Dealing with substance abusing offenders: a criminal justice system response
Table of contents: The Kazakh-American Free University Academic Journal №3 - 2011
Author: Heck Cary, University of Wyoming, USA
The criminal justice revolution in the United States that is the
subject of this article began with some overworked professionals in Dade County,
Florida. These professionals came together from legal, criminal justice, and
substance abuse treatment backgrounds to address the difficult issue of repeat
offenders with substance abuse problems clogging the criminal justice system.
The group determined that a possible solution to these problems would be a
complex model linking the authority of the court and the supervision and drug
testing services provided by probation with substance abuse treatment. While
all the courts and service agencies had worked together in the past, this new
model called for a higher and more formalized level of cooperation. The model
worked and has continued to work. And as programs have emerged in over 2,400
courts across the United States and globally, the core of the model has changed
very little. This model, now known as the Drug Court Model, has revolutionized
the system of justice for many substance abusing and addicted offenders.
The intuitive appeal of the drug court model is obvious. It makes sense
that the authority of the court should be brought to bear on the daily
activities of substance abusing and addicted offenders. Substance abuse
treatment in the United States has, historically, maintained rather low levels
of retention. The extent to which probation services and incarceration are
ineffective at changing substance abusing offender behaviors is well documented.
The United States has been on a prison building binge that has one in every 134
residents of the United States incarcerated at midyear 2009 (West, 2009), despite
reduced levels of criminality in nearly every category of crime. The United States
incarcerates a higher percentage of its citizens than any other country in
the world (International Centre for Prison Studies, 2011). Over half of these
prisoners report substance abuse or dependence at the time of incarceration
(Mumola and Karberg, 2006). The drug court model was designed with the goals of
maintaining offenders in community-based treatment and reducing the need for
After twenty plus years of operation the empirical evidence
supporting the drug court model goes well beyond the initial intuitive appeal.
There is a strong body of scientific research that supports the use of drug
courts with substance abusing offenders (c.f. Huddleston, Marlowe, and
Casebolt, 2008). In 1996 the National Association of Drug Court Professionals
(NADCP) with fiscal and oversight support from the Office of Justice Programs
(OJP) undertook to codify the drug court model. This codification became known
as The 10 Key Components of Drug Courts (NADCP, 1997) and while these
components have been revised slightly over time for particular circumstances,
they still reflect the core elements of drug courts. These components are as
Drug courts integrate alcohol and other drug
treatment services with justice system case processing.
Using a non-adversarial approach, prosecution
and defense counsel promote public safety while protecting participants’ due
Eligible participants are identified early and
promptly placed in the drug court program.
Drug courts provide a continuum of alcohol,
drug, and other related treatment and rehabilitation services.
Abstinence is monitored by frequent alcohol and
other drug testing.
A coordinated strategy governs drug court
responses to participants’ compliance.
Ongoing judicial interaction with each drug
court participant is essential.
Monitoring and evaluation measure the
achievement of program goals and gauge effectiveness.
Continuing interdisciplinary education promotes
effective drug court planning, implementation, and operations.
10. Forging partnerships among drug courts, public agencies, and
community-based organizations generates local support and enhances drug court
These principles have been time-tested and replicated in all types
of environments. They remain an excellent resource for individuals seeking to
plan and implement a drug treatment court. Overall, research findings
concerning drug courts suggest that programs with solid intensive treatment
components (Taxman & Bouffard, 2002) and well-rounded ancillary service
provision (i.e. educational, mental health, and employment) are the most effective
in producing long-term effects (Listwan et al. 2002, and Fluellen & Trone,
2000). It is also well documented that the impact of the judge on the program
should not be underestimated (Marlowe, 2002, and Marlowe, Festinger, & Lee,
2004). And, while the research is still limited as to the reasons that the drug
court model works (see Goldkamp, White & Robinson, 2001) there is
significant literature that does support the effectiveness of the complete
model in dealing with non-violent offenders.
This article is focused on the planning, implementation and
evaluation of drug treatment courts. Suggestions will be made regarding
important considerations and steps needed to ensure that a new drug court
program be ready to answer the questions related to efficiency and effectiveness
that are likely to be raised. Some of the mistakes made in the past will be
discussed and current research related to best practices will be
discussed. Further, this article will focus on bringing the growing body of
drug court research to practice.
Planning a drug court is a strategic process that requires several
steps. These steps include identifying the scope of the problem, building a
collaborative approach among key stakeholders, developing community support,
and identifying funding sources. Each of these steps is critical to the development
of a healthy drug court program. In many cases, drug courts have been
established based upon the drive and desire of one particular person in a
community, such as the judge. And while this drive is important, careful
planning and consensus building are equally important as the program transforms
from an idea to reality.
the Drug and Alcohol Problems in a Community
Frequently, the scope of the substance abuse and crime problem in a
community is assumed. Leaders in communities are often well aware of the issues
related to drug and alcohol abuse in their communities. It is, however,
important that these intuitive beliefs be converted into data when planning a
drug court. And, while the question of actual substance abuse and related
criminality are important, it may be the case that the question of gaining
appropriate leverage over potential participants is more important. For example,
recently the members of a treatment court team in a somewhat rural jurisdiction
were concerned about the low number of referrals that they were receiving. This
court was a municipal court that accepted both drug offenders as well as DUI offenders.
They considered the high number of DUI cases in the community as part of their
analysis and relied heavily on this number for planning the court program.
However, they failed to consider the fact that most first time DUI cases in
this jurisdiction received diversion as a sentence and third time DUI offenders
were processed in District Court as felonies. Only those offenders who had been
arrested for their third DUI had enough jail time associated with the charge to
warrant participating in an 18-month treatment court program. Thus, the overall
number of DUI arrests was not a very accurate predictor of those who might want
to participate in the program.
When identifying a “target population” it is important to consider
more that the number of arrests. There are several questions that need to be
answered. First, how many people from the community are involved in drug and/or
alcohol related criminality as measured by the numbers of arrests? Secondly,
how does the prosecutor’s office generally deal with these offenders? Are they
diverted, processed through plea agreements, or run through court? And which
court in the community or district generally has jurisdiction? Finally, what
sentences do they receive for their criminality? This last question is important
in terms of the leverage that drug courts will have to enroll participants and
to hold them accountable when they do enter the program.
The core of the drug court model is collaboration. This
collaboration is most visible in the drug court team meetings and in court.
Drug court teams generally consist of members or representatives of the
prosecuting attorney’s office, the public defender’s office, law enforcement,
probation, treatment, as well as the judge. Frequently, well-functioning drug
court teams include an evaluator. The team is central to decision-making
related to the responses of the court to the behaviors of the participants.
In 2008, NPC Research of Portland, Oregon, undertook a project
designed to identify best practices for treatment courts. Since that
time, over 100 courts have been considered using cost and recidivism rates as
measures of program performance. After the data was collected on program
performance surveys were conducted with program staff. These surveys focused on
elements related to the Ten Key Components (NADCP, 1997) as well as other
issues related to program function. From this data, 28 key drug court practices
were identified as being the most correlated with program performance (e.g.
reduced recidivism). These practices have been labeled as the Best Practices
for drug court programs.
It is important to note that these practices have not been
identified as causing the improved outcomes. They are more a list of practices
engaged in by the “good” programs from around the country. Many of these
practices are linked to programs with longer histories and as such it may be
the case that some of the older programs have been able to adapt to variables
such as target population and available resources to create an effective system.
These practices have been ordered based upon the order of the Ten Key
Components (NADCP, 1997). They are not ranked in any way.
Practices Related to Positive Outcomes
The drug court
has a single treatment provider (that can make other referrals as needed).
representative is expected to attend all drug court sessions.
is expected to attend all drug court team meetings.
prosecution is expected to attend all drug court sessions.
attorney is expected to attend all drug court team meetings.
The drug court
allows non-drug charges (as admission criteria).
The drug court
expects 20 days or less to pass from a participant’s arrest to drug court
The drug court
maintains a caseload of less than 150 participants.
The drug court
program is expected to take one year or more for completion.
Drug court has
guidelines on the frequency of group treatment sessions that a participant
Drug court has
guidelines on the frequency of individual treatment sessions that a participant
In the first
phase of drug court, drug tests are collected at least 2 times per week.
staff generally has drug test results within 48 hours.
The drug court
requires participants to have greater than 90 days “clean” before graduation.
The drug court
decreases the frequency of future treatment sessions as a reward.
Only the judge
can provide participants with tangible rewards.
The judge is
assigned to drug court for a term greater than 2 years (or indefinitely).
In the first
phase of drug court, the participant appears before the judge in court once
every 2 weeks or less.
In the final
phase of drug court, the participants appear before the judge in court at
least once a month.
The drug court
maintains data that are critical to monitoring and evaluation in an electronic
database (rather than paper files).
The drug court
collects program statistics and uses them to modify drug court operations.
The drug court
uses the results of program evaluations to modify drug court operations.
The drug court
has participated in more than one evaluation conducted by an independent
receive training in preparation for the implementation of the drug court.
All new hires
to the drug court complete a formal training or orientation.
All members of
the drug court team are provided with training.
The drug court
team includes a representative from law enforcement (not including probation).
The drug court
has a formal partnership with community members that provide services to
and Pukstas, 2008)
It is clear from this list of best practices that team
membership requires actual participation. While the role of the judge in the
process is well documented in the literature (Marlowe, Festinger, & Lee,
2004), it is becoming increasingly apparent that the entire team has
significant effect on the outcomes. Research is clear that the regularized
interaction between a judge and the drug court client is vital to program
success particularly for “high risk” offenders. High risk in this case is
defined as those clients with previous failures in drug abuse treatment with
antisocial personality disorders (Marlowe, Festinger, & Lee, 2004). Drug
court judges volunteer several hours a week to review the status of clients and
hold drug court sessions. For many treatment court clients, the communication
with the judge in these hearings is the first and only time in which a legal
professional shows an interest in their progress and this serves as a powerful
motivator. While the judge generally manages status hearings, the entire team
is given the opportunity to have input into the decisions made about clients. After
these decisions are made the judge holds a hearing to meet with clients and
order that the clients follow the group decisions.
Drug courts also serve as a conduit between substance abuse
treatment and the criminal justice system. Historically in the United States,
treatment has been considered a completely separate enterprise and at times
the treatment process is at odds with the criminal justice paradigm. Drug
courts promote a working relationship between treatment, the judiciary, and law
enforcement. This relationship promotes continuity of care and helps to retain
clients in treatment. National drug court retention rates seem to hover around
70% while 80 to 90% of those simply ordered into treatment drop out before
completing 12 months (Marlowe, DeMatteo & Festinger, 2003). A wide body of
research supports the idea that “the length of time a patient spent in
treatment was a reliable predictor of his or her post-treatment performance”
(Huddleston et al, 2005).
However, collaboration for a healthy drug court goes well beyond the
actual team. Prior to implementing a treatment court it is important to build
relationships with all of the stakeholders in the community. These individuals
or entities are crucial to successful program implementation. City and
or/county government officials are important as these groups may provide
resources. These resources go beyond financial commitments and include space
for meetings, court resources, and support. Local businesses are valuable resources
for providing incentives and assisting with job placement for participants.
Finally, local social service resources such as shelters, mental health
facilities, housing services, employment services, medical providers and dental
providers can prove invaluable for drug courts seeking to improve the quality
of life for participants.
Community support is critical to program success. This support can
be garnered by opening the doors of the proposed program to interested parties
and the media during the development phase. The benefits of having community
support are often unexpected and somewhat difficult to quantify. A recent
example of this surprise support came to light in a community with a newly
established DUI court program. The program coordinator made a practice of
trying to find one social group or agency for a presentation each month. During
one of these presentations an elderly gentleman who asked if donations could be
made to the program approached him. He went on to say that he was an alcoholic
and had struggled with the disease for close to 50 years. The program coordinator
suggested that he could donate to the program via the non-profit agency established
to help manage funds for the program. About six months later an attorney
notified the program manager that the gentleman had passed away and left a substantial
sum to the program. After going through the probate process the program
received close to $200,000 with no strings attached.
In the United States there are four basic means by which drug courts
are funded. The first of these is through federal grants. These grants may be
obtained through the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), the Office of Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), and from the Substance Abuse and
Mental Health Authority (SAMHSA). And, while the federal dollars have
fluctuated a bit over the years, there has been a strong commitment from the
government to help establish these programs. It should be mentioned that
federal funds are largely reserved for new or expanding programs and not
designed, generally, to support the sustainability of such organizations.
Nearly all of the states have establishing revenue streams for drug
courts. In fact, as of April, 2007, forty states had codified funding for
treatment court programs (Huddleston, Marlowe, and Casebolt, 2008). Funding
from these appropriations generally requires an application to the state agency
responsible for the funding. These agencies can be from the judicial or
executive branches of government and often have extensive and useful program
requirements. Many of these states also require programs to gain local funding
matches for all or some of the distribution.
Local funding generally comes in two kinds. In many cases local
governments, such as cities or municipalities, will provide resources that can
be considered “in-kind” donations to the programs. The donations can be in the
form of meeting space, court services, and employee time. And, in many cases,
county commissioners and city councils may have some discretionary funds that
they can allocate to such programs. A second type of funding is donations from
local social and civic organizations. These funds can be used to defray costs
or purchase incentives for participants.
After the strategic planning has been completed and the team has
been assembled it is important to formalize the relationships with the various
entities involved. Commonly new drug court programs develop contracts with
treatment providers but it is also important to memorialize the expectations of
the other member organizations. Memoranda of understanding (MOU) are a good way
to accomplish this. These memoranda should be established with all of the
agencies represented in the treatment court team as well as those that are
providing resources (e.g. local mental health providers). These agreements
frequently help to prevent misunderstandings and memorialize expectations on
The push to establish treatment courts in a community can be from
both internal and external sources. Recently, a court in a relatively
prosperous tourist destination was pressured by the State Department of
Transportation to implement a treatment court program. The community had an
extremely high rate of drunken driving cases and the State Department of
transportation had available funds for the program. After some cajoling, the
judge agreed to accept the funds and attended training. After listening to the
speakers at the training, the judge was further convinced of both the need in
her community as well as her ability to manage a treatment court program. Upon
returning to her community she worked diligently to identify a treatment
provider for the new program and held a meeting with the public defender and
prosecutor. The County Prosecutor, however, was not sold on the program and
maintained that the only appropriate participants for a treatment court program
are low-risk offenders. This lack of agreement led to a court that was hampered
by the lack of appropriate participation.
the Behavioral Model
One of the central elements of the drug court is the management of
participant behavior through a strategic system of sanctions and incentives
designed to encourage pro-social activities. These sanctions and incentives are
focused on both distal and proximal goals and may be formal (e.g. a gift
certificate) or informal (e.g. a positive comment from the judge). It is
critically important that the program establish a behavioral model that is at
once firm yet fair. As the primary figure of authority within the treatment
court program, the judge most frequently is the one delivering the sanctions
and incentives during the court sessions. There is a strong body of literature
available that prescribes the appropriate approach for the behavioral model
(c.f. Arabia, et al., 2008). It is important to define the proximal and distal
goals that participant have during the program. For example, an addict with a
long history of substance abuse is likely to relapse during the early phases of
the program. For these individuals treatment attendance is the most critical
proximal goal while complete sobriety may be a more distal goal. As such,
attendance should be treated as the most important behavior during the early
phases of the program and sanctions or rewards should be used accordingly.
The behavioral model employed in drug courts requires a high level
of community-based supervision and frequent randomized drug and alcohol
testing. These two components are central to the planning of a new program.
Most often, local probation resources work well for the community supervision
aspect of the program.
One of the most important and profitable tools for ensuring program
success is the use of scientifically driven process and outcome evaluation.
Process evaluations should be considered tools for the management of a
productive program. They provide a point-in-time assessment of program
performance and a comparison to the known best practices of treatment courts.
Process evaluations allow program managers to seek the answers to important
questions they have related to the functioning of their programs. As such,
there are two important elements that bear mentioning in relation to these
evaluations. First, the evaluations should be driven by the management teams’
needs. While there are standards by which programs should be measured including
best practices and the Ten Key Components (both mentioned in detail above), the
real crux of the evaluation should be centered on the issues being faced by the
program in question.
One of the common issues that arise in treatment court evaluations
is the question of how best to use the limited resources available to treatment
court teams. As programs grow the time requirements alone can become quite
daunting. Many programs struggle with how to provide the “right” services for
their population. A recent program evaluation identified just this problem. The
program was brimming with participants and turning away appropriate candidates
due to lack of space. The evaluator was familiar with recent research regarding
the use of risk/needs assessment to determine the appropriate level of care for
program participants. It was determined through careful analysis of the program
population and the potential participants on a waiting list that many actually
would be better suited for a program with less intensive supervision but
similar treatment levels. These individuals were deemed low risk/high need and
were frequently members of the community who were in relatively good standing
(i.e. holding a job and supporting a family). The team decided to open a “Track
Two” program that had as its major elements intensive treatment but less
constant oversight. The early returns on this program have been promising and
the team is delighted to be able to serve a needy population without further
stretching the already thin resources of the program.
In the spring of 2006 the National Drug Court Institute published
performance measures for drug courts that were based upon a growing body of
research in the fields of substance abuse and drug courts (Heck, 2006). The
drug court logic model suggests that short-term or proximal program goals such
as sobriety and reduced recidivism, lead to long-term, or distal, outcomes.
Based upon research related to substance abusing offenders in the criminal
justice system the goals of program retention, participant sobriety, and
reduced recidivism provide a strong basis for expectation of improved long-term
outcomes for program participants (Taxman, 1998). Additionally, it is important
to discuss the amount of services provided to participant while they are in the
program. This is more a measure of program functionality than expected
Retention is calculated as a ration of those who complete a program
over all of those who enter the program given a limited time frame. Nationally,
adult drug courts report a retention rate of approximately 67 to 71%
(Huddleston et al, 2004). However, this rate varies widely from location to
location. Factors that influence retention include the amount of leverage that
the court has over participants as well as the severity and type of criminal
and substance abuse history of the participants. Interestingly, while drug
courts have frequently been accused of selecting clients that are likely to
succeed even without intervention, the data suggest that those with longer
criminal histories and more severe alcohol of drug issues tend to do better in
drug courts when compared with those with limited criminal and substance abuse
exposure. It is unambiguous in the literature that length of stay in treatment
beyond a minimum threshold (generally 90 days) improves outcomes for clients.
Sobriety is an important goal for any treatment court program.
Sobriety is most reliably measured using drug and alcohol screens.
Self-reported data in this area is not considered reliable although many
supplemental programs such as Alcoholics Anonymous allow substance abusers and
addicts to define their own sobriety dates. All drug screens should be
documented. One of the common mistakes made by programs is that they retain
information only on dirty drug or alcohol tests. This method ignores some of
the most valuable data related to programmatic outcomes. Further, the
literature is unambiguous about the positive pro-social effects of clean time
for addicted offenders (Satel, 1999).
Recidivism is simply defined as the rate at which drug court
participants reoffend. This usually includes any types of new offenses with the
exception of technical violations of probation and traffic or other infractions
handled by a citation. And, while the concept is simple to define it is often
very difficult to gain consensus on measurement. After much debate the National
Research Advisory Committee determined that the best means for measuring
recidivism in a local court program during the evaluation process is through
the use of arrest statistics. This choice is based upon several factors. These
factors include the relative ease of accessing these numbers as well as the
need for treatment court teams to respond quickly to arrests of offenders in
Another important measure of programmatic performance is the number
and variety of services provided to treatment court participants. It is
important to ensure that the myriad and varied needs of the program
participants are considered and that these needs are met when feasible. One of
the biggest lessons learned in the drug court movement was the high level of
co-occurring disorders that were evidenced in the populations being served. It
was wrongfully assumed by many program managers and judges that the primary and
only major problem facing participants was related to substance abuse. As time
passed it became increasingly clear that mental illness was a common companion
of substance abuse and those programs that failed to consider and treat this
problem were destined to suffer with relatively poor outcomes.
Normatively, an objective outsider should conduct the process
evaluation with both experience conducting evaluations and knowledge of the
field. Process evaluations are tools that should be used for program
improvement. They should focus on elements of the program such as the extent to
which the program is attaining its goals or the appropriateness of the
treatment given the individual offender’s assessment. A good description of the
important questions for process evaluations can be found in Local Drug Court
Research: Navigating performance measures and process evaluations (Heck,
2006, available on-line at www.ndci.org). During the early years of the federal
funding for drug courts there was a requirement that drug court grantees
performed “evaluations” on their programs. However, few, if any, guidelines
were given to programs establishing of what a process evaluation should
consist. Evaluations were sent in from all over the country and when reviewed
by knowledgeable researchers it was determined that the information gathered in
these “evaluations” was so scattered and misguided as to be completely useless.
In many cases the local program assigned a clerk or some other internal program
staff to perform the evaluation.
There are several mistakes that are commonly made by drug court
teams eager to begin work. The first of these is failing to adequately prepare
for implementation. Many programs seem to rush forward without training and this
can lead to mistakes and poor outcomes. For example, a program was recently
established in a relatively urban jurisdiction. The prosecutor in this
jurisdiction was only interested in working with the drug court if it was handled
as a diversion program for low level and first time offenders. His reasoning
was that he did not want to place his community at risk by keeping individuals
with serious addiction problems in the community. As might be expected, the
results were mixed. Many of the participants felt as if the intensity of the
program was overkill and many who really needed the services of a drug court
were excluded from consideration. After attending drug court training, the
prosecutor was convinced that the program should be expanded to include those
offenders with more serious substance abuse and criminal histories. Outcomes
changed noticeably and the program started to flourish.
Failing to formalize relationships is another common mistake. In the
rush to begin accepting clients that desperately need services, many programs
rely on handshake agreements and informal relationships. One such program was
recently confronted with the very real possibility of shutting their doors
because of a failure to memorialize agreements. In this case it was an agreement
with a local treatment provider. The program had been running smoothly until a
dispute emerged between the treatment personnel and the judge about how best to
manage a particular client. As the dispute escalated the treatment provider
simply decided that he could no longer work with the drug court program and
suddenly all of the program participants were without treatment services.
Fortunately this situation resolved itself quickly but the effects of not
having a contractual relationship were potentially devastating.
Another common mistake is that programs take data for granted. It is
impossible to evaluate a program or measure the successes of a program without
adequate data. For many years programs frequently kept paper files in filing
cabinets as a means for tracking program activity. This makes evaluation and
research extremely time consumptive and expensive. There are several “off the
shelf” drug court electronic databases and few good reasons not to invest in
such a tool.
During the past twenty years the drug court model has grown and
prospered around the United States and abroad. The growth has been amazing
given the difficulty of making changes in any criminal justice related
enterprise. This growth, however, has not been without the pains that go along
with such changes. As courts continue to mature it is likely that there will be
more changes. However, treatment courts serve an area of incredible need. And,
as such it is incumbent upon those of us who practice or research in the field
to ensure that the best information is available and the best practices are
followed. We have learned a great deal since the first drug court was
established in 1989. However, we have much more to learn. Unfortunately,
mistakes and oversights in drug courts are seen in the lives of the program
participants and their families. And this is a cost that is simply too high to
Arabia, P.L., Fox, G.,
Caughie, J., Marlowe, D.B., & Festinger, D.S., (2008). Sanctioning
practices in an adult felony drug court. Drug Court Review, VI(1) 1-31.
Belenko, S. (1998). Research on drug courts: A
critical review. National Drug Court Institute Review, I (1), 1-42.
Belenko, S. (1999). Research on drug courts: A
critical review: 1999 update. National Drug Court Institute Review II (2) 1-58.
Belenko, S. (2001). Research on drug courts:
A critical review: 2001 update. New York: National Center on Addiction and
Substance Abuse at Columbia University.
Carey, S. & Finigan, M. (2003). A detailed
cost analysis in a mature drug court setting: A cost-benefit evaluation of the Multnomah County drug court. Portland, OR: NPC Research, Inc.
Coumans, M. & Spreen, M. (2003). Drug use
and the role of homelessness in the process of marginalization. Substance
Abuse and Misuse 38, 311-338.
Cox, G., Brown, L., Morgan, C, & Hansten, M.
(2001, July 13). NW HIDTA/DASA drug court evaluation project: Final report.
Seattle, WA: Alcohol and Drug Abuse Institute, University of Washington.
Dawkins, M. (1997). Drug use and violent crime
among adolescents. Adolescence 32, 395-406.
Goldkamp, J.S., White,
M.D., & Robinson, J.B. (2001). Do drug courts work? Getting inside
the drug court black box. Journal of Drug Issues 31,
Gottfredson, D.C., Najaka, S.S., & Kearley, B. (2003). Effectiveness of drug
treatment courts: Evidence from a randomized trial. Criminology & Public Policy 2, 171-196.
Government Accountability Office. (1995, May). Drug courts:
Information on a newapproach to address drug-related crime. Report to
congressional committees.Washington, DC: Author.
12. Government Accountability Office. (1997, July). Drug courts:
Overview of growth, characteristics, and results. Report to
congressional committees. Washington, DC: Author.
13. Government Accountability Office. (2002, April). Drug courts: Better
DOJ data collection and evaluation efforts needed to measure impact of drug
court programs. Report to congressional requesters. Washington, DC: Author.
14. Government Accountability Office. (2005, February). Adult drug
courts: Evidence indicates recidivism reductions and mixed results for other outcomes.
Report to congressional committees. Washington, DC: Author.
15. Hagedorn, J.M. (1994). Neighborhoods, markets, and gang drug organization. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 31, 264-294.
16. 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.
17. Heck, C. & Roussell, A. (2007). State administration of drug
courts: Exploring issues of authority, funding, and legitimacy. Criminal
Justice Policy Review, 18(4), 418-433.
18. Heck, C., Roussell, A & Culhane, S.E., (2009). Assessing the
effects of the drug court intervention on offender criminal trajectories: A
research note. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 20(2), 236-246.
Heck, C. & Thanner, M. (2006). Evaluating drug
courts: A model for process evaluation. Drug Court Review, V (2),
Huddleston, C.W., Freeman-Wilson, K., &
Boone, D. (2004, May). Painting the Current Picture: A National Report Card
on Drug Courts and Other Problem Solving Courts I (1), Alexandria, VA: National Drug Court Institute, National Association of Drug Court Professionals.
21. Huddleston, C.W., Freeman-Wilson, K., Marlowe, D.B., & Roussell,
A. (2005, May). Painting the Current Picture: A National Report Card on Drug
Courts and Other Problem Solving Courts I (2), Alexandria, VA: National Drug Court Institute.
22. Logan, T.K., Hoyt, W., & Leukefeld C. (2002). Kentucky
drug court outcome evaluation: Behavior, costs, & avoided costs to society.
Lexington, KY: Center on Drug and Alcohol Research, University of Kentucky.
23. Marlowe, D.B. (2005). Drug court efficacy vs. effectiveness. Offender
Substance Abuse Report 5, 1-2, 15-16. [Reprinted from www.jointogether.org,
Sept. 29, 2004]
24. Marlowe, D.B., Dematteo, D.S. & Festinger, D.S. (2003). A sober
assessment of drug courts. Federal Sentencing Reporter 16,
25. Marlowe, D.B., Festinger, D.S., & Lee, P.A. (2003). The role of
judicial status hearings in drug court. Offender Substance Abuse
Report 3, 33-34, 44-46.
26. Marlowe, D.B., Festinger, D.S., & Lee, P.A. (2004). The judge is
a key component of drug court. National Drug Court Institute Review
IV (2) 1-34.
27. Marlowe, D.B., Festinger, D.S., Lee, P.A., Dugosh, K.L., &
Benasutti, K.M. (2006). Matching judicial supervision to clients’ risk status
in drug court. Crime & Delinquency 52, 52-76.
28. National Association of Drug Court Professionals. (1997, January). Defining
drug courts: The key components. Washington, DC: Drug Courts Program
Office, Office of Justice Programs, US Department of Justice.
29. National Center for State
Courts. (2007). Wyoming Drug Court Performance Measures Project. Denver,
CO: Author, Court Consulting Services.
30. Rempel, M., Fox-Kralstein, D., Cissner, A., Cohen, R., Labriola,
& M., Farole, (2003). The New York State adult drug court evaluation:
Policies, participants, and impacts. New York: Center for Court
31. Rempel, M. (2006). Recidivism 101: Evaluating the impact of your
drug court. Drug Court Review, V (2), 83-112.
Roman, J., Townsend, W., & Bhati, A.S.
(2003, July). Recidivism rates for drug courtgraduates: Nationally based
estimates, final report. San Diego, CA: Caliber Associates and the Urban Institute.
33. Satel, S.L. (2000). Drug treatment: The case for coercion. National
Drug Court Institute Review III (1), 1-22.
34. Schroeder, R.W., Giordano, P.C., & Cernkovich, S.A. (2007). Drug use and desistance processes. Criminology 45, 191-217.
Table of contents: The Kazakh-American Free University Academic Journal №3 - 2011