A Detailed Cost Analysis in a Mature Drug Court Setting: A Cost-Benefit Evaluation of the Multnomah County Drug Court

Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice

Volumn 20, Issue 3, 2004, Pages 315-338

  Carey, Shannon M ^a   Finigan, Michael W ^a  

^a NPC Research   (United States)

Author keywords

cost benefit; criminal justice; drug court; substance abuse

Indexed keywords

EID: 84993707677     PISSN: 10439862     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1043986204266893     Document Type: Article

References (14)

1. Belenko, S. (1998). Research on drug courts: A critical review. National Drug Court Institute Review, 1(1), 1-42.
2. Belenko, S. (2001). Research on drug courts: A critical review 2001 update. New York: Columbia University, National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse.
3. Carey, S. M., Finigan, M. W., Crumpton, C. D., & Worcel, S. (2002). California drug courts: A methodology for determining costs and avoided costs, Phase I: Building the methodology, final report.
4. Carey, S. M., Weller, J., and Heiser, C. (2003). Clackamas County Adult Drug Court Process Evaluation: final report.
5. Carey, S. M., Weller, J., and Roth, B. (2003). Clackamas County Juvenile Drug Court Process Evaluation: final report.
6. Crumpton, C. D. (2001). A transactional and institutional cost model of the Multnomah County, Oregon, criminal justice system dedicated to serious adult crimes.
7. Crumpton, C. D., Brekhus, J., Weller, J., & Finigan, M. W. (2004). Cost analysis of Baltimore City, Maryland, drug treatment court.
8. Finigan, M. (1996). Societal outcomes and cost savings of drug and alcohol treatment in the State of Oregon (Report to the Office of Alcohol and Drug Abuse Programs).
9. Finigan, M. W. (2000). An outcome program evaluation of the Multnomah County S.T.O.P. drug diversion program (Report to the Multnomah County Department of Community Corrections).
10. Finigan, M. W. (2003). Costs and benefits associated with substance abuse treatment in the Portland target cities initiative. National Evaluation Data Services.
11. Gerstein, D. R., Johnson, R. A., Harwood, H. J., Fountain, D. F., Suter, N., & Mallory, K. (1994). Evaluating recovery services: The California Drug and Alcohol Treatment Assessment (CALDATA) (Contract No. 92-001100). Sacramento, CA: State of California, Health and Welfare Agency, Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs.
12. Gottfredson, D., Najaka, S., & Kearly, B. (2003). Effectiveness of drug treatment courts: Evidence from a randomized trial. Criminology and Public Policy, 2(2), 171-197.
13. Justice Programs Office (2003). Summary of Drug Court Activity. JPO Drug Court Clearinghouse and Technical Assistance Project. http://www.american.edu/academic.depts/spa/justice/publications/drgchart2k.pdf”)
14. Roman, J., Woodard, J., Harrell, A. V., & Riggs, S. (1998). A Methodology For Measuring Costs and Benefits of Court-Based Drug Intervention Programs Using Findings From Experimental And Quasi-Experimental Evaluations. [Research Report]