Effects of Drug Courts on Criminal Offending and Drug Use

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "Effects of Drug Courts on Criminal Offending and Drug Use"

Transcription

1 Effects of Drug Courts on Criminal Offending and Drug Use A Campbell Collaboration Systematic Review Protocol David B.Wilson, Ph.D. Administration of Justice Program University Blvd., MS 4F4 George Mason University Manassas, VA , USA Ojmarrh Mitchel, Ph.D. University of Cincinnati Division of Criminal Justice 600 Dyer Hall P.O. Cincinnati, Ohio Doris L. MacKenzie, Ph.D. Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology 2220 LeFrak Hall University of Maryland College Park, MD , USA August 31, 2007

2 Drug Court Protocol 1 Contents 1 Background for the Review 2 2 Objectives of the Review 4 3 Methods Criteria for inclusion and exclusion of studies in the review Search strategy for identification of relevant studies Description of methods used in the component studies Criteria for determination of independent findings Details of study coding categories Statistical procedures and conventions Treatment of qualitative research Timeframe 7 5 Plans for Updating the Review 8 6 Acknowledgments 8 7 Statement Concerning Conflict of Interest 8 References 8 A Eligibility Checklist 14 B Coding Protocol 15

3 Drug Court Protocol 2 1 Background for the Review Drug courts are based on an emerging theory of therapeutic jurisprudence that hypothesizes that therapeutic effects can result from judicial actions (Hora, 2002). In its simplest form, a drug court uses the power and authority of a judge to keep a drug offender in treatment, providing rewards for successes and sanctions for failures (U. S. General Accounting Office, 1997; Drug Court Professionals, 1997). Typically, a judge closely monitors the progress of a drug offender (generally referred to as a client) and doles out sanctions for drug use relapse, failure to attend treatment, or other drug court infractions. The judge also reinforces successes through praise and encouragement, and possibly a reduction in formal requirements or other reward. Depending on the structure of the drug court, successful completion may be accompanied with dropping the charges that brought the offender before the court (pre-plea/diversionary court) or expunging the offense from the record (post-plea court). Many drug courts also have a formal graduation ceremony for those successfully completing the program. The atmosphere of the drug court is non-adversarial and provides a case management function, connecting drug abusers with appropriate treatment programs. As described by the Drug Court Professionals (1997), The judge is the central figure in a team effort that focuses on sobriety and accountability as the primary goals. Because the judge takes on the role of trying to keep participants engaged in treatment, providers can effectively focus on developing a therapeutic relationship with the participant. In turn, treatment providers keep the court informed of each participants progress so that rewards and sanctions can be provided. (Drug Court Professionals, 1997, p. 7) The essential features of a drug court are the (a) integration of alcohol and other drug treatment and justice system case processing, (b) a non-adversarial courtroom approach, (c) random urine drug screens or other monitoring of abstinence, (d) judicial monitoring of a participants progress via status hearings, and (e) a system of sanctions and rewards for program infractions and achievements (Drug Court Professionals, 1997; Marlowe, Festinger, Lee, Dugosh, & Benasutti, 2006). Drug courts are presumed to affect an offender s drug use and criminal behavior through both the actions and influences of the court and the involvement of the offender in mandated drug and alcohol abuse treatment (e.g., Marlowe et al., 2006; Banks, 2001). Drug involved offenders processed in a traditional manner by the criminal justice system are also routinely referred to drug treatment. However, treatment compliance is a major problem with this population and a clear impediment to successful outcomes (Simpson et al., 1997; Drug Court Professionals, 1997). The design and structure of drug courts is intended to address this problem by using the power of the judge to compel treatment compliance. Drug courts began in Dade County Florida in 1989 as a diversion program for drug offenders. Since that time, drug courts have become popular throughout the United States. There were nearly 800 established or recently implemented drug courts in the United States as of January 2002, with many more being planned (Drug Court Clearinghouse, 2002).

4 Drug Court Protocol 3 The rapid expansion of drug courts throughout the United States criminal justice system has proceeded despite a lack of solid empirical evidence establishing the effectiveness of drug courts in achieving their aims of reduced drug use and ancillary criminal behavior. A review of the drug court literature conducted by the U. S. General Accounting Office (1997) concluded that the existing evidence was insufficient to draw any firm conclusion on the effectiveness of these programs with respect to recidivism. More specifically, the U. S. General Accounting Office (1997) identified several limitations of the 20 evaluations examined, including a failure to examine outcomes beyond program participation and a failure to use a comparison group design. Twelve of these evaluations included a comparison group and six of these examined recidivism post-program. Summarizing these studies, the GAO stated that: Some studies showed positive effects of the drug court programs during the period offenders participated in them, while others showed no effects, or effects that were mixed, and difficult to interpret. Similarly, some studies showed positive effects for offenders after completing the programs, while others showed no effects, or small and insignificant effects. (U. S. General Accounting Office, 1997, p. 85) Belenko (2001) drew a cautious but positive conclusion on the impact of drug courts on long-term drug use and criminal offending based on a review of 37 evaluations. Not all of the evaluations reviewed by Belenko examined drug use or other criminal activity outcomes. Belenko was critical of the field s dearth of evaluations that examined post-program drug use and other criminal behavior, noting that only six of the studies he reviewed examined the long-term effects of these programs. The process data reviewed by Belenko suggested that drug courts have achieved considerable local support and have provided intensive, long-term treatment services to offenders with long histories of drug use and criminal justice contacts, previous treatment failures, and high rates of health and social problems (Belenko, 2001, p. 1). A more recent systematic review of drug court evaluations was recently completed by the GAO (U. S. General Accountability Office, 2005). It examined 27 evaluations and concluded that adult drug court programs led to recidivism reductions during periods of time that generally corresponded to the length of the drug court (p. 5). The evidence on the effectiveness of drug courts to reduce substance use, based on this review, was mixed. This study also reviewed four cost-benefit evaluations and concluded that drug courts do yield a net benefit. The rapid adoption of drug courts throughout the United States during the past 16 years has been phenomenal and reflects widespread belief in the effectiveness of drug courts at reducing criminal behavior. Prior reviews, however, draw cautions conclusions regarding the effectiveness of these programs. Numerous new evaluations have been completed in recent years, warranting a fresh look at the evidence.

5 Drug Court Protocol 4 2 Objectives of the Review The objective of this review is to systematically review all existing evaluations of the effectiveness of drug courts with respect to future criminal offending and drug use behavior. At issue is the effectiveness of these programs relative to existing criminal justice system alternatives. The review will also critically assess the methodological soundness of the existing evidence and examine the relationship between features of the drug court and effectiveness (i.e., are some types of drug courts more or less effective than other types?). 3 Methods 3.1 Criteria for inclusion and exclusion of studies in the review The population of studies eligible for this review is experimental and quasi-experimental evaluations of drug courts that utilized a comparison group. The criteria for inclusion are (a) that the study evaluated a drug court program (defined as specialized court for handling drug cases that is nonadversarial with a mechanism for referring offenders to appropriate treatment programs and a judge who actively monitors progress and provides sanctions for misbehavior); (b) that the study included a comparison group that was treated in a traditional fashion by the court system (e.g., probation with or without referral to treatment); and (c) that the study reported a measure of criminal behavior, such as arrest or conviction for some measurement period following the start of the program (the measure may have been based on official records or self-report and may have been reported on a dichotomous or continuous scale). These criteria are inclusive with respect to methodological quality, allowing for the inclusion of studies with clear methodological weaknesses. However, studies without a comparison group or that use drug-court drop-outs as the comparison group will be excluded. The quality of the methods will be coded and the robustness of the findings examined in relationship to this methodological variability. The form for establishing study eligibility is provided in Appendix A. 3.2 Search strategy for identification of relevant studies The search strategy is designed to locate all eligible evaluations of drug courts, published or otherwise. Toward this aim, we will perform keyword searches of the following databases: Criminal Justice Periodical Index, Computerized Index to National Criminological Holdings (CINCH), Dissertation Abstracts Online, Government Publications Office Monthly Catalog, Government Publications Reference File, NCJRS, PsychINFO, Sociological Abstracts, Social SciSearch, and U.S. Political Science Documents. The keyword drug court will be used. This will cast a broad net that will be examined to identify potentially eligible studies. To identify unpublished evaluations, recent years ( ) of the American Society of Criminology conference program will be reviewed for rele-

6 Drug Court Protocol 5 vant studies. We also will contact researchers working in this field, including individuals at NPR Research, RTI, Glacier Consulting, Urban Institute, Center on Drug and Alcohol Research at the University of Kentucky. Finally, we will examine the bibliographies of literature reviews of the drug court literature (e.g., Belenko, 2001; U. S. General Accounting Office, 1997; U. S. General Accountability Office, 2005; Latimer, Morton- Bourgon, & Chrtien, 2006; Shaffer, 2006, and any other review articles we locate in the search process) and the bibliography maintained by the Drug Court Clearinghouse (http: //spa.american.edu/justice/drugcourts.php). The latter bibliography is updated regularly, is fairly comprehensive, and includes unpublished works. An initial search using these procedures has already been completed and has identified 51 eligible documents representing 38 unique studies (see reference list). We anticipate identifying several additional studies that have been completed since the time of the last search in April Description of methods used in the component studies The methods used by the studies included in this review are variations on a treatment versus comparison group research design. Experimental studies will have randomly assigned drug involved offenders to either the drug court or a regular court. The essential features of a drug court are defined above. Quasi-experimental studies will rely on naturally occurring groups of offenders processed by a drug court, by a regular court, or diverted from prosecution. Common quasi-experimental design variations may include historical controls, adjacent jurisdictions, offenders eligible for the drug court but who chose not to participate or for whom the prosecutor does not divert to the drug court, and eligible offenders who did not participate due to limited space in the drug treatment program. There is likely to be variability across studies in the nature of the comparison group. We will code the nature of the comparison group and any treatment components they receive (see the coding protocol for specifics). The studies will also vary with respect to the degree to which they employ statistical controls (matching, covariate analysis, etc.) to reduce the threat of selection bias. In all cases the participant samples will be adults or juveniles charges with a criminal offense. The influence of these methodological variations on observed effects will be examined through moderator analyses. All studies included in this review will have a measure of continued involvement in either crime or drug use. That is, studies must have some measure of criminal involvement such as arrest, conviction, or incarceration, following entry into the program, or a measure of drug use, including arrest or conviction for a drug offense. Most typically, these measures will be official indicators of arrest or conviction. We anticipate that a small number of studies may have self-report measures of these construct, such as self-report measures of drug use. A few studies may also report the results of drug testing, such as urinalysis.

7 Drug Court Protocol Criteria for determination of independent findings There are two potential sources of nonindependence of findings in this synthesis. The first is multiple indicators of recidivism and drug use reported at multiple time points, that is, multiple effect size generated from a single study. The methods for handling multiple effect sizes from a single study to ensure statistical independence are detailed below in the section on statistical procedures and conventions. In short, no analysis or compilation of effect sizes will use more than one effect size per independent study sample. The second potential source of nonindependence is the same data being reported across multiple documents. We will use author names, court location, and study time frame to identify multiple publications of the same evaluation. When such multiple publications are identified, the most complete and detailed manuscript will be designated as the primary coding source. Additional manuscript will be consulted to flush-out coding if necessary. 3.5 Details of study coding categories An elaborate coding protocol was developed for this synthesis that provides for a systematic method of extracting information regarding each study s research design, program and offender characteristics, nature of the outcome measure, and outcome data. The protocol allows for the coding of any number of effect sizes for each drug-court/comparisongroup contrast reported in a study. The method of handling the statistical dependencies this produces is discussed below. Also note that the protocol defined the drug-court/comparisongroup contrast as the primary unit-of-analysis. The coding protocol is provided in Appendix B. All studies will be double-coded by independent coders. Coding differences will be resolved by the lead author. 3.6 Statistical procedures and conventions The effect of a drug court on recidivism, including general criminal behavior and drug use, will be encoded using the odds-ratio. The odds-ratio is well suited to dichotomous outcomes such as those commonly used in drug court evaluations (e.g., percentage of the drug court and comparison group sample with an arrest or conviction at follow-up). When the measure of drug use or criminal behavior is measured continuously, we will compute a standardized mean difference type effect size and transformed it into an odds-ratio (see Hasselblad & Hedges, 1995; Lipsey & Wilson, 2001). All analyses will be performed on the logged odds-ratio using the inverse variance method (see Lipsey & Wilson, 2001). We will assume that the true program effects estimated by the studies vary both as a function of measured between study differences (moderators such as method of assignment and type of drug court) and unmeasured differences. As such, we will implement a random-effects model, or in the case of moderator analyses, a mixed-effects model (Lipsey & Wilson, 2001; Raudenbush, 1994). These anal-

8 Drug Court Protocol 7 yses will be performed using program code written for Stata that is available at http: //mason.gmu.edu/ dwilsonb/ma.html. Many studies will report data on more than one indicator of recidivism and a few studies will report on the same indicator at multiple follow-up points. The multiple effect sizes coded from a single drug-court/comparison-group contrast are statistically dependent (see Gleser & Olkin, 1994, for a discussion). Several methods exist for addressing this complication of meta-analytic data (Lipsey & Wilson, 2001). The approach that will be adopted in this synthesis will be to select one effect size for each of the following outcome types: (1) any future criminal behavior, (2) drug use behavior, and (3) non-drug use criminal behavior. Preference will be given to indicators that do not include technical violations as a component of the measure. If an outcome measure is reported for multiple follow-ups, the longest follow-up that retained 90 percent of the baseline sample will be used. Finally, any multiple effect sizes remaining within a study after implementing the a priori selection criteria, these will be averaged and the average will be used as the effect size for the primary analyses. Moderator analyses will be performed using analog-to-the ANOVA and meta-analytic regression methods (see Lipsey & Wilson, 2001). Both substantive and methodological quality measure will be examined, individually and collectively. The latter will be achieve by creating a multivariate model with method variables (e.g., random assignment to conditions, attrition, use of statistical controls, etc.) to assess for the affect of these variables collectively on important substantive moderators. That is, the meta-analytic regression analysis will examine whether the effect of a moderator variable remains after controling for method variation. 3.7 Treatment of qualitative research At this time we have no plans to include qualitative research in this systematic review. We would welcome any collaborator with expertise in the area of qualitative research to contribute a review of qualitative evaluations to this synthesis. 4 Timeframe The protocol was developed out of prior meta-analytic work by the authors on the effectiveness of drug courts. Results from this prior work has been presented at several professional conferences (Wilson, Mitchell, & MacKenzie, 2002, 2004; Wilson, 2005) and a recent journal article (Wilson, Mitchel, & MacKenzie, 2006). This protocol updates this work. As such, once the protocol is approved the proposed systematic review can be completed in a timely fashion. More specifically, we anticipate that the review could be completed by August of 2007.

9 Drug Court Protocol 8 5 Plans for Updating the Review We plan to update this review every three years in accordance with Campbell Collaborative guidelines. 6 Acknowledgments We would like to thank the Jerry Lee Foundation for partial support of this project. 7 Statement Concerning Conflict of Interest We do not have any conflicts of interest regarding drug courts. None of the authors work as part of a drug court or have any financial interest in promoting drug courts as a criminal justice system policy. References *Anspach, D. F., & Ferguson, A. S. (1999). Cumberland County s drug court program: An evaluation report of Project Exodus. Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Drug Courts Program Office. Banks, D. C. (2001). The Baltimore City Drug Treatment Court program: Drug court effect on time until rearrest (Maryland). Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park, MD. (Dissertation Abstracts International, 62(12A), p. 4341) *Bavon, A. (2001). The effect of the Tarrant County drug court project on recidivism. Evaluation and Program Planning, 24, Belenko, S. (2001). Research on drug courts: A critical review 2001 update. National Drug Court Institute Review, 4, *Brewster, M. P. (2001). An evaluation of the Chester County (PA) drug court program. Journal of Drug Issues, 31, Cooper, H., & Hedges, L. V. (Eds.). (1994). The handbook of research synthesis. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. *Cosden, M., Crothers, L., & Peerson, S. (1999). Superior Court of California County of Ventura: Drug Court (Summary Findings). Santa Barbara, CA: University of California, Graduate School of Education. *Deschenes, E. P., Cresswell, L., Emami, V., Moreno, K., Klein, Z., & Condon, C. (2001). Success of drug courts in Orange County, California: Process and outcome evaluations (Tech. Rep.). Long Beach, CA: California State University Long Beach, Department of Criminal Justice.

10 Drug Court Protocol 9 *Deschenes, E. P., & Greenwood, P. W. (1994). Maricopa County s Drug Court: An innovative program for first time drug offenders on probation. Justice System Journal, 17, (NCJRS Document Reproduction Service No. NCJ ) *Deschenes, E. P., Iman, I., Foster, T., Castellonos, E., Ha, C., Michaels, K., et al. (2000). Evaluation of Los Angeles County drug courts: (Abstract & Executive Summary). Richmond, CA: The Center for Applied Local Research. *Deschenes, E. P., Iman, I., Foster, T. L., Diaz, L., Moreno, V., Patascil, L., et al. (1999). Evaluation of Orange County Drug Courts (Tech. Rep.). Richmond, CA: The Center for Applied Local Research. *Deschenes, E. P., Turner, S., & Greenwood, P. W. (1995). Drug court or probation: An experimental evaluation of Maricopa County drug court. Justice System Journal, 18, *Dickie, J. L. (2000). Summit County Juvenile Court Drug Court (Evaluation report: July 1, 1999 June 30, 2000). Akron, OH: The Institute for Health and Social Policy, University of Akron. *Dickie, J. L. (2001). Summit County Juvenile Court Drug Court (Evaluation report: July 1, 2000 June 30, 2001). Akron, OH: The Institute for Health and Social Policy, University of Akron. Drug Court Clearinghouse. (2002). Summary of drug court activity by state and county, January 17, 2002 (Tech. Rep.). Washington, DC: Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Drug Court Clearinghouse and Technical Assistance Project. (http://www.american.edu/academic.depts/spa/justice/drugcourts.html) Drug Court Professionals, N. A. of. (1997). Defining drug courts: The key components (Tech. Rep.). Washington, DC: Office of Justice Programs, Drug Courts Program Office. *Ericson, R., Welter, S., & Johnson, T. L. (1999). Evaluation of the Hennepin County Drug Court (Tech. Rep.). Minneapolis, MN: Minnesota Citizens Council on Crime & Justice. Gleser, L. J., & Olkin, I. (1994). Stochastically dependent effect sizes. In H. Cooper & L. V. Hedges (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis (p ). New York: Russell Sage Foundation. *Godley, M. D., Dennis, M. L., Funk, R., Siekmann, M., & Weisheit, R. (1998). Madison County alternative treatment and court (Final evaluation report). Normal, IL: Lighthouse Institute, Chestnut Health Systems. *Goldkamp, J. S. (1994). Miami s treatment drug court for felony defendants: Some implications of assessment findings. The Prison Journal, 73, (NCJRS Document Reproduction Service No. NCJ ) *Goldkamp, J. S., & Weiland, D. (1993a). Assessing the impact of Dade County s felony drug court (Executive Summary). Philadelphia, PA: Temple University, Crime and Justice Research Institute. (NCJRS Document Reproduction Service No ) *Goldkamp, J. S., & Weiland, D. (1993b). Assessing the impact of Dade County s felony drug court (Final report). Philadelphia, PA: Temple University, Crime and Justice Research Institute. *Goldkamp, J. S., White, M. D., & Robinson, J. B. (2000). Retrospective evaluation of

11 Drug Court Protocol 10 two pioneering drug courts: Phase I findings from Clack County, Nevada, and Multnomah County, Oregon (Tech. Rep.). Philadelphia, PA: Temple University, Crime and Justice Research Institute. *Goldkamp, J. S., White, M. D., & Robinson, J. B. (no date). Do drug courts work?: Getting inside the drug court black box (Tech. Rep.). Philadelphia, PA: Temple University. *Gottfredson, D. C., Coblentz, K., & Harmon, M. A. (1996). A short-term outcome evaluation of the Baltimore City drug treatment court program (Tech. Rep.). College Park, MD: University of Maryland, Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice. *Gottfredson, D. C., & Exum, M. L. (2000). The Baltimore City drug court: First evaluation report (Tech. Rep.). College Park, MD: University of Maryland, Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice. *Gottfredson, D. C., Najaka, S. S., & Kearley, B. (2002a). Effectiveness of drug treatment courts: Evidence from a randomized trial (Tech. Rep.). College Park, MD: University of Maryland, Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice. *Gottfredson, D. C., Najaka, S. S., & Kearley, B. (2002b, November). A randomized study of the Baltimore City Drug Treatment Court: Results from the three-year follow-up. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Society for Criminology, Chicago, IL. *Granfield, R., Eby, C., & Brewster, T. (1998). An examination of the Denver Drug Court: The impact of a treatment-oriented drug-offender system. Law & Policy, 20, *Harrell, A., Roman, J., & Sack, E. (2001). Evaluation of the Brooklyn Treatment Court: (Tech. Rep.). Washington, DC: The Urban Institute. *Harrison, R. S., Parsons, B. V., Byrnes, E. I., & Sahami, S. (no date). Salt lake County drug court evaluation report: July, 1996 through September, 1998 (Tech. Rep.). Salt Lake City, UT: University of Utah, Social Research Institute. Hasselblad, V., & Hedges, L. V. (1995). Meta-analysis of screening and diagnostic tests. Psychological Bulletin, 117, Hora, P. F. (2002). A dozen years of drug treatment courts: Uncovering our theoretical foundation and the construction of a mainstream paradigm. Substance Use & Misuse, 37, *Johnson, G. D., Formichella, C. M., & Bowers, D. J. (1998). Do drug courts work?: An outcome evaluation of a promising program. Journal of Applied Sociology, 15, *Johnson, S., & Latessa, E. J. (2000). The Hamilton County Drug Court: Outcome evaluation findings (Tech. Rep.). Cincinnati, OH: University of Cincinnati, Center for Criminal Justice Research. *Latessa, E. J., Listwan, S. J., Shaffer, D. K., Lowenkamp, C., & Ratansi, S. (2001). Preliminary evaluation of Ohio s drug court efforts. Cincinnati, OH: University of Cincinnati, Center for Criminal Justice Research. Latimer, J., Morton-Bourgon, K., & Chrtien, J.-A. (2006, August). A meta-analytic examination of drug treatment courts: Do they reduce recidivism? (Tech. Rep. No. rr06-7). Ottawa, Ontario: Department of Justice Canada.

12 Drug Court Protocol 11 Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. *Listwan, S. J., Shaffer, D. K., & Latessa, E. J. (2001a). The Akron Municipal Drug Court: Outcome evaluation findings (Tech. Rep.). Cincinnati, OH: University of Cincinnati, Center for Criminal Justice Research. *Listwan, S. J., Shaffer, D. K., & Latessa, E. J. (2001b). The Erie County Drug Court: Outcome evaluation findings (Tech. Rep.). Cincinnati, OH: University of Cincinnati, Center for Criminal Justice Research. *M M Bell Inc. (1998). King County drug court evaluation (Final Report). Seattle, WA: Author. Marlowe, D. B., Festinger, D. S., Lee, P. A., Dugosh, K. L., & Benasutti, K. M. (2006). Matching judicial supervision to clients risk status in drug court. Crime & Delinquency, 52, *Martin, T. J., Spohn, C. C., Piper, R. K., & Robinson, J. (1999). Phase II Douglas County drug court evaluation (Final report). Omaha, NE: University of Nebraska, Institute for Social and Economic Development. *McNeece, C. A., & Byers, J. B. (1995). Hillsborough County Drug Court two year followup study (Tech. Rep.). Tallahassee, FL: Florida State University, Institute for Health and Human Services Research. *Miethe, T. D., Lu, H., & Reese, E. (2000). Reintegrative shaming and recidivism risks in drug court: Explanations for some unexpected findings. Crime & Delinquency, 46, *Miller, M. L., Scocas, E. A., & O Connell, J. P. (1998). Evaluation of the juvenile drug court diversion program (Tech. Rep.). Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Assistance. (NCJRS Document Reproduction Service No ) *O Connell, J. P., Nestlerode, E., & Miller, M. L. (1999). Evaluation of the Delaware Juvenile Drug Court diversion program (Tech. Rep.). Dover, DE: Statistical Analysis Center. *Peters, R. H., & Murrin, M. R. (1998). Evaluation of treatment-based drug courts in Florida s First Judicial Circuit (Tech. Rep.). Tampa, FL: University of South Florida, Department of Mental Health Law & Policy. *Peters, R. H., & Murrin, M. R. (2000). Effectiveness of treatment-based drug courts in reducing criminal recidivism. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 27, Raudenbush, S. W. (1994). Random effects models. In H. Cooper & L. V. Hedges (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis (pp ). New York: Russell Sage Foundation. (n.d.). (References marked with an asterisk were identified by prior bibliographic meeting the eligibility criteria) *Rempel, M., Fox, D., Farole, D., & Cissner, A. (2002, November). The impact of three New York drug courts on recidivism: Results for post-arrest and post-program recidivism. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Society for Criminology, Chicago, IL. (Center for Court Innovation, New York) *Roehl, J. (1998). Monterey County Drug Court (Evaluation report No. 1). Pacific Grove, CA: Justice Research Center.

13 Drug Court Protocol 12 *Santa Clara County Courts. (no date). Santa Clara County Courts drug treatment court (Third progress report, March 1, 1996 March 31, 1997). Santa Clara, CA: Author. *Sechrest, D. K., Shichor, D., Artist, K., & Briceno, G. (1998). The Riverside County drug court: Final research report for the Riverside County probation department, Riverside County, California (Tech. Rep.). San Bernardino, CA: California State University, Criminal Justice Department. Shaffer, D. K. (2006). Reconsidering drug court effectivenss: A meta-analytic review (Tech. Rep.). Las Vegas, NV: University of Nevada. Simpson, D. D., Joe, G. W., Broome, K. M., Hiller, M. L., Knight, K., & Rowan-Szal, G. A. (1997). Program diversity and treatment retention rates in the Drug Abuse Treatment Outcome Study (DATOS). Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 11(4), *Spohn, C., Piper, R. K., Martin, T., & Frenkel, E. D. (2001). Drug courts and recidivism: The results of an evaluation using two comparison groups and multiple indicators of recidivism. Journal of Drug Issues, 31, *Stageberg, P., Wilson, B., & Moore, R. G. (2001). Final report on the Polk County Adult Drug Court (Tech. Rep.). Des Moines, IA: Iowa Department of Human Rights, Division of Criminal and Juvenile Justice Planning. *Tauber, J. S. (1993, March). The importance of immediate and intensive intervention in a court-ordered drug rehabilitation program (Tech. Rep.). Philadelphia, PA: The President s Commission on Model State Drug Laws. *Tauber, J. S. (1995, January). An evaluation of the Oakland County Drug Court after three years: A drug diversion program of the Oakland Piedmont Emeryville Municipal Court and the Alameda County Probation Department. Paper presented at the National Association of Drug Court Professionals, National Training Conference, Las Vegas, NV. *Terry, W. C., III. (1995). Repeat offenses of the first year cohort of Broward County, Florida s drug court (Tech. Rep.). Miami, FL: Florida International University. *Terry, W. C., III. (1999). Broward County s dedicated drug treatment court: From postadjudication to diversion. In W. C. Terry III (Ed.), The early drug courts: Case studies in judicial innovation. drugs, health, and social policy series (Vol. 7, pp ). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. U. S. General Accountability Office. (2005). Adult drug courts: Evidence indicates recidivism reductions and mixed results for other outcomes. Washington, DC: author. U. S. General Accounting Office. (1997). Drug courts: Overview of growth, characteristics, and results. Washington, DC: author. *Utah Substance Abuse & Anti-Violence Coordinating Council. (2001). Salt Lake County Drug Court: Outcome evaluation. Salt Lake City, UT: Author. *Vito, G. F., & Tewksbury, R. A. (1998a). The impact of treatment: The Jefferson County (Kentucky) Drug Court program. Federal Probation, 62, *Vito, G. F., & Tewksbury, R. A. (1998b). Jefferson County drug court program: Impact evaluation, 1997 (Tech. Rep.). Louisville, KY: University of Louisville. Wilson, D. B. (2005, May). Effects of drug courts on recidivism: A systematic review. (Fifth Annual Jerry Lee Crime Prevention Symposium, Washington, DC) Wilson, D. B., Mitchel, O., & MacKenzie, D. L. (2006). A systematic review of drug court

14 Drug Court Protocol 13 effects on recidivism. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 2, Wilson, D. B., Mitchell, O., & MacKenzie, D. L. (2002, November). A systematic review of drug court effects on recidivism. (Paper presented at the meeting of the American Society of Criminology, Chicago, IL.) Wilson, D. B., Mitchell, O., & MacKenzie, D. L. (2004, May). A systematic review of drug court effects on recidivism. (Societies of Criminology 1st Key Issues Conference, Paris, France)

15 Drug Court Protocol 14 A Eligibility Checklist First Author s Last Name Document Identification Number Coder s Initials Date Eligibility Determined Document Status Eligible Not Eligible Relevant Review To be eligible, a study must meet the following criteria. Answer each question with a yes or no. Yes No The study evaluated a drug court defined as specialized court for handling drug cases that is nonadversarial with a mechanism for referring offenders to appropriate treatment programs and a judge who actively monitors progress and provides sanctions for misbehavior. To be a drug-court, all of these features must be present. The study included a comparison group that received routine criminal justice system processing. The essential feature is that the comparison group did not participate in the specialized drug court. Study design may be experimental or quasi-experimental. One-group research designs are not eligible. The study participants were exclusively under the supervision of the criminal or juvenile justice system. There is no age or gender restriction for this review. The study reported a post-program measure of criminal behavior, such as arrest or conviction. The measure may be based on official records or selfreport and may be reported on a dichotomous or continuous scale. The study was conducted in or after 1989, the year drug courts first emerged. For documents that do not meet the above criteria, answer the following questions: Notes: The document is not a quantitative evaluation study (i.e., this document does not report any data regarding the effects of a drug court). The document is a review article relevant to this project (i.e., may have references to additional eligible studies or background information useful for preparing written manuscripts for this synthesis).

16 Drug Court Protocol 15 B Coding Protocol Study Level Code Sheet Use one study level code sheet for each study. Note that a single study may be reported in multiple documents. In such cases, the study identifier is the document number for the primary publication. List all other document numbers in items 2 through 4 below. Identifying Information 1. Study (document) identifier studyid If multiple documents were used to code this study, indicate the supplemental study ID numbers. 2. Cross references document identifier crosref1 3. Cross references document identifier crosref2 4. Cross references document identifier crosref3 5. Coder s initials coder 6. Date coded date 7. Author author 8. Publication type pubtype 1. Book 2. Book Chapter 3. Government Report, Federal 4. Government Report, State/Local 5. Journal (peer reviewed) 6. Unpublished (tech report, convention paper, dissertation) 7. Other 9. Publication year pubyear 10. Number of different treatment comparison contrasts included in this report mods 11. Is the same control/comparison group used in different contrasts? (1=yes; 0=no; 8=na) same cg

17 Drug Court Protocol 16 Treatment Comparison Code Sheet A study may report on multiple independent evaluations, such as independent treatment comparison group contrasts, or may have a design that includes multiple interventions of interest contrasted with a single control group. Code separately each treatment comparison contrast eligible for the review. Note that multiple treatment groups must have independent (non-overlapping) participants. A single comparison group may be contrasted with multiple treatment groups (in this case, code item 11 of the Study Level Code Sheet as 1 ). Identifying Information 12. Study (document) identifier studyid 13. Treatment Comparison identifier modid 14. Coder s initials codermod Program Description 15. Describe what happens to the treatment group 16. Describe what happens to the comparison group progdes1 progdes2 17. What happens to the comparison group? compgrp 1. No treatment 2. Wait-list control 3. Placebo control 4. Management as usual 6. Nonparticipants in program 7. Mixed 8. Mental health treatment 9. Cannot tell 18. What is the nature of the comparison group? cgrptyp 1. Same as treatment group (random assignment) 2. Historical controls 3. Non-referred but eligible 4. Declined/rejected/withdrew 5. Noneligible drug offenders 6. Regular probation/diversion 7. Non drug court cases 8. Other treatment program 9. Could not tell

18 Drug Court Protocol Who delivers or provides the treatment? txstaff 1. Mental health professional 2. Criminal justice professional 3. Professional educator 5. Nonprofessional 6. Other 9. Cannot tell 20. Length of primary intervention in months (weeks/4.3) 1. Minimum txmon1 2. Maximum txmon2 3. Mean txmon3 4. Fixed (same for all subjects) txmon4 23. Length of aftercare or follow-up program component (weeks/4.3; record a 0 if no aftercare; record 999 if cannot tell) txafterm 24. In what format or social setting is the treatment delivered? txformat 1 One-on-one (e.g., therapist/client) 2 Group setting (e.g., classroom, group therapy) 3 Family setting (e.g., family therapy) 4 Mixed (i.e., any combination of the above) 9 Cannot tell 25. Specify the type(s) of drug abuse treatment components provided to the drug court group (2=primary component; 1=secondary component; 0=not a component): a. methadone maintenance prgtyp2a b. individual psychotherapy (cognitive-behavioral) prgtyp2b c. group psychotherapy (cognitive-behavioral) prgtyp2c d. individual psychotherapy (other/unspecified) prgtyp2d e. group psychotherapy (other/unspecified) prgtyp2e f. NA/AA prgtyp2f g. therapeutic community prgtyp2g h. other residential program prgtyp2h i. TASC prgtyp2i j. drug courts prgtyp2j k. other referral or case management type program prgtyp2k l. detoxification prgtyp2l m. other prgtyp2m 26. Specify the type(s) of drug abuse treatment components provided to the comparison group (2=primary component; 1=secondary component; 0=not a component): a. methadone maintenance prgtyp3a b. individual psychotherapy (cognitive-behavioral) prgtyp3b c. group psychotherapy (cognitive-behavioral) prgtyp3c d. individual psychotherapy (other/unspecified) prgtyp3d

19 Drug Court Protocol 18 e. group psychotherapy (other/unspecified) prgtyp3e f. NA/AA prgtyp3f g. therapeutic community prgtyp3g h. other residential program prgtyp3h i. TASC prgtyp3i j. drug courts prgtyp3j k. other referral or case management type program prgtyp3k l. detoxification prgtyp3l m. other prgtyp3m 27a. What happens to the drug charges upon successful graduation? dismissd 0. Nothing 1. Charges initial diverted; charged if failure to graduate 2. Charges dismissed upon successful graduate 3. Mixed options (judge decides) 27b. What type of adjudication model is used? dctype 1. pre-plea diversion 2. post-plea, pre-sentencing 3. post-plea, post-sentencing 4. other 27c. Is there a formal assessment of treatment needs (e.g., psychosocial assessment)? assess 0. No 1. Yes 9. Cannot tell 27d. Does the drug court use multiple treatment service providers (i.e., not have a single-provider arrangement or provide the treatment services in-house)? multprov 0. No 1. Yes 9. Cannot tell 28. Is there a formal assessment of treatment needs? (1=yes; 0=no; 9=cannot tell) 29. Does the drug court refer to multiple treatment providers? (1=yes; 0=no; 9=cannot tell) Methodological Rigor 30. Used control variables in statistical analyses to account for initial group differences (1=yes; 0=no) assess multprov cntrlvar 31. Used subject level matching (1=yes; 0=no) matching

20 Drug Court Protocol List of variables used to control/match on pretest differences. cvarlist 34. Used random assignment to conditions (1=yes; 0=no) random 35. Measured prior criminal involvement; not necessarily arrest (1=yes; 0=no) pretest

The State of Drug Court Research: What Do We Know?

The State of Drug Court Research: What Do We Know? The State of Drug Court Research: What Do We Know? Michael Rempel Center for Court Innovation E-mail: mrempel@courts.state.ny.us Presentation at Drug Courts Reexamined (An Online Event), New York, NY,

More information

GAO ADULT DRUG COURTS. Evidence Indicates Recidivism Reductions and Mixed Results for Other Outcomes. Report to Congressional Committees

GAO ADULT DRUG COURTS. Evidence Indicates Recidivism Reductions and Mixed Results for Other Outcomes. Report to Congressional Committees GAO United States Government Accountability Office Report to Congressional Committees February 2005 ADULT DRUG COURTS Evidence Indicates Recidivism Reductions and Mixed Results for Other Outcomes GAO-05-219

More information

O H I O DRUG COURT EVALUATION

O H I O DRUG COURT EVALUATION O H I O DRUG COURT EVALUATION Bob Taft, Governor Maureen O Connor, Lt. Governor Domingo S. Herraiz, Director Ohio Office of Criminal Justice Services O H I O DRUG COURT EVALUATION Bob Taft, Governor Maureen

More information

Journal of Criminal Justice

Journal of Criminal Justice Journal of Criminal Justice 40 (2012) 60 71 Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect Journal of Criminal Justice Assessing the effectiveness of drug courts on recidivism: A meta-analytic review

More information

The Facts on Drugs and Crime in America

The Facts on Drugs and Crime in America The Facts on Drugs and Crime in America Our nation s prison population has exploded beyond capacity. 1 1 in 100 U.S. citizens is now confined in jail or prison. The U.S. incarcerates more people per capita

More information

RESEARCH AND STATISTICS DIVISION. A Meta-Analytic Examination of Drug Treatment Courts: Do they Reduce Recidivism?

RESEARCH AND STATISTICS DIVISION. A Meta-Analytic Examination of Drug Treatment Courts: Do they Reduce Recidivism? S E R V I N G C A N A D I A N S RESEARCH AND STATISTICS DIVISION A Meta-Analytic Examination of Drug Treatment Courts: Do they Reduce Recidivism? A Meta-Analytic Examination of Drug Treatment Courts: Do

More information

Drug Court Effectiveness: A Review of California Evaluation Reports, 1995-1999

Drug Court Effectiveness: A Review of California Evaluation Reports, 1995-1999 : A Review of California Evaluation Reports, 1995-1999 Joseph Guydish, Ph.D.*; Ellen Wolfe, Dr.P.H.**; Barbara Tajima, Ed.M.*** & William J. Woods, Ph.D.**** Abstract Over the past two decades, drug courts

More information

THE FACTS ON ADULT DRUG COURTS 1

THE FACTS ON ADULT DRUG COURTS 1 THE FACTS ON ADULT DRUG COURTS 1 By Douglas B. Marlowe, J.D., Ph.D. Chief of Science & Policy Effectiveness More research has been published on the effects of adult drug courts than virtually all other

More information

Overview of Drug Courts in Texas

Overview of Drug Courts in Texas Overview of Drug Courts in Texas Criminal Justice Policy Council January 2002 Tony Fabelo, Ph.D. Executive Director Overview of Drug Courts in Texas To view or download this report, visit our website at

More information

The Erie County Drug Court: Outcome Evaluation Findings

The Erie County Drug Court: Outcome Evaluation Findings The Erie County Drug Court: Outcome Evaluation Findings February 2001 By: Shelley Johnson Listwan, M.S. Co-Project Director Deborah Koetzle Shaffer, M.A. Co-Project Director and Edward J. Latessa, Ph.D.

More information

Long-term effects of participation in the Baltimore City drug treatment court: Results from an experimental study

Long-term effects of participation in the Baltimore City drug treatment court: Results from an experimental study Journal of Experimental Criminology (2006) 2: 67Y 98 # Springer 2006 DOI: 10.1007/s11292-005-5128-8 Long-term effects of participation in the Baltimore City drug treatment court: Results from an experimental

More information

Preliminary Evaluation of Ohio s Drug Court Efforts

Preliminary Evaluation of Ohio s Drug Court Efforts Preliminary Evaluation of Ohio s Drug Court Efforts Draft report September 2001 Final report issued November 2001 By: Edward J. Latessa, Ph.D. Principal Investigator Shelley Johnson Listwan, Ph.D. Project

More information

THE FACTS ON JUVENILE DRUG TREATMENT COURTS 1

THE FACTS ON JUVENILE DRUG TREATMENT COURTS 1 THE FACTS ON JUVENILE DRUG TREATMENT COURTS 1 By Douglas B. Marlowe, J.D., Ph.D. Chief of Science & Policy Research on Juvenile Drug Treatment Courts (JDTCs) has lagged considerably behind that of its

More information

Drug Court. Specifically, a juvenile drug court is a court that focuses on juvenile delinquency matters and

Drug Court. Specifically, a juvenile drug court is a court that focuses on juvenile delinquency matters and Drug Court Juvenile drug courts (JDCs) are intensive treatment programs established within and supervised by juvenile courts to provide specialized services for eligible drug-involved youths and their

More information

Utah Cost of Crime. Therapeutic Communities in Secure Settings for Substanceabusing Offenders (Juveniles): Technical Report.

Utah Cost of Crime. Therapeutic Communities in Secure Settings for Substanceabusing Offenders (Juveniles): Technical Report. Utah Cost of Crime Therapeutic Communities in Secure Settings for Substanceabusing Offenders (Juveniles): Technical Report December 2012 Utah Cost of Crime Therapeutic Communities in Secure Settings for

More information

State s Drug Courts Could Expand to Target Prison-Bound Adult Offenders

State s Drug Courts Could Expand to Target Prison-Bound Adult Offenders March 2009 Report No. 09-13 State s Drug Courts Could Expand to Target Prison-Bound Adult Offenders at a glance Drug courts provide supervised community treatment designed to divert drug-addicted offenders

More information

Drug Court as Diversion for Youthful Offenders

Drug Court as Diversion for Youthful Offenders Drug Court as Diversion for Youthful Offenders Juvenile Drug Courts in Hawaii: A Policy Brief Introduction The problem of drug abuse among the general population in the United States began to escalate

More information

Drug Courts Effects on Criminal Offending for Juveniles and Adults

Drug Courts Effects on Criminal Offending for Juveniles and Adults Campbell Systematic Reviews 2012:4 First published: 02 February, 2012 Last updated: December, 2011 Search executed: August, 2011 Drug Courts Effects on Criminal Offending for Juveniles and Adults Ojmarrh

More information

POTTER, RANDALL AND ARMSTRONG COUNTIES DRUG COURT: A VIABLE COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS RESOURCE

POTTER, RANDALL AND ARMSTRONG COUNTIES DRUG COURT: A VIABLE COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS RESOURCE POTTER, RANDALL AND ARMSTRONG COUNTIES DRUG COURT: A VIABLE COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS RESOURCE HON. JOHN B. BOARD Judge, 181 st District Court State Bar of Texas SEX, DRUGS & SURVEILLANCE January 10-11, 2013

More information

CURRICULUM VITAE. Lauren M. Block

CURRICULUM VITAE. Lauren M. Block Revised August 2014 CURRICULUM VITAE Lauren M. Block Student Academic Center 403 PO Box 1495 Spokane, WA 99210-1495 E-mail: lblock@wsu.edu EDUCATION 2015 Ph.D., Criminal Justice & Criminology (expected)

More information

A systematic review of drug court effects on recidivism

A systematic review of drug court effects on recidivism Journal of Experimental Criminology (2006) 2:459-487 DOl: JO. J007/sll292-006-9019-4 : Springer 2006 Systematic review A systematic review of drug court effects on recidivism DA VlD B. WILSON Administration

More information

RESEARCH ON DRUG COURTS: A CRITICAL REVIEW 2001 UPDATE

RESEARCH ON DRUG COURTS: A CRITICAL REVIEW 2001 UPDATE Research on Drug Courts: A Critical Review i RESEARCH ON DRUG COURTS: A CRITICAL REVIEW 2001 UPDATE by Steven Belenko, Ph.D. The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University

More information

Utah Cost of Crime. Drug Court (Juveniles): Technical Report. December 2012

Utah Cost of Crime. Drug Court (Juveniles): Technical Report. December 2012 Utah Cost of Crime Drug Court (Juveniles): Technical Report December 2012 Utah Cost of Crime Drug Court (Juveniles): Technical Report Jennifer K. Molloy, M.S.W. Christian M. Sarver, M.S.W. Robert P. Butters,

More information

Drug Treatment Courts: A Quantitative Review of Study and Treatment Quality 2009-04

Drug Treatment Courts: A Quantitative Review of Study and Treatment Quality 2009-04 Drug Treatment Courts: A Quantitative Review of Study and Treatment Quality 2009-04 Leticia Gutierrez & Guy Bourgon Public Safety Canada Abstract The effectiveness of drug courts has been debated in regards

More information

The New York State Adult Drug Court Evaluation

The New York State Adult Drug Court Evaluation 520 Eighth Avenue, 18 th Floor New York, New York 10018 212.397.3050 fax 212.397.0985 www.courtinnovation.org Executive Summary: The New York State Adult Drug Court Evaluation Policies, Participants and

More information

Attachment EE - Grant Application RSAT Aftercare

Attachment EE - Grant Application RSAT Aftercare Attachment EE - Grant Application RSAT Aftercare Residential Substance Abuse Treatment (RSAT) for State Prisoners Program CFDA #16.593 Statement of the Problem The Maryland Department of Public Safety

More information

The Hamilton County Drug Court: Outcome Evaluation Findings

The Hamilton County Drug Court: Outcome Evaluation Findings The Hamilton County Drug Court: Outcome Evaluation Findings Final Report Submitted by: Shelley Johnson, M.S. Project Director and Edward J. Latessa, Ph.D. Principal Investigator University of Cincinnati

More information

ONDCP. Drug Policy Information Clearinghouse FACT SHEET John P. Walters, Director www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov 1-800-666-3332

ONDCP. Drug Policy Information Clearinghouse FACT SHEET John P. Walters, Director www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov 1-800-666-3332 UNUM Executive Office of the President Office of National Drug Control Policy E PLURIBUS OFFICE OF NATIONAL POLICY D RUG CONTROL ONDCP March 2001 Drug Policy Information Clearinghouse FACT SHEET John P.

More information

The Effect of Drug Court Programming on Recidivism: The Cincinnati Experience

The Effect of Drug Court Programming on Recidivism: The Cincinnati Experience 10.1177/0011128703253762 CRIME Listwan & et al. DELINQUENCY / DRUG COURT / JULY PROGRAMMING 2003 The Effect of Drug Court Programming on Recidivism: The Cincinnati Experience Shelley Johnson Listwan Jody

More information

Performance Measurement and Program Evaluation For Drug Courts. Fred L. Cheesman II, Ph.D. The National Center for State Courts

Performance Measurement and Program Evaluation For Drug Courts. Fred L. Cheesman II, Ph.D. The National Center for State Courts Performance Measurement and Program Evaluation For Drug Courts Fred L. Cheesman II, Ph.D. The National Center for State Courts Module 1: Introduction Goal of this Presentation To enable participants to

More information

King County Drug Court Program Profile

King County Drug Court Program Profile Appendix B1 County Drug Court Profiles: King County Drug Court Program Profile 40 KING COUNTY ADULT DRUG COURT PROGRAM PROFILE June 2000 BACKGROUND The King County Drug Court program, the oldest in the

More information

Overall, 67.8% of the 404,638 state

Overall, 67.8% of the 404,638 state U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report April 2014 ncj 244205 Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 30 States in 2005: Patterns from 2005 to 2010

More information

Bernalillo County Metropolitan Court DWI- Drug Court Stage One Outcome Study

Bernalillo County Metropolitan Court DWI- Drug Court Stage One Outcome Study Bernalillo County Metropolitan Court DWI- Drug Court Stage One Outcome Study June 2009 Paul Guerin, Ph.D. Alex Adams Ben Edwards, M.A. Elizabeth Watkins, M.P.A. Prepared for: Local Government Division,

More information

Criminal Arrest Patterns of Clients Entering and Exiting Community Substance Abuse Treatment in Lucas County Ohio, USA

Criminal Arrest Patterns of Clients Entering and Exiting Community Substance Abuse Treatment in Lucas County Ohio, USA Criminal Arrest Patterns of Clients Entering and Exiting Community Substance Abuse Treatment in Lucas County Ohio, USA LOIS A. VENTURA AND ERIC G. LAMBERT 1 ABSTRACT Research on drugs and crime typically

More information

Re-validation of the Nonviolent Offender Risk Assessment Instrument: Study Update

Re-validation of the Nonviolent Offender Risk Assessment Instrument: Study Update Re-validation of the Nonviolent Offender Risk Assessment Instrument: Study Update Current Instrument 3 Refined Risk Assessment Instrument: Significant Factors in Assessing Risk Relative Degree of Importance

More information

January 2014 Report No. 14-02

January 2014 Report No. 14-02 January 2014 Report No. 14-02 Expansion Drug Courts Can Produce Positive Outcomes Through Prison Diversion and Reduced Recidivism at a glance Overall, the eight expansion drug courts appear to divert non-violent

More information

Know. need to. Research Update on Adult Drug Courts. Effectiveness

Know. need to. Research Update on Adult Drug Courts. Effectiveness need to Know Research Update on Adult Drug Courts By Douglas B. Marlowe, J.D., Ph.D. Chief of Science, Law & Policy December 2010 T he effectiveness of adult Drug Courts is not a matter of conjecture.

More information

DRUG COURT REVIEW. Volume IV, Issue 1 Summer 2002 NATIONAL DRUG COURT INSTITUTE ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA

DRUG COURT REVIEW. Volume IV, Issue 1 Summer 2002 NATIONAL DRUG COURT INSTITUTE ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA DRUG COURT REVIEW Volume IV, Issue 1 Summer 2002 NATIONAL DRUG COURT INSTITUTE ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA Drug Court Review, Vol. IV, 1 39 DRUG COURT PARTICIPANTS SATISFACTION WITH TREATMENT AND THE COURT EXPERIENCE

More information

2007 Innovations Awards Program APPLICATION

2007 Innovations Awards Program APPLICATION 2007 Innovations Awards Program APPLICATION CSG reserves the right to use or publish in other CSG products and services the information provided in this Innovations Awards Program Application. If your

More information

THE FACTS ON DWI COURTS. By Douglas B. Marlowe, J.D., Ph.D. Evaluations of DWI Courts have yielded inconsistent findings. For the most part, the mixed

THE FACTS ON DWI COURTS. By Douglas B. Marlowe, J.D., Ph.D. Evaluations of DWI Courts have yielded inconsistent findings. For the most part, the mixed THE FACTS ON DWI COURTS By Douglas B. Marlowe, J.D., Ph.D. Evaluations of DWI Courts have yielded inconsistent findings. For the most part, the mixed results can be attributed to wide variability in the

More information

SHORT TITLE: Criminal procedure; creating the Oklahoma Drug Court Act; codification; emergency.

SHORT TITLE: Criminal procedure; creating the Oklahoma Drug Court Act; codification; emergency. SHORT TITLE: Criminal procedure; creating the Oklahoma Drug Court Act; codification; emergency. STATE OF OKLAHOMA 2nd Session of the 45th Legislature (1996) SENATE BILL NO. 1153 By: Hobson AS INTRODUCED

More information

Most states juvenile justice systems have

Most states juvenile justice systems have BRIEF I Setting the Stage: Juvenile Justice History, Statistics, and Practices in the United States and North Carolina Ann Brewster Most states juvenile justice systems have two main goals: increased public

More information

Multisystemic Therapy With Juvenile Sexual Offenders: Clinical and Cost Effectiveness

Multisystemic Therapy With Juvenile Sexual Offenders: Clinical and Cost Effectiveness Multisystemic Therapy With Juvenile Sexual Offenders: Clinical and Cost Effectiveness Charles M. Borduin Missouri Delinquency Project Department of Psychological Sciences University of Missouri-Columbia

More information

Drug Use, Testing, and Treatment in Jails By Doris James Wilson BJS Statistician

Drug Use, Testing, and Treatment in Jails By Doris James Wilson BJS Statistician U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Revised 9/29/00 Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report May 2000, NCJ 179999 Drug Use, Testing, and Treatment in Jails By Doris James Wilson BJS

More information

FAMILY DRUG COURT PROGRAM

FAMILY DRUG COURT PROGRAM SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI Administrative Office of Courts FAMILY DRUG COURT PROGRAM REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL PURPOSE OF THE REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL Through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009

More information

Con-Quest Residential Substance Abuse Treatment Program Outcome Evaluation. February 2004

Con-Quest Residential Substance Abuse Treatment Program Outcome Evaluation. February 2004 Residential Substance Abuse Treatment Program Outcome Evaluation February 2004 Introduction The link between drugs and crime in the United States is widely accepted. Drug users frequently commit crime

More information

Bail Decisionmaking. Research Summary. Prepared by:

Bail Decisionmaking. Research Summary. Prepared by: Bail Decisionmaking Research Summary Prepared by: Lindsey Devers, Ph.D. CSR, Incorporated 2107 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 1000 Arlington, VA 20001 www.csrincorporated.com Under Contract No. GS-10F-0114L,

More information

Over the last several years, the importance of the risk principle has been

Over the last several years, the importance of the risk principle has been Understanding the Risk Principle: How and Why Correctional Interventions Can Harm Low-Risk Offenders Over the last several years, the importance of the risk principle has been well established in many

More information

The FUNDAMENTALS Of DRUG TREATMENT COURT. Hon. Patrick C. Bowler, Ret.

The FUNDAMENTALS Of DRUG TREATMENT COURT. Hon. Patrick C. Bowler, Ret. The FUNDAMENTALS Of DRUG TREATMENT COURT Hon. Patrick C. Bowler, Ret. Drug Treatment Courts A New Way Partner with Treatment Transform Roles Non-adversarial/Team Shared Goal of Recovery Communication Immediate

More information

WHAT IS THE ILLINOIS CENTER OF EXCELLENCE AND HOW DID IT START? MISSION STATEMENT

WHAT IS THE ILLINOIS CENTER OF EXCELLENCE AND HOW DID IT START? MISSION STATEMENT WHAT IS THE ILLINOIS CENTER OF EXCELLENCE AND HOW DID IT START? MISSION STATEMENT The mission of the Illinois Center of Excellence for Behavioral Health and Justice is to equip communities to appropriately

More information

Washington State Institute for Public Policy

Washington State Institute for Public Policy Washington State Institute for Public Policy 110 Fifth Avenue Southeast, Suite 214 PO Box 40999 Olympia, WA 98504-0999 (360) 586-2677 FAX (360) 586-2793 www.wsipp.wa.gov SUMMARY 1 December 2004 WASHINGTON

More information

Drug Courts and PDMPs M A Y 1 4, 2 0 1 4

Drug Courts and PDMPs M A Y 1 4, 2 0 1 4 Drug Courts and PDMPs M A Y 1 4, 2 0 1 4 Disclaimer Language of the drug court field can be confusing. Terms Drug court, problem solving court and specialty court are sometimes used interchangeably by

More information

Washington State Institute for Public Policy

Washington State Institute for Public Policy Washington State Institute for Public Policy 110 Fifth Avenue SE, Suite 214 PO Box 40999 Olympia, WA 98504-0999 (360) 586-2677 FAX (360) 586-2793 www.wsipp.wa.gov March 2003 WASHINGTON STATE S DRUG COURTS

More information

Mercyhurst College Civic Institute

Mercyhurst College Civic Institute Mercyhurst College Civic Institute ERIE COUNTY TREATMENT COURT YEAR 1: Mental Health Court Status Report April 2003 Published by: Mercyhurst Civic Institute Emily Reitenbach Art Amann TABLE OF CONTENTS

More information

Know. need to. Research on Juvenile Drug Treatment Courts (JDTCs) has lagged. Research Update on Juvenile Drug Treatment Courts.

Know. need to. Research on Juvenile Drug Treatment Courts (JDTCs) has lagged. Research Update on Juvenile Drug Treatment Courts. need to Know Research Update on Juvenile Drug Treatment Courts By Douglas B. Marlowe, J.D., Ph.D. Chief of Science, Law & Policy December 2010 Research on Juvenile Drug Treatment Courts (JDTCs) has lagged

More information

The Drug Court program is for addicted offenders. The program treats a drug as a drug and an addict as an addict, regardless of the drug of choice.

The Drug Court program is for addicted offenders. The program treats a drug as a drug and an addict as an addict, regardless of the drug of choice. Drug Court Handbook Mission Statement Drug Courts in the 7th Judicial District will strive to reduce recidivism of alcohol & drug offenders in the criminal justice system and provide community protection

More information

The Role of Traditional Pretrial Diversion in the Age of Specialty Treatment Courts: Expanding the Range of Problem-Solving Options at the Pretrial

The Role of Traditional Pretrial Diversion in the Age of Specialty Treatment Courts: Expanding the Range of Problem-Solving Options at the Pretrial The Role of Traditional Pretrial Diversion in the Age of Specialty Treatment Courts: Expanding the Range of Problem-Solving Options at the Pretrial Stage By John Clark Pretrial Justice Institute (formerly

More information

The Southwest Journal of Criminal Justice, Vol. 8(2) Drug Treatment Court Versus Probation: An Examination of Comparative Recidivism Rates

The Southwest Journal of Criminal Justice, Vol. 8(2) Drug Treatment Court Versus Probation: An Examination of Comparative Recidivism Rates recidivism rates of the drug offenders in the same jurisdiction who were supervised by the "normal" probation system. BACKGROUND Drug Treatment Court Versus Probation: An Examination of Comparative Recidivism

More information

Fourth Judicial District of Minnesota Pretrial Evaluation: Scale Validation Study

Fourth Judicial District of Minnesota Pretrial Evaluation: Scale Validation Study Fourth Judicial District of Minnesota Pretrial Evaluation: Scale Validation Study Fourth Judicial District Research Division Marcy R. Podkopacz, Ph.D., Research Director October, 2006 www.mncourts.gov/district/4

More information

The Substance Abuse Felony Punishment Program: Evaluation and Recommendations

The Substance Abuse Felony Punishment Program: Evaluation and Recommendations The Substance Abuse Felony Punishment Program: Evaluation and Recommendations Criminal Justice Policy Council Prepared for the 77 th Texas Legislature, 2001 Tony Fabelo, Ph.D. Executive Director The Substance

More information

ATLANTIC JUDICIAL CIRCUIT DRUG COURT

ATLANTIC JUDICIAL CIRCUIT DRUG COURT ATLANTIC JUDICIAL CIRCUIT DRUG COURT History The Atlantic Judicial Circuit began exploring the possibility of a Drug Court in 2008 under the leadership of Superior Court Judge D. Jay Stewart. A planning

More information

When incarceration rates increase 10%, research shows that crime rates

When incarceration rates increase 10%, research shows that crime rates Evidence-Based Public Policy Options to Reduce Criminal Justice Costs and Crime Rates by Assistant Director Washington State Institute for Public Policy When incarceration rates increase 10%, research

More information

Criminal Justice Professionals Attitudes Towards Offenders: Assessing the Link between Global Orientations and Specific Attributions

Criminal Justice Professionals Attitudes Towards Offenders: Assessing the Link between Global Orientations and Specific Attributions Criminal Justice Professionals Attitudes Towards s: Assessing the Link between Global Orientations and Specific Attributions Prepared by: Dale Willits, M.A. Lisa Broidy, Ph.D. Christopher Lyons, Ph.D.

More information

Federal Purpose Area 5 Drug Treatment Programs

Federal Purpose Area 5 Drug Treatment Programs Federal Purpose Area 5 Drug Treatment Programs State Purpose Areas: 11F Mental Health Services 11F.01 Provide mental health services through various treatment modalities to a specified number of clients.

More information

Adult Criminal Justice Case Processing in Washington, DC

Adult Criminal Justice Case Processing in Washington, DC Adult Criminal Justice Case Processing in Washington, DC P. Mitchell Downey John Roman, Ph.D. Akiva Liberman, Ph.D. February 2012 1 Criminal Justice Case Processing in Washington, DC P. Mitchell Downey

More information

The author(s) shown below used Federal funds provided by the U.S. Department of Justice and prepared the following final report:

The author(s) shown below used Federal funds provided by the U.S. Department of Justice and prepared the following final report: The author(s) shown below used Federal funds provided by the U.S. Department of Justice and prepared the following final report: Document Title: Author(s): Recidivism Rates for Drug Court Graduates: Nationally

More information

This chapter shall be known and may be cited as the Alyce Griffin Clarke Drug Court Act.

This chapter shall be known and may be cited as the Alyce Griffin Clarke Drug Court Act. 9-23-1. Short title This chapter shall be known and may be cited as the Alyce Griffin Clarke Drug Court Act. HISTORY: SOURCES: Laws, 2003, ch. 515, 1, eff from and after July 1, 2003. 9-23-3. Legislative

More information

SEATTLE MUNICIPAL COMMUNITY COURT

SEATTLE MUNICIPAL COMMUNITY COURT SEATTLE MUNICIPAL COMMUNITY COURT Outcome Evaluation Final Report October 2009 By: M. Elaine Nugent Borakove TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction...1 Evaluation Design...2 Principal Findings...3 Defendant Characteristics...4

More information

Reform of the Rockefeller Drug Laws and the Impact on Criminal Justice

Reform of the Rockefeller Drug Laws and the Impact on Criminal Justice Reform of the Rockefeller Drug Laws and the Impact on Criminal Justice Hon. Judy Harris Kluger Chief of Policy and Planning New York State Unified Court System Michael Rempel Director of Research Center

More information

Georgia Accountability Court Adult Felony Drug Court. Policy and Procedure Manual

Georgia Accountability Court Adult Felony Drug Court. Policy and Procedure Manual Georgia Accountability Court Adult Felony Drug Court Policy and Procedure Manual Contents Policy and Procedure Manual: Adult Felony Drug Court Overall purpose...3 Mission Statement...4 Adult Drug Court

More information

CUMULATIVE SECOND YEAR COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS OF PIMA COUNTY S DRUG TREATMENT ALTERNATIVE TO PRISON PROGRAM REPORT

CUMULATIVE SECOND YEAR COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS OF PIMA COUNTY S DRUG TREATMENT ALTERNATIVE TO PRISON PROGRAM REPORT CUMULATIVE SECOND YEAR COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS OF PIMA COUNTY S DRUG TREATMENT ALTERNATIVE TO PRISON PROGRAM REPORT Submitted to: Barbara LaWall Pima County Attorney and Melissa Rueschhoff, Esq. Program

More information

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS SERIES: Current Focus of Drug Court Programs

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS SERIES: Current Focus of Drug Court Programs JUSTICE PROGRAMS OFFICE SCHOOL OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS SERIES: Current Focus of Drug Court Programs Subject: Current Focus of Drug Court Programs Within The Criminal Justice Process

More information

Mental Health Needs of Juvenile Offenders. Mental Health Needs of Juvenile Offenders. Juvenile Justice Guide Book for Legislators

Mental Health Needs of Juvenile Offenders. Mental Health Needs of Juvenile Offenders. Juvenile Justice Guide Book for Legislators Mental Health Needs of Juvenile Offenders Mental Health Needs of Juvenile Offenders Juvenile Justice Guide Book for Legislators Mental Health Needs of Juvenile Offenders Introduction Children with mental

More information

More than $22.7 Million for 16 Task Forces

More than $22.7 Million for 16 Task Forces More than $22.7 Million for 16 Task Forces FY 2015 Enhanced Collaborative Model to Combat Human Trafficking Purpose Area 1: Development of Human Trafficking Task Forces 1 2 3 Recipient CODAC Behavioral

More information

Title and Authors The Effectiveness of Incarceration-Based Drug Treatment on Criminal Behavior Ojmarrh Mitchell (Corresponding Author), David B.

Title and Authors The Effectiveness of Incarceration-Based Drug Treatment on Criminal Behavior Ojmarrh Mitchell (Corresponding Author), David B. Title and Authors The Effectiveness of Incarceration-Based Drug Treatment on Criminal Behavior Ojmarrh Mitchell (Corresponding Author), David B. Wilson, and Doris L. MacKenzie Objectives To synthesize

More information

Dona Ana County Magistrate Court DWI- Drug Court Outcome Study

Dona Ana County Magistrate Court DWI- Drug Court Outcome Study Dona Ana County Magistrate Court DWI- Drug Court Outcome Study May 2009 Paul Guerin, Ph.D. Elizabeth Watkins, M.P.A. Prepared for: Local Government Division, Department of Finance Administration, State

More information

Section I Adult Drug Court Standards

Section I Adult Drug Court Standards Section I Table of Contents 1. Drug courts integrate alcohol and other drug treatment services with justice system case processing....3 2. Using a non-adversarial approach, prosecution and defense counsel

More information

The Juvenile Justice Commission s Stabilization and Reintegration Program: An Updated Recidivism Analysis

The Juvenile Justice Commission s Stabilization and Reintegration Program: An Updated Recidivism Analysis The Juvenile Justice Commission s Stabilization and Reintegration Program: An Updated Recidivism Analysis Submitted by: New Jersey Department of Law & Public Safety Juvenile Justice Commission Office of

More information

PARTICIPANT HANDBOOK LYON AND CHASE COUNTIES

PARTICIPANT HANDBOOK LYON AND CHASE COUNTIES DRUG COURT PARTICIPANT HANDBOOK LYON AND CHASE COUNTIES Updated August 2014 MISSION STATEMENT Drug Court in the 5 th Judicial District will strive to reduce recidivism of alcohol and drug offenders in

More information

# Surveyed Courts 76 132 208 % Responding Courts 72% 65% 68% % with Responding Treatment Providers

# Surveyed Courts 76 132 208 % Responding Courts 72% 65% 68% % with Responding Treatment Providers The National Drug Court Survey Lead Research Center Faye Taxman, Doug Young, Anne Rhodes, Matthew Perdoni, Stephen Belenko, Matthew Hiller Collaborating Research Centers National Institute on Drug Abuse

More information

National Institute of Justice

National Institute of Justice U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs National Institute of Justice National Institute of Justice Jeremy Travis, Director R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f April 2000 Issues and Findings Discussed

More information

The State of Drug Court Research

The State of Drug Court Research research A Public/Private Partnership with the New York State Unified Court System The State of Drug Court Research Moving Beyond Do They Work? Written by Amanda B. Cissner Michael Rempel 2005 This publication

More information

Treating Juvenile Offenders and At-Risk Youth With MRT : Comprehensive Review of Outcome Literature By Gregory L. Little

Treating Juvenile Offenders and At-Risk Youth With MRT : Comprehensive Review of Outcome Literature By Gregory L. Little Reference: Cognitive Behavioral Treatment Review, (2004) 13 (2), 1-4. Treating Juvenile Offenders and At-Risk Youth With MRT : Comprehensive Review of Outcome Literature By Gregory L. Little Summary Twenty

More information

Michigan DUI Courts Outcome Evaluation

Michigan DUI Courts Outcome Evaluation Michigan DUI Courts Outcome Evaluation Final Report Bay County Michigan Supreme Court State Court Administrative Office P.O. Box 30048 Lansing, MI 48909 www.courts.mi.gov Ottawa County Oakland County NPC

More information

DeKalb County Drug Court: C.L.E.A.N. Program (Choosing Life and Ending Abuse Now)

DeKalb County Drug Court: C.L.E.A.N. Program (Choosing Life and Ending Abuse Now) DeKalb County Drug Court: C.L.E.A.N. Program (Choosing Life and Ending Abuse Now) MISSION STATEMENT The mission of the DeKalb County Drug Court:.C.L.E.A.N. Program (Choosing Life and Ending Abuse Now)

More information

Aftercare/Reentry Theoretical Foundation

Aftercare/Reentry Theoretical Foundation Aftercare/Reentry Aftercare can be defined as reintegrative services that prepare out-of-home placed juveniles for reentry into the community by establishing the necessary collaboration with the community

More information

[As Amended by Senate Committee of the Whole] SENATE BILL No. 351. By Joint Committee on Corrections and Juvenile Justice Oversight 1-11

[As Amended by Senate Committee of the Whole] SENATE BILL No. 351. By Joint Committee on Corrections and Juvenile Justice Oversight 1-11 Session of 00 [As Amended by Senate Committee of the Whole] SENATE BILL No. By Joint Committee on Corrections and Juvenile Justice Oversight - 0 0 0 AN ACT concerning crimes, punishment and criminal procedure;

More information

Gender Effects in the Alaska Juvenile Justice System

Gender Effects in the Alaska Juvenile Justice System Gender Effects in the Alaska Juvenile Justice System Report to the Justice and Statistics Research Association by André Rosay Justice Center University of Alaska Anchorage JC 0306.05 October 2003 Gender

More information

State Notes TOPICS OF LEGISLATIVE INTEREST July/August 2008

State Notes TOPICS OF LEGISLATIVE INTEREST July/August 2008 Mental Health Courts: A New Tool By Stephanie Yu, Fiscal Analyst For fiscal year (FY) 2008-09, appropriations for the Judiciary and the Department of Community Health (DCH) include funding for a mental

More information

Treatment for Adolescent Substance Use Disorders: What Works?

Treatment for Adolescent Substance Use Disorders: What Works? Treatment for Adolescent Substance Use Disorders: What Works? Mark W. Lipsey Emily E. Tanner-Smith Sandra J. Wilson Peabody Research Institute, Vanderbilt University Addiction Health Services Research

More information

Curriculum Vitae Eric S. McCord

Curriculum Vitae Eric S. McCord Curriculum Vitae Eric S. McCord Assistant Professor Department of Justice Administration 215 Brigman Hall (502) 852-0376 University of Louisville Louisville, KY 40292 eric.mccord@louisville.edu Education

More information

TREATMENT COURTS IN NEBRASKA

TREATMENT COURTS IN NEBRASKA TREATMENT COURTS IN NEBRASKA ALTERNATIVES TO INCARCERATION If you are currently facing charges in Nebraska, or have a loved one who is, it is in your best interest to consult with an experienced Nebraska

More information

Drug and Mental Health Court Support for the Criminal Offender

Drug and Mental Health Court Support for the Criminal Offender Drug and Mental Health Court Support for the Criminal Offender SUMMARY The Orange County Drug Courts and the Dual-Diagnosis Court are successful models for a needed Mental Health Court. About five people

More information

Reference: Cognitive-Behavioral Treatment Review (2005), Vol. 14 (1/2), 14-16

Reference: Cognitive-Behavioral Treatment Review (2005), Vol. 14 (1/2), 14-16 Reference: Cognitive-Behavioral Treatment Review (2005), Vol. 14 (1/2), 14-16 Meta-Analysis of Moral Reconation Therapy Recidivism Results From Probation and Parole Implementations By Gregory L. Little,

More information

Forever Free has been implemented at the California Institution for Women, a female-only State prison in Riverside County, California, since 1991.

Forever Free has been implemented at the California Institution for Women, a female-only State prison in Riverside County, California, since 1991. Forever Free Forever Free is a drug treatment program for women who abuse drugs and are incarcerated. The intervention aims to reduce drug use and improve behaviors of women during incarceration and while

More information

Cowlitz County Drug Court Evaluation

Cowlitz County Drug Court Evaluation Cowlitz County Drug Court Evaluation Prepared by: Principal Investigator Mark Krause, Ph.D. Laurie Drapela, Ph.D. Consultants Research Assistants: Kate Wilson, Jillian Schrupp, Jen Haner Department of

More information

Veterans Treatment Courts: Dignified Handling of Traumatized Veterans

Veterans Treatment Courts: Dignified Handling of Traumatized Veterans Veterans Treatment Courts: Dignified Handling of Traumatized Veterans Duncan MacVicar California Veterans Legal Task Force Veteran and Domestic Violence In-Service Seminar Swords to Plowshares March 2012

More information

FACT SHEET. Views from the National Council on Crime and Delinquency. Youth Under Age 18 in the Adult Criminal Justice System. Christopher Hartney

FACT SHEET. Views from the National Council on Crime and Delinquency. Youth Under Age 18 in the Adult Criminal Justice System. Christopher Hartney June 26 FACT SHEET Views from the National Council on Crime and Delinquency Youth Under Age 18 in the Adult Criminal Justice System Christopher Hartney Negative Impacts on Youth Processed in the Adult

More information

Adult Mental Health Court Certification Application

Adult Mental Health Court Certification Application As required by O.C.G.A. 15-1-16, to receive state appropriated funds adult mental health courts must be certified by the Judicial Council of Georgia (Council). The certification process is part of an effort

More information