California Drug Courts: Outcomes, Costs and Promising Practices: An Overview of Phase II in a Statewide Study

Journal of Psychoactive Drugs

Volumn 38, Issue , 2006, Pages 345-356

  Carey, Shannon M ^a   Finigan, Michael ^a   Crumpton, Dave ^a   Waller, Mark ^a  

^a NPC Research   (United States)

Author keywords

Cost benefit; Criminal justice; Drug courts; Evaluation

Indexed keywords

CONFERENCE PAPER; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; COST CONTROL; COURT; CRIMINAL JUSTICE; DRUG ABUSE; EVALUATION; LEGAL PROCEDURE; OFFENDER; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; RECIDIVISM; UNITED STATES; ADDICTION; ARTICLE; COHORT ANALYSIS; COST; ECONOMICS; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HUMAN; INTERNET; JURISPRUDENCE; RECURRENT DISEASE; SUBSTANCE ABUSE; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

CALIFORNIA; COHORT STUDIES; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; COSTS AND COST ANALYSIS; HUMANS; INTERNET; JUDICIAL ROLE; PROGRAM EVALUATION; RECURRENCE; SUBSTANCE ABUSE DETECTION; SUBSTANCE-RELATED DISORDERS; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 33845948269     PISSN: 02791072     EISSN: 21599777     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/02791072.2006.10400598     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Belenko, S. 2001. Research on drug courts: A critical review 2001 update. National Drug Court Institute Review 3 (2): 1 -65.
2. Belenko, S. 1998. Research on drug courts: A critical review. National Drug Court Institute Review I (I): 10-55.
3. California Administrative Office of the Courts. 2004. Personal communication.
4. Carey, S.M. & Marchand, G. 2005. Malheur County Adult Drug Court “S A FE. Court” Outcome Evaluation Final Report. Submitted to the Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice.
5. Carey, S.M. & Finigan, M. 2003. A detailed cost analysis in a mature drug court setting: Cost-benefit evaluation of the Multnomah County drug court. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice 20 (3): 292-338.
6. Carey, S.M.; Weller, J. & Heiser C. 2003. Clackamas County Adult Drug Court Process Evaluation Final Report. Submitted to the Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Full report available at www.npcresearch.com.
7. Carey, S.M.; Weller, J. & Roth, B. 2003. Marion County Adult Drug Court Process Evaluation Final Report. Submitted to the Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Full report available at www.npcresearch.com.
8. Carey, S.M.; Finigan, M.W.; Waller, M.; Lucas, L. & Crumpton, D. 2005. California Drug Courts: A Methodology for Determining Costs and Avoided Costs. Phase II: Testing the Methodology, Final Report. Submitted to the California Administrative Office of the Courts. Final revision submitted to the Bureau of Justice Assistance.
9. Cissner, A. B. & Farole, D. J. 2006. Seeing Eye to Eye?: Participant and Staff Perspectives on Drug Courts. Paper presented at the 12th Annual DrugCourtTraining Conference, National Association of Drug Court Professionals, June. Presentation available at www.npcresearch.com. Full report available at http://www.courtinnovation.org/.
10. Cooper, C. 2004. OJPDrug Court Clearing House and Technical Assistance Projec t: Summary of Drug Court Activity by State and County. Submitted to American University. Full report available at http://spa.american.edu/justice/resources/drgchart2k.pdf.
11. Crumpton, CD.; Carey, S.M. & Finigan, M. 2004. Enhancing CostAnalysis ofDrug Courts: The Transactional and Institutional Cost Analysis Approach. Submitted to the National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs. Full report available at www.npcresearch.com.
12. Crumpton, C. D.; Brekhus, J.; Weller, J. & Finigan, M. 2004. Cost Analysis of Baltimore City Drug Treatment Court. Submitted to the Maryland Administrative Office of the Courts. Full report available at www. npcresearch.com.
13. Finigan, M. 1996. Societal outcomes and cost savings of drug and alcohol treatment in the state of Oregon. Report submitted to the Office of Alcohol and Drug Abuse Programs.
14. Gottfredson, D.; Najaka, S. & Kearly, B. 2003. Effectiveness of drug treatment courts: Evidence from a randomized trial. Criminology and Public Policy 2 (2): 171-97.
15. Government Accountability Office (GAO). 2005. Adult Drug Courts: Evidence Indicates Recidivism Reductions and Mixed Results for Other Outcomes. Report to Congressional Committees (GA0-05-219). Full report available at http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05219. pdf.
16. Harrell, A.; Mitchell, O.; Merrill, J.C. & Marlowe, D.B. 2003. Evaluation of Breaking the Cycle. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute. Full report available at www.npcresearch.com.
17. Logan, T.K.; Hoyt, W. & Leukefeld, C. 2001. Kentucky Drug Court Outcome Evaluation: Behaviors, Costs andAvoidedCosts to Society. Center for Drug and Alcohol Research, University of Kentucky. Full report available at http://www.kycourts.net/AOC/DrugCourt/DC_OutcomeEval_10200 l pdf.
18. Piper, R.K. & Spohn, C. 2009. Cost/Benefit Analysis of the Douglas County Drug Court. Report submitted to the Douglas County District Court of Nebraska Fourth Judicial District. Full report available at http://www. co.douglas.ne.us/dept/discrictcourt/drugcourt/UNO_CostBenefit. pdf
19. Rempel, M.; Fox-Kralstein, D.; Cissner, A.; Cohen, R.; Labriola, M.; Farole, D.;Bader, A. & Magnani, M. 2003. The New York State Drug Court Evaluation: Policies, participants and impacts. Center for Court Innovation. Submitted to the New York State Unified Court System and the U.S. Bureau of JusticeAssistance.
20. National Association of Drug Court Professionals, Drug Courts Standards Committee (NADCP). 1997. Defining Drug Courts: The Key Components. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Drug Court Programs Office.
21. NPC Research and California Administrative Office of the Courts. 2003. California Drug Courts: A Methodologyfor Determining Costs and Avoided Costs, Phase I: Building the Methodology. Submitted to the Drug Courts Program Office, U.S. Department of Justice. Full text can be found at www.npcresearch.com.
22. Russell, LB.; Siegel, J.E.; Daniels, N.; Gold, M. R.; Luce, B.R. & Mandelblatt, J.S. 1996. Cost-effectiveness analysis as a guide to resource allocation in health: Roles and limitations. In: MR. Gold; J.E. Siegel; L.B. Russell & M.C. Weinstein (Eds.) Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. New York: Oxford University Press.