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.
NCSC Technical Assistance Consultants used two innovative approaches, strategic mapping and logic modeling, to assist the Georgia judiciary and invited drug court stakeholders in forming a long-range plan for development and sustainability of the state’s drug court programs.
Results of needs assessment survey identifying the top five areas for technical assistance.
In recent years, the number of drug courts has proliferated throughout the country. One widely held belief is that the central figure in a drug court is the judge. While the judge may be the central actor in the courtroom, what is not clear is whether the drug court judge is the most central actor in the actual disposition of cases. This article presents the findings of a research project that asked actors participating in staffing about the centrality of the drug court judge.
This article has an overview of drug courts, starting with the 1989 Miami Drug Court. The author also describes some of the challenges impeding the continued success of drug courts and predicts the development of more drug courts. Because of the correlation between drug dependency and mental health issues, the author anticipates the growth of mental health courts will coincide with the growth of drug courts.
This bulletin provides guidance and recommendation regarding the development of statewide drug court case management systems.
In 2001, the National Center for State Courts (NCSC) received funding from the State Justice Institute (SJI), on behalf of the American Judges Association (AJA), to develop, demonstrate, and disseminate an educational curriculum on substance abuse for judges.
This paper describes four prominent American problem-solving courts: community, domestic violence, drug, and mental health courts. Each description provides an overview of the origins, evolution, variety, and success to date of the problem-solving court model and notes special issues related to each type of court.
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.
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.
An overview of the national policy on adult drug courts to see where they have succeeded and also where they have exceeded their goals at great cost.
A retired drug court judge takes a look into the future of drug courts and how their techniques and operations could be applied in other courts.
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.