As a response to the increase of drug and alcohol-abuse offenders in the criminal justice system and the level of recidivism, drug courts have been created to help alleviate caseload pressures, as well as expand to embrace the therapeutic jurisprudence model. This topic addresses the issues of planning, implementing, managing, and evaluating drug court programs.
Links to related online resources are listed below. Non-digitized publications may
be borrowed from the NCSC Library; call numbers are provided.
The Transactional and Institutional Cost Analysis (TICA) approach shows that, on average, Virginia’s Drug Courts save $19,234 per person as compared to traditional case processing.
This report summarizes evaluation findings with respect to several primary issues, such as post-program recidivism, within-program outcomes, and drug treatment court performance measures.
This resource brief provides a summary of key information presented during the Research to Practice webinar presented on November 2, 2011. Topics include the effectiveness of drug courts, screening and assessment, and optimal treatment interventions.
The emergence of drug courts as a reform of courts’ traditional practice of treating drug-addicted offenders in a strictly criminal fashion coincided with renewed interest in performance measurement for public organizations.
Nurtured by federal funding, DWI courts have sprung up at a rapid pace. Although evolving as a branch of drug courts, specialized DWI courts have tended to take root and grow more rapidly in states not saturated with drug courts and states not suffering from the highest alcohol-related fatalities.
(2013). This report provides guidance for implementing a Family Drug Court as a collaborative effort between the court, child welfare, substance abuse treatment providers, and the community with a focus on improving services to families who are involved with the child welfare system and are affected by substance use disorders.
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 judgment because so much of the process is out of his or her hands.
This report provides information on the DWI/Sobriety Court Ignition Interlock program from 2011 to 2014.
Minnesota Judicial Council. This evaluation is a follow-up to the 2012 study.
Minnesota Judicial Branch. This statewide evaluation examines drug court participants in 16 courts against a statewide comparison group to compare outcomes.
The Kansas Supreme Court contracted with the National Center for State Courts (NCSC) to research the feasibility and practicality of instituting state-wide level management over drug courts within the state.
As drug courts have expanded in Florida, there has been a subsequent need to evaluate their impact and effectiveness on a statewide level, particularly with respect to their cost effectiveness and reductions in recidivism.
The goals of this T.A. project are to identify a minimum core set of data-elements that should be collected by all drug courts at each stage in the assessment process, from preadmission screening to a full clinical evaluation to outcome performance monitoring.
NCSC designed a Web-based data collection instrument to collect demographic and performance measure date for Wyoming drug courts.
This report describes results from a process evaluation of Hawai’i’s adult, juvenile, and family drug courts, the first phase of a planned three phase comprehensive evaluation of these courts.
An evaluation of and suggestions for improving the Supreme Court and Office of Court Administration in Puerto Rico.
An evaluation of the methodology of Witchita's innovative Drug Court.
Chart provides state and county drug court programs, their funding source(s) (federal, state, local, donations, and participant fees), and partnerships formed between the court and other entities to ensure the success of the program.
National Center for State Courts’ consultants worked with Indiana Judicial Center (IJC) staff to map a multifaceted process for obtaining needed support and funding of the state’s drug courts.
OJJDP Juvenile Justice Bulletin. The study’s findings do not generally support juvenile drug courts since most sites saw higher rates of recidivism for drug court youth when compared with youth on probation. Most of the drug courts studied did not adhere closely to evidence-based practices which may partly explain the poor results.
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Office of Justice Programs. This publication provides guidance to help states and programs create family drug courts that implement effective policies for courts and child welfare and treatment service systems, and community‐based organizations serving parents, children, and families.
This article discusses how children five years old and younger make up one-fourth of all children in foster care—and have a greater risk of developing behavavorial problems than children in more stable homes. The Zero to Five Family Drug Tratment Court provides a unique forum for treating substance-abusing parents, improving their parenting skills, and reuniting them with their children.
The mission of Virginia's Drug Treatment courts is to provide a judicially-supervised, cost-effective, collaborative approach for handling court-involved individuals with substance use disorders that promotes public safety, ensures accountability, and transforms participants into productive members of the community.
There are 24 Alcohol Safety Action Program (ASAP) District Offices operating throughout Virginia. The report provides an assessment of their success in reducing the incidence of driving under the influence of alcohol or other drugs.