State administration of drug courts: Exploring issues of authority, funding, and legitimacy

Criminal Justice Policy Review

Volumn 18, Issue 4, 2007, Pages 418-433

  Heck, Cary ^a   Roussell, Aaron ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WYOMING   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Administration; Drug courts; Executive branches; Judiciary

Indexed keywords

EID: 35748935571     PISSN: 08874034     EISSN: 15523586     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0887403407305693     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. American Bar Association. (1997). Report of the ABA commission on separation of powers and judicial independence. Washington, DC: Author.
2. Archibold, R.C. (2006, March 1). A test of ethnic courts for drunken drivers. New York Times, Late Edition, Final, p. A12.
3. Belenko, S. (1998). Research on drug courts: A critical review. National Drug Court Institute Review, 1(1), 1-42.
4. Belenko, S. (2001). Research on drug courts: A critical review. 2001 update. New York: National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University.
5. Berman, G., & Feinblatt, J. (2005). Good courts: The case for problem-solving justice. New York: The New Press.
6. Conference of State Court Administrators. (2000, August). In support of problem-solving courts. Conference of Chief Justices Resolution 22, Conference of State Court Administrators Resolution IV. Adopted at Conference of Chief Justices, 52nd Annual Meeting.
7. Conference of State Court Administrators. (2001, December). Position paper on e fective judicial governance and accountability. Arlington, VA: Author.
8. Fox, A., & Wolfe, R.V. (2004). The future of drug courts: How states are mainstreaming the drug court model. New York: Center for Court Innovation.
9. Goldkamp, J.S., White, M.D., & Robinson, J.B. (2002). An honest chance: Perspectives on drug courts. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 6, 369-372.
10. Government Accountability Office. (2005). Adult drug courts: Evidence indicates recidivism reductions and mixed results for other outcomes. Report to congressional committees. Washington, DC: Author.
11. Heck, C. (2006). Local drug court research: Navigating performance measures and process evaluations (Monograph Series 6). Alexandria, VA: National Drug Court Institute, National Association of Drug Court Professionals.
12. Huddleston, C.W., Freeman-Wilson, K., & Boone, D. (2004). Painting the current picture: A national report card on drug courts and other problem solving courts, 1, 1. Alexandria, VA: National Drug Court Institute, National Association of Drug Court Professionals.
13. Huddleston, C.W., Freeman-Wilson, K., Marlowe, D.B., & Roussell, A. (2005). Painting the current picture: A national report card on drug courts and other problem solving courts, 1, 2. Alexandria, VA: National Drug Court Institute, National Association of Drug Court Professionals.
14. Marlowe, D.B. (2004, September 9). Drug court e ficacy vs. e fectiveness. Retrieved May 10, 2007, from http://www.jointogether.org/sa/ news/features/reader/0,1854,574745,00.html
15. Marlowe, D.B., Heck, C., Huddleston, C.W., & Casebolt, R. (2006). A national research agenda for drug courts: Plotting the course for second-generation scientific inquiry. Drug Court Review, 5(2), 1-27.
16. Myers, L.G. (2004). Judicial independence in the municipal court: Preliminary observations from Missouri. Court Review, 41, 26-31.
17. National Association of Drug Court Professionals. (1997, January). Defining drug courts: The key components. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Assistance, U.S. Department of Justice.
18. Rehnquist, W.H., U.S. Supreme Court. (1996). Year-end report on the federal judiciary. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved April 11, 2006, from http://www.uscourts.gov/cj96.htm
19. Tobin, R.W. (1996, July). Funding the state courts: Issues and approaches. Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts, State Justice Institute.
20. Walker, S. (2001). Sense and nonsense about crime and drugs: A policy guide. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.