|
Top
Drug Court Clearinghouse Project.
American University, School of Public Affairs, Justice Programs Office.
This project has been operating since 1994 and maintains a clearinghouse of publications on various topics related to drug courts and substance abuse. The site also includes an interacitve map with information on drug court activity around the country. The map includes breakdowns by state and county, juvenile drug courts, and tribal drug courts.
National Drug Court Institute.
National Association of Drug Court Professionals.
Membership and outreach organization for over 2100 drug courts across the nation.
Huddleston, C. West; Douglas B. Marlowe and Rachel Casebolt.
Painting the Current Picture: A National Report Card on Drug Courts and Other Problem Solving Court Programs in the United States.
National Drug Court Institute (May 2008).
This report provides a summary of the second national survey of drug court and other problem solving court activity since 2004. The report includes numbers of active drug court programs, a review of the literature, state drug court legislation, and current drug court models. (KF3885.5.H841 2008)
Reilly, Dennis & Atoundra Pierre-Lawson
Ensuring Sustainability for Drug Courts: An Overview of Funding Strategies.
National Drug Court Institue (April 2008).
This publication presents examples of creative sustainability strategies developed by drug courts around the country. In addition to funding sources, the report looks at education, planning, and leadership development. (KF 3890.R45 2008)
Monchick, Randy, Anna Scheyett, and Jane Pfeifer
Drug Court Case Mangement: Role, Function, and Utility.
National Drug Court Institute (June 2006).
This monograph presents a general overview of the role, key functions, principles, knowledge, and skill sets required for effective case management in the drug court setting.
Fox, Aubrey, and Greg Berman.
"Going to Scale: A Conversation About the Future of Drug Courts."
Court Review 39, no. 3: 4 (Fall 2002).
An article that discusses drug court integration between states and localities. Strategies for accomplishing this are outlined in a forum-like discussion.
Recidivism Rate Comparison Study 2002 .
Rappahannock Area Alcohol Safety Action Program (2002).
This report includes a comparison study for the recidivism rate between all DUI Court referrals and a sampling of referrals without DUI Court monitoring
Top
Freeman-Wilson, Karen et al.
Ethical Considerations for Judges and Attorneys in Drug Court.
Arlington, VA: National Drug Court Institute (2001).
An article that discusses the singular ethical dilemmas that a drug court judge faces. This is because, it is argued, drug cases require a certain extra judgement because so much of the process is out of his or her hands.
Tauber, Jeffrey S., and Susan P. Weinstein.
Federal Confidentiality Laws and How They Affect Drug Court Practitioners.
Alexandria, VA: National Drug Court Institute (1999).
An article which outlines first the federal confidentiality laws that drug courts operate under, and second, how they loom over every part of the Drug Court experience.
Top
King, Ryan S. and Jill Pasquarella
Drug Courts: A Review of the Evidence.
The Sentencing Project (April 2009).
This report assesses the impact of the drug court movement by reviewing existing research.
Dedicated Drug Court Pilots: A process Report.
(April 2008).
This is a report from a study done by the United Kingdom Ministry of Justice on the effectiveness of their drug court pilot programs.
Carey,Shannon M., Michael W. Finigan and Kimberly Pukstas
Exploring the Key Components of Drug Courts.
National Institute of Justice (March 2008).
This study explores how different drug court programs are implementing the 10 key components and the effect on outcomes and costs in 18 drug courts across 4 states and one U.S. territory (California, Michigan, Oregon, Maryland and Guam).
Worcel, Sonia D. et al.
Minnesota Drug Courts Funding Study - Chemical Dependency and Mental Health Services.
Portland, OR: NPC Research (July 2007).
This study looks at practices within 12 counties in Minnesota and offers recommendations to continue growth of the drug courts program.
Finigan, Michael W. et al.
The Impact of a Mature Drug Court Over 10 Years of Operation: Recidivism and Costs.
Portland, OR: NPC Research (April 2007).
This study of the Multnomah County Drug Court, the second oldest drug court in the nation, considers five policy questions in evaluating the success of the program, including the overal impact on criminal recidivism, whether judicial leadership affects outcomes and the cost-effectiveness of the program.
Heck, Cary
Local Drug Court Research: Navigating Performance Measures and Process Evaluations.
National Drug Court Institute (2006).
The purpose of this document is to promote quality research at all levels for drug courts by providing a uniform and manageable data collection and evaluation strategy for local programs. (KF3890 .H431 2006)
Adult Drug Courts: Evidence Indicates Recidivism Reductions and Mixed Results for Other Outcomes.
United States Government Accountability Office (GAO) (February 2005).
GAO conducted a systematic review of drug court program research, from which it selected 27 evaluations of 39 adult drug court programs.
Loman, L. Anthony.
A Cost-Benefit Analysis of the St. Louis City Adult Felony Drug Court.
St. Louis, MO: Institute of Applied Research (2004).
A study of the first 219 graduates of the St. Louis Adult Felony Drug Court to determine whether or not the program was worth continuing. The survey found that the costs outweighed the benefits both in terms of financial burden and recedivism.
Freeman, Karen.
Evaluating Australia`s First Drug Court: Research Challenges.
Canberra, AU: NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research (March 2003).
An Australian investigation discussing some of the things learned from the country's first drug court. The findings of this survey will be used to create further improved drug courts across the country.
Guerin, Paul, and Wayne J. Pitts.
Evaluation of the Bernalillo County Metropolitan DWI/Drug Court: FInal Report.
The University of New Mexico, Institute for Social Research, Center for Applied Research and Analysis (September 2002).
This study provides an in-depth statistical look at the participants in Bernalillo's drug-court program, discusses key characteristics of graduates versus nongraduates of the program, and addresses recidivism factors.
Johnson, Shelley, and Edward J. Latessa
The Hamilton County Drug Court: Outcome Evaluation Findings Final Report.
University of Cincinnati, Center for Criminal Justice Research (July 2000).
This report documents the evaluation of the Hamilton County Drug Court in Ohio.
Top
A Historic Day for Drug Courts .
National Association of Drug Court Professionals (NADCP) (March 2009).
This NADCP alert provides updates on federal funding and activity related to drug courts. “We have achieved the largest annual federal appropriation in the history of Drug Courts, 63.9 million in 2009, a 250% increase over last years mark.”
Cost Benefits/Costs Avoided by Drug Court Programs.
Washington, DC: Justice Programs Office, School of Public Affairs, American University (December 2003).
An overview of the national policy on adult drug courts to see where they have suceeded and also where they have exceeded their goals at great cost.
Fomby, Thomas B., and Vasudha Rangaprasad.
Divert Court of Dallas County: Cost-Benefit Analysis.
Dallas: Southern Methodist University (2002).
A study of the DIVERT drug court program of Dallas, Texas. The study finds that costs can be lowered by using this 40 month program by a great deal per person.
Tauber, Jeffrey S.
Resource and Funding Guide.
Alexandria, VA: National Association of Drug Court Professionals (2000).
A study undertaken by the National Association of Drug Court Professionals to best develop and fund new drug courts, especially those in rural areas.
Top
Hora, Peggy Fulton.
"Therapeutic Jurisprudence and the Drug Treatment Court Movement: Revolutionizing the Criminal Justice System`s Response to Drug Abuse and Crime in America."
Notre Dame Law Review 74, no. 2: 439 (1999).
Two judges' perspectives on the movement towards drug treatment in the courts.
Looking at a Decade of Drug Courts.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Drug Court Program Office (1998).
Summary reports of drug court activities are published and updated periodically by the DCCTAP, reflecting current developments, emerging issues, experiences reported by local drug court officials, and observations of staff during the course of providing technical assistance to local jurisdictions This report updates the Summary Assessment of the Drug Court Experience published in 1995 - 97 and reflects information provided by drug courts operating throughout the U.S. as of June 1998.
Top
"Healing the Youngest Children: Court Community Partnerships."
Child Court Works, ABA Center on Children and the Law (March 2007).
This article describes four model court community partnerships that apply research to court practices to improve outcomes for maltreated infants, toddlers, and their families.
Huddleston, West et al.
Juvenile Drug Courts: Strategies in Practice.
Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Assistance (March 2003).
A list of strategies that are used to try to lessen the load in American drug courts. The strategies are all outlined in detail.
Juvenile Drug Court Policies and Procedures Manual.
Valencia, NM. Juvenile Drug Court (2002).
The Drug Court has been designed in the multi-systemic structured paradigm to reduce many of these factors and provide early intervention, coupled with community wrap-around services that will not only help to bond the clients back to the community, but to bond the entire family within the community and reduce social stigmas.
Cooper, Caroline S.
Juvenile Drug Court Programs.
Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grants Program (JAIBG) Bulletin (May 2001).
A bulletin outlining current nationwide practices on juvenile drug courts.
Tauber, Jeffrey S.
"Family Drug Courts: An Alternative Approach to Processing Child Abuse and Neglect Cases."
Drug Court Practitioner Fact Sheet (May 1999).
A paper that examines the possibility of using drug courts in cases of domestic and child abuse.
Juvenile and Family Drug Courts: An Overview.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Drug Court Program Office (1998).
A Department of Justice study which paints a broad portrait of the drug court system in America, starting with juvenile drug courts.
Taylor, Ronald J.
Review of Current Procedures and Resources Relevant to the Planning of a Drug Court for Juvenile and Youthful Adult Drug Offenders in the Twenty-Sixth Judicial District: Madison, Henderson and Chester Counties, Tennessee.
Washington, DC: Justice Programs Office, School of Public Affairs, American University (1998).
An outline of the direction of the drug court program designed to explore the feasibility of developing a drug court program for juveniles and first offender adults. Examines issues such as screening, referral, supervision, special services for juveniles, follow-up, and program evaluation.
Top
National Registry of Evidence-Based Programs and Practices (NREPP).
According to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), the NREPP is a "searchable online registry of mental health and substance abuse interventions reviewed and rated by independent experts." It was created to help organizations learn about "interventions that have been scientifically tested and [which] can be readily disseminated in the field. Organziations can search for interventions that fit the needs of their communities."
Bhati, Avinash Singh, John K. Roman, and Aaron Chalfin.
To Treat or Not To Treat: Evidence on the Prospects of Expanding Treatment to Drug-Involved Offenders.
Justice Policy Center, Urban Institute (April 2008).
This report examines the issue of whether expanding the drug court model to more drug-involved offenders who are currently ineligible would be cost-beneficial.
Random Drug Testing Results for Drug Courts Operating in Fiscal Year 2006.
Arkansas Drug Courts, Department of Community Correction (March 2007).
This report provides statistics for the random drug-testing results in the Arkansas Drug Courts for a one-year period.
Report on the Overall Impact of Alcohol and Other Drugs Across All Case Types.
Minnesota Supreme Court Chemical Dependency Task Force (November 2006).
This study looks at the impact of substance abuse by specific case types and sets forth recommendation to address the findings.
Rempel, Michael.
Action Research: Using Information to Improve Your Drug Court.
New York: Center for Court Innovation (2005).
This research report indicates how drug courts can embrace "action research," a type of research the author indicates is especially well-suited to drug court programs. Action research uses to data to inform operations and to create a partnership between researchers and administrators.
Farole, Donald J., and Amanda B. Cissner.
Seeing Eye to Eye? Participant and Staff Perspectives on Drug Courts.
New York: Center for Court Innovation (2005).
This research study compares participant and court staff opinions regarding key issues affecting drug-court intervention, such as whether participants enter programs primarily to avoid prison, whether participants understand the requirements of drug court, and whether heightened monitoring, drug testing and the threat of prison are in fact key motivators for success in the program. The report also offers suggestions to improve drug-court practices.
Roman, John et al.
Recidivism Rates for Drug Court Graduates: Nationally Based Estimates, Final Report.
Washington, DC: NCJRS (July 2003).
This report presents a general estimate of recidivism among a nationally representative sample of drug court graduates.
Freeman-Wilson, Karen, and Michael P. Wilkosz.
Drug Court Publications Resource Guide, 4th ed.
Alexandria, VA: National Drug Court Institute (2002).
A list of documents that the National Drug Court Institute believes are best suited for improving the nation's drug courts, from base-level offenders to lab technicians to judges.
Belenko, Steven R.
Research on Drug Courts: A Critical Review.
New York: National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University (2001).
An overview of 37 different articles and research papers designed to extract the best practices and latest trends in creating and maintaining the optimal drug court system.
Top
Adult DUI/DWI Treatment Court Programs.
Maryland Drug Courts, Office of Problem Solving Courts (2007).
Maryland's guidelines for planning and implementing an adult DUI/DWI treatment court program It covers planning for a drug-treatment court, developing program operational procedures, and addressing policy issues.
Arkansas Drug Courts.
Arkansas Division of Drug Courts (2007).
Program Eligibility Requirements, Treatment Requirements and Enrollment Statistics from July 2005 through December 2006. This resource provides statistics about the use of drug courts for an 18-month time period in Arkansas.
Wolf, Robert V.
Drug Treatment, Managed Care and the Courts: From Conflict to Collaboration.
Center for Court Innovation (2004).
This report focuses on the impact that managed-care organizations have on drug courts and examines this unique challenge to the ongoing viability of drug courts.
Top
Berman, Greg et al.
Documenting Results: Research on Problem-Solving Justice.
New York: Center for Court Innovation (2007).
Four chapters of this book, which explores recent research regarding problem-solving courts, are devoted to drugs courts. Commentary includes research regarding whether drug courts work, participant and court staff perspectives on drug courts, use of research information to improve drug courts, and the impact of drug-court evaluation. (KFX2018.4 D62 2007).
Wanberg, Kenneth W. and Harvey B. Milkman.
Criminal Conduct and Substance Abuse Treatment: Strategies for Self-Improvement and Change (The Participant`s Workbook).
2d ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications (2006).
This workbook includes 12 modules, 50 sessions, and 97 worksheets aimed toward developing the knowledge and skills to address substance-abuse issues underlying criminal conduct. The guide also includes a section on committing to long-term change and achieving lifestyle balance to prevent relapse and recidivism. (RC451.4 P68 W36)
Marlowe, Douglas B.et al.
"Are Judicial Status Hearings A Key Component of Drug Court?."
Criminal Justice and Behavior 30 no. 2: 141 (2003).
(HV9261 .C74)
Harrison, L. et al.
Drug Courts: Current Issues and Future Perspectives.
Huntsville, TX: Office of International Criminal Justice (2002).
Each chapter in this book addresses a different aspect of drug-court programs, including a review of the theory supporting drug courts, recent drug-court-treatment research, international drug-court programs, drug-court treatment-diversion programs, issues surrounding treatment, juvenile-drug-court programs, and the challenges regarding drug-court research. (KF3885.5 D762 2002).
Comprehensive Drug Court Coordinator`s Training Manual.
(February 2000).
This comprehensive manual covers issues specific to drug courts, including the history of drug courts, program models, program competencies, staffing, assessment, treatment options, relapse prevention, program evaluation, caseflow issues, sanctions and incentives, ethics, confidentiality, quality assurance, and strategic planning. (KF2885 N38 D78 2000).
Roehl, Janice A., and Kristin Guertin.
A Self-Evaluation Manual and Case Management System for Adult Drug Courts.
Pacific Grove, CA: Justice Research Center (2000).
(includes CD-ROM) (KF3885.5 .R64)
Developing Linkages Between Law Enforcement and the Courts: Community Policing and Drug Courts/Community Courts Project: A Three Year Progress Report.
Alexandria, VA: National Association of Drug Court Professionals (2000).
(KF3885.5 .N37 2000)
Kuban, Gerald A.
Development of Personnel Title Standards for Drug Court Positions Within the New York State Court System.
Washington, DC: Justice Programs Office, School of Public Affairs, American University (2000).
(KFN5979 .K83)
Law Enforcement/Drug Court Partnerships: The Possibilities and Limitations: A Case Study of Partnerships in Four California Counties.
Alexandria, VA: National Association of Drug Court Professionals (2000).
(KFC632 .L39)
Gibeson, Carol, Jeffrey S. Tauber, and Lolita R. Curtis.
Making the Connection Between Law Enforcement and Supervision: A Look at the Linkages Among Drug Courts, Law Enforcement and Community-Based Corrections.
Alexandria, VA: National Association of Drug Court Professionals (2000).
(KF3885.5 .G53 2000)
Couto, Richard A., and Nancy B. Sutts.
Mending Broken Promises: Justice for Children at Risk.
Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt (2000).
(HQ772.5 .C68)
What`s Working: A Broader Look at Law Enforcement/Court Collaborations.
Alexandria, VA: National Association of Drug Court Professionals (2000).
(KF3885.5 .W5)
|
