Drug courts: Current issues and future perspectives

Substance Use and Misuse

Volumn 38, Issue 11-13, 2003, Pages

  Cooper, Caroline S ^a  

^a AMERICAN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Adjudication; After care; Case management services; Case manager; Compliance; Demographic characteristics of participants; Drug court; Drug court judge; Drug court participant; Drug testing; Eligibility criteria; Evaluation; Juvenile matters; Phases

Indexed keywords

ADDICTION; ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; CONFERENCE PAPER; COURT; CRIME; DRUG ABUSE; DRUG CONTROL; FEMALE; FORECASTING; HEALTH EDUCATION; HEALTH PROGRAM; HEALTH SERVICE; HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH; HUMAN; JURISPRUDENCE; LEGAL ASPECT; MALE; ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT; PATIENT CARE; PATIENT REFERRAL; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PRISONER; PUBLIC HEALTH; RECURRENT DISEASE; SUBSTANCE ABUSE; UNITED STATES; VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION;

EID: 0142011545     PISSN: 10826084     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1081/JA-120024237     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (15)

1. Belenko, S. (2001). Research on Drug Courts: A Critical Review: 2001 Update. The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University, June (Publication funded by a grant from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation). Provides a critical review of 37 published and unpublished evaluations of drug courts (including seven juvenile drug courts, one DUI court, and one family drug court) produced between 1999 and April 2001. The findings of this report are generally consistent with previously prepared analyses by the author, and note that drug use and criminal activity are relatively reduced while participants are in the program. The author states that longer-term post-program impact is less clear due to the availability and/or limitations of research in this area.
2. (1977). Defining Drug Courts: The Key Components. National Association of Drug Court Professionals. Drug Courts Program Office, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. The Key Components embody ten principals identified by a committee of adult drug court practitioners and other experts as critical elements of adult drug court programs. A counterpart set of "strategies" is presently being developed for juvenile drug courts under the auspices of the National Drug Court Institute and the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges.
3. (2001). Drug Court Activity Update: June 1, 2001. OJP Drug Court Clearinghouse and Technical Assistance Project. American University. June. Provides a wide variety of information reported by over 370 drug courts in the U.S. relating to the numbers of defendants participating in these programs, the nature of substance use and other needs presented, and the range of impacts being noted.
4. Hora, Schma, Rosenthal. (1999). Therapeutic Jurisprudence and the Drug Treatment Court Movement: Revolutionizing the Criminal Justice System's Response to Drug Abuse and Crime in America. 74 Notre Dame Law Review 439, January. This article is the first of an extensive and growing body of literature on the topic of therapeutic jurisprudence, most of which has, to date, focused on adult drug courts. In the U.S., courts adhering to therapeutic jurisprudential approaches are becoming known as "problem-solving" courts. See www.therapeuticjurisp rudence.org.
5. Looking at a Decade of Drug Courts. OJP Drug Court Clearinghouse and Technical Assistance Project. American University. Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, (rev). Provides an overview of the drug court concept and the major areas in which it differs from the traditional adjudication and treatment processes for adult substance involved defendants in criminal matters.
6. New South Wales Drug Court Evaluation. The report consists of a series of studies conducted by the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research evaluating the NSW Drug Court trial. Below are three of the recently published reports:
7. (2002). In: Bronwyn Lind, Don Weatherburn, Shuling Chen, et al., eds. Cost Effectiveness. Sidney, Australia: New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research. The report examines the cost-effectiveness, compared with conventional sanctions, of the New South Wales Drug Court in terms of reducing drug-related crime, using a randomized control design. A group of 309 participants in the NSW Drug Court program are compared with a randomized control group of 191 offenders deemed eligible for the program but sanctioned in the usual way (generally imprisonment). The report noted that the costs per day for offenders in the drug court program was slightly less than those sentenced conventionally ($ 143.87 compared with $ 151.72) but that the cost effectiveness of the drug court in reducing the rate of re-offending.
8. (2002). In: Karen Freeman, ed. Health, Well-Being and Participant Satisfaction. Sidney, Australia: New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research. This report is designed to assess the impact of the NSW Drug Court on the health and well-being of participants, to identify factors that may enhance retention in the program, and to assess participant satisfaction with the program. Interviews were conducted with 202 participants prior to their commencement with the drug court program, and three follow-up interviews conducted at four month intervals with those remaining in the program.
9. (2002). In: Stephanie Taplin, ed. A Process Evaluation. Sidney, Australia: New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research. The report provides a wealth of information regarding the operation of the Drug Court obtained from interviews with members of the Drug Court Team, offenders participating the program, and professionals associated with various aspects of the program. The results of these interviews should be of general interest to policy makers, the legal community, and health workers working with alcohol and other drug dependent individuals.
10. (1998). Working Group on a Courts Commission. Fifth Report: Drug Courts. Four Courts, Dublin, Ireland. February. The report provides an overview of the "drug problem" in Ireland, the utility of the drug court model developed in the U.S., and recommendations for the implementation of drug courts in Ireland.
11. (2002). In: Judge C. McGee, Judge T. Merrigan, Judge, J. Parnham, Dr. Smith, M., Cooper, C., eds. Applying Drug Court Concepts to the Juvenile and Family Court Environment: A Primer for Judges. State Justice Institute and Drug Courts Program Office, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, June (rev). This publication, written by experienced juvenile and family court judges and a psychiatrist specializing in treating "substance abuse", lays out the rationale for applying the adult drug court approach to matters involving juveniles, both involved in the delinquency (e.g., where the youth is the litigant) and the abuse and neglect docket (where the parent is the party-litigant).
12. Parnham, J., Grimm, R., Gilbert, J. (2001). Applying Therapeutic Jurisprudential Principles to a Family-Focused Juvenile Justice Model (Delinquency). Alabama Law Review. Vol. 52:4:1155. July. Provides an excellent discussion of the "family-focused" juvenile drug court approach, including the rationale for involving family members in the service delivery plan for addressing the youth's substance use problems and the ultimate disposition of the case, relevant legal issues relating to confidentiality, potential conflicts of interest, and the authority of the court to require family participation in judicially mandated services.
13. JAIBG Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grants Program, Juvenile Drug Court Programs (May 2001) Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Washington DC: Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Dept. of Justice. Provides an overview of juvenile drug courts from the perspective of the accountability they promote and a guide for planning and implementing these programs.
14. (2001). Juvenile Drug Court Activity Update: June 1, 2001. OJP Drug Court Clearinghouse and Technical Assistance Project. American University, June. Provides a wide variety of information reported by over 60 juvenile drug courts relating to the numbers of youth participating in these programs, the nature of substance use and other needs presented, and the range of impacts being noted.
15. (2000). Juvenile and Family Drug Courts: An Overview. OJP Drug Court Clearinghouse and Technical Assistance Project. American University. Published by Drug Courts Program Office, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. (rev). Provides a general discussion of juvenile drug courts, how they differ from the traditional juvenile justice and service delivery process, and the major areas in which they introduce changes in the way juvenile courts operate.