underrepresented. Jurisdictions with no or little interest in launching an MHC were smaller and rural in composition. Courts in rural areas of the state served smaller populations, and, therefore, they had fewer PSMI and correspondingly fewer resources to meet their treatment needs. Unlike respondents who voiced no plans for an MHC, those in the planning process were all located in mostly non-rural large court circuits and counties. Overall, the planning processes in all counties were lengthy, deliberate, and collaborative. In some instances, the planning teams sought support and consultation from colleagues in their own or other criminal court systems or from MHC experts in the state. The first MHCs in Illinois were implemented in 2004, and the most recent one in the study period was implemented in 2008. Most of the jurisdictions with operational MHCs actually performed a formal needs assessment before launching their programs, and they consulted with experts to help design the programs. All of the jurisdictions involved law enforcement administrators in the planning and creation phases of their MHC programs. MHC Elements and Staffing: Most Illinois MHCs were largely characterized by the 10 elements of an MHC as defined by the Council of State Governments. These included: broad stakeholder planning and administration of the program; the selection of target populations that address public safety and the link between mental illness criminal involvements; statutory exclusions of potential participants based on charges and diagnosis; terms of participation that include mandatory supervision and mental health treatment; voluntary participation and informed choice; hybrid team approaches to case management with judges, attorneys, probation officers, mental health professionals, and TASC case managers who provided supervisory and brokered treatment services; regular court hearings and phased supervision; and a wide range of treatment and service options to address clinical and habilitation needs. The roles and responsibilities of MHC personnel were generally circumscribed; however, MHC staff often discussed working together and being flexible in order to “get things done” for clients (coalescing around client needs). Staff members frequently mentioned teamwork as the key component of program and client success, and it was consistently apparent at case staffings. MHC Services: MHCs provided a panoply of services to clients, which ranged from case management and crisis intervention to in-and out-patient treatments in the areas of mental health and substance abuse programming and aftercare. Nearly all MHCs offered clients partial (day) hospitalization, and more than half offered them inpatient hospitalization for substance use disorders and addictions. All the MHCs reported the implementation of evidence-based practices (EBPs) in their programs. The most common EBPs were, in descending order: cognitive behavioral therapy, motivational interviewing, integrative dual disorder treatment, and supportive employment. The least common EBPs were, in descending order: assertive community treatment and illness management and recovery. The most serious challenge to MHCs is the paucity of resources and services, especially in the mental health arena. Recidivism Analyses: Among the three counties selected for an investigation of recidivism, 31% of participants were rearrested for a felony only, while half were rearrested for a felony or misdemeanor offense. The highest number of rearrests occurred within the first year of postMHC entry. Half were rearrested during probation supervision and nearly 40% after probation release (not mutually exclusive groups). These results compare somewhat favorably with those reported in a statewide study of probationers, which found that 38% were rearrested during probation and 39% were rearrested after discharge from probation (not mutually exclusive groups) (cf., Adams, Bostwick, & Campbell, 2011). Clients’ Perceptions: The overwhelming majority of clients reported that their participation in the program benefitted them in several ways. For example, respondents indicated that the program improved their lives by fostering both general and specific improvements in their well-being and functioning. For example, respondents stated that the program encouraged and supported changes that helped them “become better persons” and “get [their lives] back together.” These types of global betterments in their lives were the most commonly reported benefits of MHC participation and are perhaps related to elevations in self-efficacy and selfesteem, as well as alleviations in symptoms. Self-reported specific improvements related to participation in MHC fell mostly into two areas: accessibility to psychiatric care and diversion from incarceration. Specifically, respondents noted that MHC afforded them with the medications and treatments needed to facilitate their recovery from chronic mental illness. In addition, many clients recognized that participation in MHC was a desirable alternative to jail or prison. Details: Chicago, IL: Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority, 2015. 242p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 8, 2017 at: http://www.icjia.state.il.us/assets/articles/MHC_Report_1015.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.icjia.state.il.us/assets/articles/MHC_Report_1015.pdf Shelf Number: 146004 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationsMental Health CourtsMentally Ill OffendersProblem-Solving Courts |
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: Centre for Justice Innovation Title: Problem-solving Courts: An Evidence Review Summary: Problem-solving courts put judges at the centre of rehabilitation. Generally operating out of existing courts, problem-solving courts yoke together the authority of the court and the services necessary to reduce reoffending and improve outcomes. This paper reviews the research on problem-solving courts and finds that, when used correctly, they can reduce reoffending and cut costs. Coming at a time when both the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice have expressed an interest in problem-solving, this review is designed to inform the development of government policy and, more importantly, to help shape the practice developed within pilots in England and Wales. What does the evidence tell us? There are many different kinds of problem-solving courts, each specialising in tackling a different need, type of crime, or even a different area. Looking at the evidence for different forms of court, we found: Drug courts: The evidence on adult drug courts is strong. It suggests that they are effective at reducing substance misuse and reoffending. They are particularly effective with offenders who present a higher risk of reoffending. However, the evidence on juvenile drug courts is negative. It suggests they have either minimal or harmful impacts on young offenders. Family drug and alcohol courts: The evidence on family drug and alcohol courts (and the related family treatment courts) is good. It suggests that they are effective in tackling parental substance misuse and can reduce the number of children permanently removed from their families. Mental health courts: The evidence on mental health courts is good. High-quality international evidence suggests that mental health courts are likely to reduce reoffending, although they may not directly impact offenders’ mental health. Domestic violence courts: The evidence on the impact of problem-solving domestic violence courts on outcomes for victims,such as victim safety and satisfaction, is good. The evidence on their ability to reduce the frequency and seriousness of a perpetrator reoffending is promising. This is encouraging when set against the lack of other effective options for reducing reoffending by perpetrators of domestic violence. Community courts: The international evidence that community courts reduce reoffending and improve compliance with court orders is promising. However, the evidence of their impact in England and Wales is mixed (though drawing conclusions from a single pilot site is difficult). We also looked at evidence on effective ways of working with women and young adults in the justice system. While problem-solving courts working with these groups are a new idea and little direct evidence is available on their effectiveness, the evidence suggests that there is potential for courts for these groups to improve outcomes if they draw from existing good practice. Why do problem-solving courts work? As well as looking at whether problem-solving courts work, we also looked at research which seeks to understand how they work. We found two main themes: Procedural fairness: evidence shows that perception of fair treatment leads to better compliance with court orders. Effective judicial monitoring is strongly associated with effectiveness. It relies on clear communication and certainty. Details: London: The Centre, 2016. 46p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 17, 2017 at: http://justiceinnovation.org/portfolio/problem-solving-courts-an-evidence-review/ Year: 2016 Country: International URL: http://justiceinnovation.org/portfolio/problem-solving-courts-an-evidence-review/ Shelf Number: 146967 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCommunity CourtsDomestic Violence CourtsDrug CourtsFamily and Alcohol CourtsMental Health CourtsProblem-Solving CourtsRecidivismReoffending |
Author: Choo, Kyungseok Title: Juvenile Drug Courts: Policy and Practice Scan Summary: A policy and practice scan (sometimes referred to as an environmental scan) was conducted to provide data on a sample of local juvenile drug treatment courts (JDTCs) in the United States. The objectives of the scan were to collect data from a sample of JDTCs on their current operations and structures, challenges to implementation, and perceived or measurable successes. The scan was not conducted to determine whether or not JDTCs "work," but, rather, to provide descriptive research evidence to answer the question, "What is going on?" Eligibility Criteria To be included in the scan, a local JDTC was required to meet the following eligibility criteria: (1) the JDTC was established in 2004 or later (excluding JDTCs that predate the release of the current practice strategies), and (2) it was operational for at least 2 years at the time of the scan. Sampling Methods A variety of methods were used to create the sample for this scan. The methods were carried out in the following order: 1. Researchers contacted the state-level juvenile drug treatment court coordinators for each state and territory and asked them to furnish a list of JDTCs in their jurisdiction, along with contact information and any data that could help the research team assess eligibility. In those instances in which we did not receive a response from the state coordinator, we contacted the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOCs) at the state level for the information. 2. The initial efforts were supplemented by examinations of the most recent directory of drug courts created by the National Association of Drug Court Professionals (NADCP) and through other methods, including Google searches. A total of 405 JDTCs from 44 states and Puerto Rico were identified through these methods, and 107 were identified as being eligible. Once the sample pool was established, key contacts at each eligible site - usually the coordinators - were contacted by e-mail or phone to request participation in the project. Out of the total, eligible sample pool, 25 JDTCs agreed to participate; they became our sample for the scan.2 The 25 JDTCs represented 20 states. Results History and inception. Local JDTCs were initiated in a variety of ways. The most common impetus was the interest of a juvenile court judge (or, in few instances, a court administrator) who had heard about JDTCs in other jurisdictions and wanted to institute a specialized court for juvenile substance abusers. In a few cases, the juvenile drug treatment court was a natural extension of an adult drug court that was already established in the jurisdiction. In other instances, the JDTC was expanded from existing JDTCs in nearby jurisdictions. The role of funding was acknowledged by some of the key contacts; several JDTCs had obtained grants (mostly state-level funding) to help start and implement the JDTC. A common component at inception was a steering or planning committee and a designated “leader” for the initiative. Some common challenges faced at start-up were the lack of treatment providers and transportation for youth to attend the program. In addition, a minority discussed conflicts among agencies in the partnerships, the learning curve in operating a JDTC, insufficient funding for hiring staff, and getting grant proposals written to support the effort. Local partnerships. Most key contacts for local JDTCs indicated that there had been little change in their partnerships since they were formed. When changes did occur, the most common were to add or change treatment providers. A wide variety of professionals and organizations were involved in JDTC partnerships, the most common of which were judges, court administrators, the district attorney's or prosecutor's office, local treatment providers, the probation department, and state/county social service agencies. Additional partnerships included efforts with church groups and community organizations. A few key contacts noted that law enforcement and education organizations were important but were missing from their JDTC partnerships. Treatment options. Most JDTCs offered multiple treatment programs. The majority of treatment options focused on substance abuse, whereas some treatment programs also offered mental health services and family services. The JDTCs commonly offered both group and individual counseling to clients; in addition, others offered job placement, education assistance, and life skills programs. Youth who required more intensive, inpatient detoxification or rehabilitation were commonly referred to a local facility. Generally, these facilities were within a 1- to 4-hour drive of the court, and programs lasted anywhere from a weekend to 6 months. Every drug court utilized urine analysis for drug testing; in addition, some conducted oral fluid analysis and breathalyzer tests for alcohol detection. The juvenile clients were tested frequently: generally, two to three times a week at random times. Structure and operation. The typical structure of a JDTC consisted of three major parts: intensive judicial supervision, treatment services, and community-based organizational support. The core members of the intensive judicial supervision typically were an assigned judge, a prosecuting attorney, a public defender, and a probation officer. Almost all of the JDTCs contracted with external providers for treatment services (i.e., substance abuse treatment, drug tests, and individual/group/family counseling services). Many also included a representative from a school district and representatives from local community-based organizations. JDTC coordinators played a significant role in maintaining the coordinated and collaborative work of all partnering agencies and organizations. Most JDTCs had a clearly delineated referral process and explicitly outlined eligibility and program requirements in their policy manuals and client handbooks. The validation calls revealed, however, that many JDTCs struggled to provide services that were age appropriate, gender sensitive, and culturally and linguistically competent. For example, courts were challenged to provide adequate services to older youth (17 years or older) as well as to younger youth (under 13 years old). Many also indicated that they did not have much experience with female clients or non-English speaking clients (although some did provide interpreters). All JDTCs in our sample used incentives and sanctions to encourage clients to comply with program requirements. The most frequently cited incentives were gift cards and extended curfews. A common sanction was increased supervision, such as GPS monitoring or detention. Some JDTCs included mental health treatment, although they still considered their primary function to be substance abuse treatment. Performance evaluation and monitoring. Local JDTCs varied in their capacity to collect data for evaluation and monitoring performance. Only about one-third of the JDTCs included in our sample indicated that they collect data for performance monitoring, and even fewer have participated in an evaluation of any kind. Those who consistently collect data varied in the breadth, depth, and utility of the data. Most data-collecting JDTCs in our sample collected only basic data required for periodic monitoring at the state level (e.g., demographics of youth referred to the court, counts for graduation and termination, services received, and recidivism), but they indicated that these data were not sufficient for local program monitoring. A few of the JDTCs collected additional data through Web-based systems used to track clients and provide real-time monitoring. Most JDTCs, however, lacked comprehensive and accessible systems to track data for local monitoring and evaluation purposes. Successes. Local JDTCs defined success in a variety of ways. Some defined it as measurable change or impact for youth who participate (e.g., program graduation and reduced substance abuse, continued education, sustained employment, and reduction in recidivism). Others identified “soft” indicators, such as staff dedication and long-term connections with youth, staff, and others such as probation officers. In addition, a few key contacts at local JDTCs identified certain attitudinal and behavioral changes, such as better relationships with parents/guardians and personal functioning, as being indicative of success even though these factors are not captured by data systems. At least one JDTC identified broader public health outcomes, such as reduced early pregnancies, as another indicator of success. Nearly all perceived their court as successful; however, very few could provide any data on documented successes of their local JDTC. Challenges to implementation. Key contacts at local JDTCs identified a wide variety of challenges to implementation. The most commonly cited challenge was lack of funding, especially for supporting incentives for youth in the program and enabling sufficient staffing. Other common challenges to implementation included developing effective treatment for youth with serious addiction or other complex problems; engaging families in the program and in providing a supportive home environment for their children; insufficient treatment options, including mental health and family counseling; training for staff and treatment providers; poor collaboration and communication among certain stakeholders in the JDTC; key gaps with agencies such as the district attorney; transportation for youth to attend JDTC activities, particularly in rural areas; and the role of the youth’s defense attorney, which can conflict with the aims of the JDTC. Sustainability. None of the JDTCs had a formal sustainability plan. Many suggested factors that would facilitate sustainability, such as having a “program champion” (i.e., someone who believes that the program is necessary and useful regardless of the statistics); securing judicial, prosecutorial, school and community buy-in (at least one JDTC used social media and a website to promote the program); having a committed leader, team, and advisory board; and demonstrating the value of the program through data and research. A few JDTCs talked about using a sales tax or Medicaid to help provide support for youth services. In at least one state, a compliance agency was created to track and certify all of the drug courts; this has helped with sustainability as the tracking process revealed how funds were being spent. Current practice standards/Guidelines development. Most key contacts at JDTCs were aware, in general, of the 2004 JDTC practice standards. In some cases, the 16 strategies were noted in the local JDTC (or state-level) policy and procedures manual. In a few instances, the 16 standards were intentionally used to guide the creation of the JDTC. Others took the standards into account for performance monitoring. Most key contacts—especially those focused on collaboration, teamwork, judicial involvement, and community partnerships—supported the 16 standards. As one key contact stated, “Just having the guidelines there and stated clearly is helpful...they’re a great resource.” Family engagement was considered critical; however, some JDTCs were struggling to involve parents or guardians in their child’s treatment. A few JDTCs mentioned a need for help with meeting standards around providing developmentally appropriate and multiculturally competent treatment. Several JDTCs cited challenges related to providing incentives (sometimes because of funding issues) and sanctions. With respect to future work related to the guidelines development process, one key contact recommended reaching out to the statewide drug court associations and asking them to review and disseminate the new guidelines. Another advocated including the use of an instrument such as the Youth Level of Service Case Management Inventory as a standard for facilitating data-driven offender assessment and treatment decisions. Conclusions A policy and practice scan was conducted with 25 local JDTCs that were established in 2004 or later and that have been operational since 2013 (for at least 2 years). Data were collected from available documentation and validation calls with key contacts at the local JDTC. Data were organized by a semi-structured protocol to provide information on history, treatment options, local partnerships, operations, performance monitoring and evaluation, successes, challenges, sustainability, and guidelines. Although the JDTCs varied widely on many dimensions, they also shared many similar attributes. Implications for Guidelines Key contacts at JDTCs generally were aware of the existence of the current practice standards, and they supported the standards. Some JDTCs made an effort to follow them as outlined, yet a few of them struggled with implementing standards such as developmentally appropriate treatment and incentives and sanctions. Key contacts did not identify any guidelines to add or remove; they believed that the current guidelines were fairly comprehensive. Most of the JDTCs, however, lacked the funding to implement the guidelines as well as they would like. The shortage of funding undermines the goals of providing incentives and sanctions and comprehensive drug testing. Details: Woburn, MA: WestEd Justice and Prevention Research Center, 2016. 94p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 20, 2017 at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/grants/250442.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/grants/250442.pdf Shelf Number: 146693 Keywords: Drug CourtsDrug OffendersDrug TreatmentJuvenile Drug CourtsProblem-Solving Courts |
Author: Wilson, David B. Title: Developing Juvenile Drug Court Practices on Process Standards: A Systematic Review and Qualitative Synthesis Summary: Objectives. The objective of this study was to systematically review the evidence on implementation barriers and facilitators, and other process issues related to juvenile drug courts, refered to herein as juvenile drug treatment courts (JDTCs), including systemwide contextual factors. This review focused on program factors directly relevant to the success of a JDC such as program fidelity, demographics of subjects, program elements, and JDC structure, as well as other potential moderators of effectiveness. Search methods. We searched the following databases and Internet resources for eligible studies: American Society of Criminology conference proceedings, Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences conference proceedings, Campbell Library, Chestnut Health Systems website, CINAHL, Clinical Trials Register, Cochrane Library, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global, ERIC, Google Scholar, International Bibliography of the Social Sciences, International Clinical Trials Registry, JMATE conference proceedings, National Drug Court Institute website, National Criminal Justice Reference Service, NIH RePORTER, NPC Research website, ProQuest Criminal Justice, ProQuest Dissertation & Theses: Full Text, ProQuest Education, ProQuest Family Health, ProQuest Health & Medical Complete, ProQuest Health Management, ProQuest Nursing & Allied Health, ProQuest Psychology, ProQuest Science, ProQuest Social Science, ProQuest Sociology, PsycARTICLES, PsycINFO, PubMed (drug treatment studies only), RAND Drug Policy Research Center website, Sociological Abstracts, The Drug Court Clearinghouse via American University’s Justice Programs Office website, University of Cincinnati School of Criminal Justice website, and the Urban Institute website. We examined the references found in research reviews, meta-analyses, and eligible studies. The search strategy was tailored to each database or website with the goal of identifying all relevant process and implementation studies of JDCs. The search process identified 7,261 titles and abstracts that were initially screened for potential relevance. This resulted in 572 titles and abstracts that were examined more carefully by two independent coders. This process produced 286 documents that were retrieved and for which the full text was examined to determine final eligibility, resulting in 59 eligible and coded studies. Eligibility. Both qualitative and quantitative evidence were eligible. A study must have examined a JDC and provided quantitative or qualitative evidence regarding JDC process issues. Purely theoretical discussions of JDC operations and other editorial or thought pieces were not included. A study that collected data within a JDC but did not evaluate something related to the functioning of the JDC was not included, such as a study using JDC clients to examine peer influence on drug use. Also excluded were process evaluations restricted to determining a JDC's adherence to the National Drug Court Institute and National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges' "16 strategies" without an assessment of barriers or facilitators of implementing these strategies, or the value of them. Systematic review methods. Meta-aggregation was the method used for this systematic review, as outlined by the Cochrane Collaboration. This approach involved the extraction of study findings (i.e., a text summary or direct quote), the assessment of the quality of the evidence supporting the finding, and the categorization of the findings into conceptual groups. These conceptual groups were then subjected to thematic analysis using standard qualitative data analytic techniques to arrive at an interpretative summary of each grouping of findings. A credibility of evidence assessment (questionable, low, moderate, and high) was assigned to each interpretive summary statement, which reflected the highest quality assessment achieved by at least two findings that contributed to an interpretive statement. Findings. The 477 findings extracted from the 59 studies were aggregated into 14 broad conceptual categories that reflected different aspects of the juvenile drug court system. Forty interpretive statements were developed across these categories, which reflect a broad range of process issues. Most of these statements were rated as moderate (n = 10) or high (n = 21) in terms of credibility of evidence reflecting a moderately strong connection between the study finding and the quantitative or qualitative evidence. The bulk of these statements focused on family members as stakeholders in the JDC process; standards for ensuring accountability, such as the consistent application of behavioral contingencies; and various needs of JDC participants, such as mental health treatment. Conclusions. The findings demonstrate the complexities of implementing the conceptually simple JDC model. Youth and their families arrive at a juvenile drug court with a range of needs that extend beyond the youth’s substance use and involvement in other delinquent behavior, including mental health needs, a history of trauma, and learning disabilities. Families may be prepared to effectively partner with the court to facilitate a youth’s engagement in treatment services and comply with court expectations. However, families may experience obstacles to this partnership, such as parental substance abuse, or they may actively work against the JDC process. Furthermore, JDCs exist within a broader institutional and social context and rely on services available within the community and on support from various stakeholders. The quality and effectiveness of these services (e.g., substance abuse treatment, mental health treatment) will directly affect outcomes for youth and their families. Details: Fairfax, VA: George Mason University, 2016. 63p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 22, 2017 at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/grants/250441.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/grants/250441.pdf Shelf Number: 144845 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationDrug CourtsDrug Treatment ProgramsJuvenile Drug CourtsJuvenile Drug OffendersProblem-Solving Courts |
Author: Harris, Brett Title: Engage, Involve, Empower: Family Engagement in Juvenile Drug Treatment Courts Summary: Research has shown that family engagement during a youth's time in the juvenile justice system helps to improve outcomes across behavioral health, education, and delinquency. To inform this technical assistance brief, which explores the application of this knowledge in the juvenile drug treatment court context, NCMHJJ conducted a nationwide survey of professionals at juvenile drug treatment courts, juvenile mental health courts, and hybrid juvenile treatment courts to learn about attitudes and practices related to family engagement. Survey results helped shape the comprehensive set of family engagement recommendations offered by the brief, as well as a self-evaluation tool. The following are also included: Key findings of the survey; Essential information on substance use and addiction among young people; and Descriptions of two juvenile drug treatment courts that demonstrate a strong commitment to family engagement. Details: Delmar, NY: National Center for Mental Health and Juvenile Justice, 2017. 28p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 28, 2017 at: https://www.ncmhjj.com/resources/engage-involve-empower-family-engagement-juvenile-drug-courts/ Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncmhjj.com/resources/engage-involve-empower-family-engagement-juvenile-drug-courts/ Shelf Number: 141246 Keywords: FamiliesJuvenile Drug CourtsJuvenile Drug OffendersJuvenile Drug TreatmentProblem-Solving Courts |
Author: Han, Woojae Title: Impact of Community Treatment and Neighborhood Disadvantage on Recidivism in Mental Health Courts Summary: The purpose of the study is to investigate the impact of community treatment and neighborhood disadvantage on recidivism among offenders with mental health problems in Mental Health Courts (MHCs) and in traditional courts. Although treatment is believed to lead to reduced recidivism for offenders with mental illness, little research has been conducted for MHC participants. Further, neighborhood disadvantage are known to influence recidivism generally, but environmental factors have not been examined in the MHC context. Data from the MacArthur MHC study were analyzed. The sample includes 741 offenders with mental illness from four counties. Participants were interviewed at baseline and six months after and objective arrest data were collected. Multilevel modelling and propensity score weighting was used to investigate individual level (level 1) and neighborhood level (level 2) variances on recidivism and to control for selection bias. Neighborhood disadvantage data were obtained from the American Community Survey at U.S. Census Bureau, and linked with residential data from participants. Study results suggest that some of treatment variables have significant impact on arrest. For example, MHC participant with more substance abuse service were less likely to be arrest compared to those with less substance abuse service before the court enrollment. Both TAU and MHC participants has significant effect of neighborhood disadvantage on arrest before the court enrollment. After the court enrollment, only MHC participant continued to have effect of neighborhood disadvantage on arrest. In addition, MHC participant with higher treatment motivation were less likely to recidivate compared to those with lower treatment motivation after the court enrollment. The probability of recidivism remained statistically lower among the MHC than the TAU group after the court enrollment. Understanding treatment characteristics and neighborhood disadvantage associated with recidivism for offenders with mental illness can help to more efficiently target research, practice, and policy in the future. In addition, social work professionals should recognize themselves the importance of the treatment related variables and neighborhood disadvantage to provide, develop, and implement innovative interventions for offender with mental illness. Lastly, this research will shed new light into future interventions and/or policies that aim to reduce the recidivism for this difficult-to-treat population of offenders. Details: Albany, NY: University at Albany, 2016. 160p. Source: Internet Resource: Dissertation: Accessed February 28, 2017 at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/250535.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/250535.pdf Shelf Number: 141247 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCommunity Mental Health CourtsMentally Ill OffendersProblem-Solving CourtsRecidivismSocioeconomic Conditions and Crime |
Author: Davidson, Cheryl Title: Evaluation of the Statewide "Enhanced" Drug Courts Offering Mental Health Services for Substance Abusing Offenders in Iowa Summary: Adult drug courts in five Iowa judicial districts were provided drug court enhancement funding in the fall of 2012 to integrate mental health services into the program. The purpose of the grant was to expand drug court eligibility, improve access to mental health services, enhance mental health service delivery, and improve client outcomes. A process and outcomes evaluation was conducted to examine the effectiveness of the mental health enhancement. Process Evaluation Drug court team members believed there was a need for mental health services and co-occurring disorders were prevalent however; participants with serious mental illnesses would fall outside the realm of what the drug courts could handle. One difficulty identified by staff was defining the primary cause of clients’ problems; whether substance abuse or mental health issues. Better screening tools and resources to help identify prevailing issues may improve the administration of services. Some respondents said their mental health coordinator, provided through enhancement funding, helped expand program eligibility by enabling the court to better deal with mental health issues. The coordinator provided advice to the team and other offenders in the court and some staff indicated this person was more trusted by offenders than other court/correctional personnel. Others indicated program barriers like funding cuts or having too many/few referrals limited inclusiveness, despite the added capacity. Outcome Evaluation Program completion, supervision revocation, recidivism, relapse, and substance abuse treatment were examined. Study groups included current drug court offenders during the grant period (Current DC), a subset of current drug court offenders who received grant-funded mental health services (DC MH), a comparison group of pre-enhancement drug court offenders (Historical DC), and a group of similar offenders on probation for drug offenses (Matched Probation). In a three-year tracking period, the Current DC group had lower recidivism rates compared to the Historical DC group. This could be due to the drug court enhancement or other changes to the program. Participants of the funded mental health services did not statistically differ from nonparticipants. Several confounding factors, discussed in the key findings, may have contributed. The outcomes varied by district, consistent with the discretion given to courts in administering services. Providing more guidance to the courts in defining the enhancement target population and administering mental health services may have provided more consistency across the state. The cost per mental health participant funded by the enhancement grant ranged from $1,258.21 in District 5, to $2,541.40 in District 6. Details: Des Moines: Iowa Department of Justice Rights, Division of Criminal and Juvenile Justice Planning, 2016. 86p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 7, 2017 at: https://humanrights.iowa.gov/sites/default/files/media/CJJP_Enhanced_Drug_Court_Report.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://humanrights.iowa.gov/sites/default/files/media/CJJP_Enhanced_Drug_Court_Report.pdf Shelf Number: 141367 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationDrug CourtsDrug OffendersMental Health ServicesProblem-Solving Courts |
Author: Mollmann, Marianne Title: Neither Justice nor Treatment: Drug Courts in the United States Summary: There are more than 3,100 drug courts operating in the United States. But while the courts' proponents say they reduce recidivism for people with substance use disorders, critics say the system abuses due process, often mandates treatment for people who don't actually need it - people without drug dependence - and fails to provide quality care to many who do. Physicians for Human Rights (PHR) assessed the availability and quality of substance use disorder treatment through drug courts in three states - Florida, New Hampshire, and New York - and found major obstacles in all three states. Overall, PHR found that drug courts largely failed at providing treatment to those who truly needed it, and filled up limited treatment spaces with court-mandated patients who didn't always need the care. In many cases, court officials with no medical background mandated inappropriate treatment, or mandated treatment for people who didn't need it. In all cases, the functioning and mandate of the drug courts posed significant human rights concerns. Details: New York: Physicians for Human Rights, 2017. 26p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 16, 2017 at: http://physiciansforhumanrights.org/assets/misc/phr_drugcourts_report_singlepages.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: http://physiciansforhumanrights.org/assets/misc/phr_drugcourts_report_singlepages.pdf Shelf Number: 146217 Keywords: Drug CourtsDrug OffendersDrug TreatmentProblem-Solving CourtsSubstance Abuse Treatment |
Author: Tanner-Smith, Emily E. Title: Meta-Analysis of Research on the Effectiveness of Juvenile Drug Courts Summary: Objectives. This systematic review and meta-analysis quantitatively synthesized findings from the most current evidence base of juvenile drug court effectiveness research. The objectives of the meta-analysis were to examine the effects of juvenile drug courts on general recidivism, drug recidivism, and drug use outcomes; and to explore variability in these effects across characteristics of the juvenile participants and drug courts. To address these objectives, we synthesized results from randomized and controlled quasi-experimental design studies that reported on the effects of juvenile drug courts located in the United States. Search methods. We conducted a comprehensive and systematic literature search to identify all relevant studies (published or unpublished) that met our pre-specified eligibility criteria, and the literature search is current through December 2014. We searched several electronic databases, supplemented with searches of websites, research registers, reference lists, and hand-searches of key journals and conference proceedings. Data collection and analysis. Standard systematic review practices were used for data collection and analysis. Titles, abstracts, and full-text reports were screened independently by two researchers. A third author resolved any disagreements about eligibility for inclusion. Studies eligible for inclusion were independently coded by two researchers, with a third author resolving any coding disagreements. All data extraction followed a standardized coding protocol, with data entered directly into a FileMaker Pro database. Inverse variance weighted random-effects meta-analysis models were used to estimate overall mean effect sizes, and mixed-effect meta-regression models were used to explore variability in effects across various study characteristics. Contour-enhanced funnel plots were used to assess for publication bias. Results. An extensive literature search located 46 eligible experimental or quasi-experimental evaluations of juvenile drug courts. The quantitative synthesis of effect sizes provided no evidence that juvenile drug courts were more or less effective than traditional court processing in terms of general recidivism, drug recidivism, and drug use outcomes. There was no evidence of an effect on these outcomes during the juvenile drug court program period and in the post-program period. The juvenile drug court evaluations were generally of poor methodological quality. Very few studies employed random assignment, and substantial baseline differences were found between drug court and comparison groups on baseline risk and demographics. Restricting the meta-analysis to studies using the most rigorous designs (randomized and matched quasi-experimental design) provided no evidence of effectiveness on general recidivism, drug recidivism, or drug use outcomes. Finally, there was no evidence that any of the measured participant characteristics or drug court features were associated with drug court effects. Conclusions. There is no evidence that juvenile drug courts are more or less effective than traditional court processing in terms of reducing juveniles' recidivism and drug use, but there is also no evidence of harm. The quality of the body of evidence is very low, however, so we have little confidence in these null findings. Details: Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University, Peabody Research Institute, 2016. 73p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 28, 2017 at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/grants/250439.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/grants/250439.pdf Shelf Number: 146442 Keywords: Drug Abuse TreatmentDrug CourtsJuvenile Drug CourtsJuvenile Drug OffendersProblem-Solving Courts |
Author: Kubiak, Sheryl Title: Evaluation of the Wayne County Mental Health Court. Year 5: Long‐term Outcomes and Cost Savings Wayne County, Michigan Summary: A Wayne County MHC was initially funded in December 2008 as a pilot program in a joint collaboration between the State Court Administrative Office (SCAO), Michigan Department of Community Health, and Detroit Wayne Mental Health Authority (DWMHA). Evaluations conducted during the first three years of operation (2009-2011) focused on development, implementation, processes, and assessment of preliminary outcomes, as well as an initial cost analysis of the program. The fourth year of operation (2012) corresponded to the end of the pilot phase and assessment of the eight pilot MHCs as part of a statewide outcome evaluation. The fifth year of operation (2013) provided the opportunity to assess the long‐term outcomes and cost savings of the program as individuals involved with the program in 2009 - 2011 have been discharged or rejected from the program for one year or more. Between the inception of the MHC in April of 2009 and September 2013, nearly 300 individuals were screened for participation in the program. Of those screened, 199 individuals were admitted to and 91 were rejected from the MHC. At the time of this report, 50 individuals were actively engaged in the program and 149 were discharged. Of those discharged, 105 were discharged for more than one year, 40 successfully and 65 unsuccessfully. Those rejected from the MHC present an opportunity to compare outcomes and costs of MHC participants (Treatment Group) to similar individuals who did not participate in the MHC (Comparison Group). Of the 91 individuals rejected from MHC, 33 were excluded from analysis because the reason for rejection suggested they were dissimilar from the Treatment Group. Of the remaining 58, 45 individuals were rejected from MHC for more than one year. As a result, three groups were used to illustrate the long‐term outcomes and cost analysis: Successful (N=40), Unsuccessful (N=65), and Rejected (N=45). All three groups had similar characteristics at admission to/rejection from the MHC. The average age across all three groups was 37 years old and 50%-54% of each group was of minority status. There were no significant differences by mental health diagnosis, though co‐occurring substance use disorders were more common for the Treatment Group (86%-88%) than the Comparison Group (74%). The proportion of females was higher in the Treatment Groups (31%-33%) compared to the Comparison Group (16%). There were differences in terms of the assessed risk: the proportion of those in the Successful Group assessed as "high risk" overall and for violence was significantly lower than others. Despite similarities across the groups at admission/rejection, the Successful Group had better long‐term criminal justice and treatment outcomes. In terms of recidivism, only 18% of the Successful Group experienced any incarceration in the post‐MHC period compared to 69% (Unsuccessful) and 88% (Rejected), incurring just 10 days of incarceration compared to 153 (Unsuccessful) and 98 days (Rejected). Similarly, the Successful Group demonstrated optimal response in terms of mental health treatment: the average number of low‐level services (e.g. group/individual sessions, med reviews) increased post‐MHC, indicating sustained engagement, while high‐level services (e.g. hospitalization, crisis residential) decreased.Reduced criminal justice involvement and high‐level treatment need, translated to cost savings for members of the Treatment Group. Applying unit costs to standard transactions incurred by members of the Treatment and Comparison Groups in the post‐MHC period, a cost savings of $22,865 per successful participant and $7,741 per unsuccessful participant as compared to those rejected by the MHC. The driving factor in the cost savings between the groups are victimization costs. Extrapolating these costs across all participants of the MHC, yields a total savings of $1,417,740 for those discharged or rejected from the MHC for more than one year to date. Details: East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University, 2014. 31p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 2, 2017 at: https://socialwork.msu.edu/sites/default/files/Research/docs/WayneMHCCourt.Final.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: https://socialwork.msu.edu/sites/default/files/Research/docs/WayneMHCCourt.Final.pdf Shelf Number: 147021 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCost-Benefit AnalysisMental Health CourtsMental Health ServicesMentally Ill OffendersProblem-Solving Courts |
Author: Kubiak, Sheryl Title: Statewide Mental Health Court Outcome Evaluation: Aggregate Report Summary: Nationally, the number of people with serious mental illness (SMI) in jails ranges from 6 to 36 percent. Some refer to jails as the last mental health hospital as individuals with SMI revolve in and out of jails. As one solution to this social problem, jurisdictions are finding ways to divert such individuals from prosecution or sentencing by engaging them in treatment services. The mental health court (MHC) offers an alternative to traditional criminal court processing; it is post‐booking diversion program that utilizes treatment and services available in a given community to stem the frequency of mentally ill offenders' contact with the criminal justice system. Studies of MHCs have consistently found that they can be successful in reducing re‐offending and increasing treatment utilization. In 2008, the Michigan Department of Community Health (MDCH) and the State Court Administrative Office (SCAO) developed the Michigan Mental Health Court Grant Program as a mechanism to jointly fund a statewide MHC pilot program during fiscal year 2009. In 2011, MDCH contracted an external evaluation of the pilot program encompassing eight MHCs: Berrien (Unified Trial Court); Genesee (25th Probate Court); Grand Traverse (86th District Court); Jackson (4th Circuit and 12th District Courts); Livingston (53rd District Court); Oakland (6th Circuit Court); St. Clair (72nd District Court); and Wayne (3rd Circuit Court). The evaluation encompasses the three‐year pilot period of January 2009 to December 2011 and relies on multiple sources of data to assess the processes and outcomes of each court. Questions related to court processes were: How are courts similar to and different from each other? What are mechanisms for referral and admission? How strong is the collaboration or integration between the court and mental health staff? Did participants successfully complete? Data used to assess these process‐related questions included surveys, site visits, interviews, and court observation. Based on site visit and interview data, the research team created a process map illustrating each court's screening, admission, and decision‐making processes. The process map and a report based on the data collection was submitted to each MHC for verification. Questions related to outcomes included: Did MHC reduce recidivism (i.e. time in jail, new arrests)? Did MHC increase participation in mental health treatment? Did high‐intensity treatment such as hospitalization decrease as a result of MHC? Did specific individual or system level factors affect outcomes? Data collected to assess these outcomes came from five primary sources: MDCH‐CMH Encounter/Service Data; SCAO - MHC database; jail data from each county; MDCH - Bureau of Substance Abuse and Addiction Services treatment data; and Michigan State Police - arrest and conviction data. To assess long‐term outcomes, a comparison of three time periods was considered: 1) one year prior to MHC admission; 2) the period of involvement in MHC; and 3) one year following MHC discharge. Using the Council of State Governments Justice Center list of ten essential elements of MHC as a guide, MHCs across Michigan were found to vary widely in terms of organization, policies, and practices. Differences between courts should not be construed as a 'right' or 'wrong' way of operating. Rather, each court is responsive to the needs of the particular county and uses the resources available to the best of its abilities. Because each MHC is unique, it is not possible to draw direct comparisons between courts. The intent of this evaluation is to illuminate the variety of MHC structures and processes across the state and utilize individual - and system‐level factors, other than county of origin, to assess variations in outcomes. There were 678 individuals admitted into the eight MHCs prior to December 31, 2011. The average age at admission was 35 years (range 18 to 64). Nearly two thirds of participants (63%) were males and 67% identified as Caucasian. The overwhelming majority of participants were unemployed (91%) at admission, and nearly 20% were homeless. Nearly 40% were admitted into MHC with a primary diagnosis of bipolar disorder, followed by depression (29%), schizophrenic/psychotic or delusional disorders (21%), and 12% representing other diagnoses such as developmental or personality disorders. Although 60% were identified as having a 'current substance abuse', other evidence shows that as many as 79% were substance involved. Participants were most likely to enter MHC on a felony offense (48%), while 43% were admitted on a misdemeanor, and 8% on civil cases. The average length of stay in MHC was 276 days; among all 678 participants who were admitted, there were 187,043 MHC program days since 2009. Of the 450 participants discharged, 43% successfully completed all requirements of the MHC - a proportion within range of national averages. Age and offense type were the strongest predictors of success: Successful completers were more likely to be older than average (39 years) and have a misdemeanor/civil offense. Treatment outcomes. Participants received the greatest number of services during MHC, and these were primarily low‐intensity services (e.g., med reviews, case management). The proportion of participants requiring a high intensity service (e.g., hospitalization) declined from 31% pre‐MHC to 15% post‐MHC. Time to first mental health treatment after MHC admission averaged 16 days; upon discharge into the community the average was 41 days. While 95% of participants received mental health treatment during MHC, 72% of those discharged greater than one year received such services. Substance abuse treatment within the CMH system increased during MHC as compared to pre‐MHC (45% compared to 53%) but declined post‐MHC (28% of those discharged). Recidivism outcomes. A primary indicator of MHC is recidivism, measured nationally by new arrests. Since admission into MHC, only 14% of participants were arrested and charged with a new offense - a much lower rate than national averages - particularly, since time between admission to MHC and one year post‐MHC may have been as long as 2-years. Prior to MHC, 81% of participants spent time in jail, averaging 39 days. During MHC, 54% of participants spent time in jail, averaging 24 days. This represents a statewide saving of 10,074 jail bed days. To date, a reduction of 15,991 jail bed days is seen when comparing the pre‐MHC to post‐MHC periods for the 450 participants discharged. Among participants discharged one‐year (n=236), long‐term outcomes indicate 43% spent time in jail post‐MHC and 4% were incarcerated in state prisons. Successful program completion strongly predicts the absence of recidivism. Individual Factors Influencing Outcomes. Mental health diagnosis was found to have no effect on completion, treatment attainment or recidivism. However, the presence of COD predicted less favorable completion, more time in jail during MHC and higher proportion of new arrests/convictions. Similarly, those with felony offenses were less likely to complete, and when they did, they spent more time in MHC. Interestingly, those with felony offenses had significant reductions in jail days when comparing pre- and post‐MHC periods regardless of completion status. Importantly, there was no difference in new arrest/convictions between those who entered with a felony versus a misdemeanor. System‐level Factors Influencing Outcomes. Outcome variations related to court type (felony, misdemeanor/civil, or mixed) were similar to those above, with courts focused on felony cases having the greatest reduction in jail days. Examining the level of integration between the courts and treatment staff (high vs. low), high integration courts had lower lengths of stay and less time to treatment. Although those in low integration courts were more likely to complete MHC, those in high integration courts were more likely to experience greater reductions in jail days and higher treatment participation. Implementation and piloting of MHCs across Michigan has been successful, and many quantitative indicators as well as personal stories demonstrate positive outcomes. Based upon the body of knowledge amassed in this report, the following are areas for future consideration that may expand positive outcomes: 1) Enhance the level of integration between courts and treatment; 2) Consider matching risk level with length or intensity of court supervision; 3) Extend use of rewards to encourage longer length of stays and positive completion; 4) Increase attention to COD, integration of mental health and substance abuse treatment, and continuity of care post‐MHC to support ongoing recovery. Details: East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University, 2012. 94p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 25, 2017 at: https://www.michigan.gov/documents/mdch/Statewide_MHC_Evaluation_-_Aggregate_Report_Final_103112_w_seal_407300_7.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: https://www.michigan.gov/documents/mdch/Statewide_MHC_Evaluation_-_Aggregate_Report_Final_103112_w_seal_407300_7.pdf Shelf Number: 147445 Keywords: Mental Health CourtsMental Health TreatmentMentally Ill OffendersProblem-Solving CourtsRecidivism |
Author: Young, Douglas Title: Drug Courts in Maryland: An Assessment of Drug Court Enhancements and Recent Data Trends in Eleven Adult Drug Courts Summary: Approaching the 25-year anniversary of the opening of the first drug treatment court in Miami-Dade County, drug courts continue to grow and gain attention as jurisdictions nationally look to reverse the incarceration binge of prior decades. Maryland was one of the first states to make a commitment to drug courts, and today the state Office of Problem Solving Courts (OPSC) oversees one of the most extensive networks of specialized courts in the country, including both circuit and district-court based drug court programs in the major metropolitan areas and smaller programs in rural counties in every region of the state. With funding support from the federal Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) and the Maryland Judiciary Administrative Office of the Courts, the Institute for Governmental Service and Research at the University of Maryland, College Park undertook the study reported here of 11 of the state's adult drug courts. Employing methods detailed below, the research had three distinct components. The first involved in-depth studies of four drug courts in Baltimore City and Carroll, Cecil, and Wicomico counties that had implemented program enhancements under BJA funding. In addition to a detailed descriptive assessment of enhancement plans and progress in implementation, program data from the Statewide Maryland Automated Record Tracking (SMART) system were gathered and analyzed to further assess drug court performance and outcomes at each site during the demonstration period. A second study component involved analyzing similar data from SMART on seven additional drug court programs in Baltimore City and Anne Arundel, Dorchester, Worcester, St. Mary's, and Montgomery counties. These sites were selected for inclusion by OPSC, and are representative of the diversity of drug courts in the state. Using 3 and 1/4 years of data (January 2014 through March 2015), trends in admissions, active participant census, and program completion results, along with common program elements (service referrals, participant sanctions, incentives) are assessed for each of these seven sites. Finally, a comparative analysis was done. Again drawing from the available SMART data, this narrative assessment compares and contrasts recent data and trends among the 11 drug courts on the same descriptive and performance measures listed above. Details: College Park, MD: Institute for Governmental Service and Research, University of Maryland, 2015. 197p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 26, 2017 at: http://www.courts.state.md.us/opsc/dtc/pdfs/evaluationsreports/assessmentofenhancements11adultdrugcts.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.courts.state.md.us/opsc/dtc/pdfs/evaluationsreports/assessmentofenhancements11adultdrugcts.pdf Shelf Number: 147455 Keywords: Drug CourtsDrug Offender TreatmentDrug OffendersProblem-Solving Courts |
Author: Johnson, Adrian Title: City of St. Louis Adult Drug Court St. Louis, Missouri Process Evaluation 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 and decreased drug use, 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 administrator, 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, 2004; Carey et al., 2005). More recently, research has focused not just on whether drug courts work but how they work, and who they work best for. Research-based best practices have been developed (e.g., Volume I of NADCP's Best Practice Standards was published in 2013 and Volume II will be released in July 2015). These Best Practice Standards present multiple practices that have been associated with significant reductions in recidivism or significant increases in cost savings or both. The Standards also describe the research that illustrates for whom the traditional drug court model works best, specifically, high-risk/high-need individuals. The Standards recommend that drug court programs either limit their population to highrisk/high-need individuals, or develop different tracks for participants at different risk and need levels (i.e., follow a risk-need responsivity model). That is, drug courts should assess individuals at intake to determine the appropriate services and supervision level based on their assessment results (e.g., Andrews, Bonta, & Wormith, 2006; Lowenkamp & Latessa, 2005). This research has led to the development of more sophisticated drug court programs, including programs that have implemented multiple tracks for their offenders based on the four "quadrants" of risk and need (high-risk/high-need, high-risk/low-need, low-risk/high-need, and low-risk/low-need). The first known program to implement all four tracks, or quadrants, was the drug court in the City of St. Louis, Missouri, followed soon after by Greene County, Missouri. In these programs the judicial officer and coordinators worked with their teams and with community organizations to develop appropriate supervision, treatment and other complementary services for participants at each risk and need level. In October 2014, the Office of State Courts Administrator (OSCA) in Missouri, in partnership with NPC Research, received a grant from the Bureau of Justice Assistance, to perform a process evaluation of two drug courts operating in Missouri that are using the 4-track model, the 4-track program in Greene County (Springfield) and in the City of St. Louis. Both programs are using a specialized screening tool, the Risk and Needs Triage (RANT), a scientifically validated screening tool developed by the Treatment Research Institute (TRI), to place offenders in one of the four risk-need quadrants (see Table 1). The programs both have separate treatment and supervision requirements according to participants' risk and need levels. The 4-track model implemented in the City of St. Louis was an effort to tailor the drug court program to the risk and needs of participants in each quadrant with the expectation that this would improve effectiveness and be more cost and resource efficient. Over time the treatment court has further evolved to become more focused on the high risk/high need offenders. Participants are now separated into different dockets based on diagnostically determined mental health disorders (a "co-occurring" docket) and the need for Medically Assisted Treatment (MAT) (an "MAT" docket). The City of St. Louis also has a Veterans Treatment Court (VTC). This report contains a description of the program practices and procedures and the process evaluation results for the City of St. Louis Adult Drug Court, specifically the 4-track model. The recommendations resulting from the process evaluation are based on research performed by NPC in over 100 drug courts around the country and on NADCP's Best Practice Standards (2013, 2015), as well as on practical experience working with individual courts and collaborating with the professionals who do this work. Details: Portland, OR: NPC Research, 2015. 60p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 26, 2017 at: http://npcresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/St-Louis-process-evaluation-report_1215.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://npcresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/St-Louis-process-evaluation-report_1215.pdf Shelf Number: 147458 Keywords: Drug Courts Drug Offender Treatment Drug Offenders Drug Treatment Courts Problem-Solving Courts |
Author: Physicians for Human Rights Title: Neither Justice nor Treatment: Drug Courts in the United States Summary: There are more than 3,100 drug courts operating in the United States. But while the courts' proponents say they reduce recidivism for people with substance use disorders, critics say the system abuses due process, often mandates treatment for people who don't actually need it - people without drug dependence - and fails to provide quality care to many who do. Physicians for Human Rights (PHR) assessed the availability and quality of substance use disorder treatment through drug courts in three states - Florida, New Hampshire, and New York - and found major obstacles in all three states. Overall, PHR found that drug courts largely failed at providing treatment to those who truly needed it, and filled up limited treatment spaces with court-mandated patients who didn't always need the care. In many cases, court officials with no medical background mandated inappropriate treatment, or mandated treatment for people who didn't need it. In all cases, the functioning and mandate of the drug courts posed significant human rights concerns. Details: New York: Physicians for Human Rights, 2017. 26p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 16, 2018 at: http://physiciansforhumanrights.org/assets/misc/phr_drugcourts_report_singlepages.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: http://physiciansforhumanrights.org/assets/misc/phr_drugcourts_report_singlepages.pdf Shelf Number: 149487 Keywords: Drug CourtsDrug OffendersDrug TreatmentHuman Rights AbusesProblem-Solving CourtsSubstance Abuse Treatment |
Author: Cross, Brittany Title: Mental Health Courts Effectiveness in Reducing Recidivism and Improving Clinical Outcomes: A Meta-Analysis Summary: Mental health courts have recently emerged with goals to reduce recidivism and improve clinical outcomes for people with serious mental illness in the criminal justice system. The present study is a review of mental health court literature assessing their effectiveness in reducing recidivism and improving clinical outcomes for participants using meta-analytic techniques. A total of 20 studies that included sufficient information to compute the standardized mean difference effect size, focused on adult populations, and were within the United States were included in the analysis. Only experimental and quasi-experimental research designs were obtained. Using Cohen's (1988) guidelines, mental health courts were found to have a small effect on reducing recidivism (0.32, p<.05) and a non-significant effect for improving clinical outcomes for participants. Several moderator analyses were conducted and indicated that the nature of the control group (whether they were a treatment as usual or participants who "opted-out") was found to be significant between groups (Q=22.33, p<.001) as a possible moderating effect. Details: Tampa: University of South Florida, 2011. 110p. Source: Internet Resource: Thesis: Accessed march 20, 2018 at: http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4247&context=etd Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4247&context=etd Shelf Number: 149536 Keywords: Mental Health CourtsMental Health TreatmentMentally Ill OffendersProblem-Solving CourtsRecidivism |
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: MacDonald, Sue-Ann Title: Mental Health Courts: Processes, Outcomes and Impact on Homelessness Summary: MacDonald et al. examined the impact of a Mental Health Court (MHC) on preventing and reducing homelessness for those with mental health issues. In particular, using the MHC in Montreal as a case study, which is officially known as the Programme d'accompagnement Justice - Sante mentale (PAJ-SM), the project provided a profile of participants and assessed how the court functions to address their mental health and homelessness challenges. Despite the growing interest in adopting mental health courts, there are relatively few studies conducted on the topic. The report provides an opportunity to fill that knowledge gap and provides information to support the adoption of promising practices by MHCs across Canada. Details: Montreal: University of Montreal, 2014. 57p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 28, 2018 at: http://www.homelesshub.ca/sites/default/files/HKDFinalReport_2014.pdf Year: 2014 Country: Canada URL: http://www.homelesshub.ca/sites/default/files/HKDFinalReport_2014.pdf Shelf Number: 149598 Keywords: Homeless PersonsHomelessnessMental Health CourtsMental Health TreatmentMentally Ill OffendersProblem-Solving Courts |
Author: Herinckx, Heidi Title: Clark County Mentally Ill Re-arrest Prevention (MIRAP) Program Summary: This study examined rearrest and linkage to mental health services among 368 misdemeanants with severe and persistent mental illness who were served by the Clark County Mental Health Court (MHC). This court, established in April 2000, is based on the concepts of therapeutic jurisprudence. This study addressed the following questions about the effectiveness of the Clark County MHC: Did MHC clients receive more comprehensive mental health services? Did the MHC successfully reduce recidivism? Were there any client or program characteristics associated with recidivism? A secondary analysis of use of mental health services and jail data for the MHC clients enrolled from April 2000 through April 2003 was conducted. The authors used a 12-month pre-post comparison design to determine whether MHC participants experienced reduced rearrest rates for new offenses, reduced probation violations, and increased mental health services 12 months postenrollment in the MHC compared with 12 months preenrollment. The overall crime rate for MHC participants was reduced 4.0 times one year postenrollment in the MHC compared with one year preenrollment. One year postenrollment, 54 percent of participants had no arrests, and probation violations were reduced by 62 percent. The most significant factor in determining the success of MHC participants was graduation status from the MHC, with graduates 3.7 times less likely to reoffend compared with nongraduates. The Clark County MHC successfully reduced rearrest rates for new criminal offenses and probation violations and provided the mental health support services to stabilize mental health consumers in the community. (From Research Gate) Details: Portland, OR: Research Institute for Human Services, Portland State University, 2003. 59p. Source: Available from the Rutgers Criminal Justice Library. Year: 2003 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 154336 Keywords: Mental Health CourtMentally Ill OffendersProblem-Solving Courts |
Author: Ray, Brad Title: Addressing Mental Illness in the Central Indiana Criminal Justice System Summary: Persons with mental illness are disproportionately represented in jail and prison, both nationally and in Central Indiana. To address the needs of this population, representatives from the Marion Superior Court partnered with the Indiana Judicial Center, the Indiana Department of Corrections, the United Way of Central Indiana, and Mental Health America of Greater Indianapolis to establish the Mental Health Alternative Court (MHAC). The United Way of Central Indiana, in cooperation with the MHAC team, requested the assistance the Indiana University Public Policy Institute in evaluating the MHAC development and implementation processes, and to conduct a preliminary assessment of MHAC referrals and the population currently being served by the program. This issue brief discusses the development and initial implementation of the MHAC program and provides a summary of sociodemographic characteristics of program participants during the first year of implementation. Details: Indianapolis: Indiana University Public Policy Institute, 2017. 8p. Source: Internet Resource: Issue 16-CO3: Accessed June 13, 2019 at: http://ppidb.iu.edu/Uploads/PublicationFiles/MentalHealthBrief_Final20031516.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://ppidb.iu.edu/Uploads/PublicationFiles/MentalHealthBrief_Final20031516.pdf Shelf Number: 156409 Keywords: Mental Health Courts Mental Illness Mentally Ill Offenders Mentally Ill Person Problem-Solving Courts |