U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.

NCJRS Virtual Library

The Virtual Library houses over 235,000 criminal justice resources, including all known OJP works.
Click here to search the NCJRS Virtual Library

Drug Court Evaluation Project, Final Report

NCJ Number
197994
Author(s)
Gary Cox Ph.D.; Linda Brown Ph.D.; Charles Morgan Ph.D.; Michelle Hansten M.S.W
Date Published
July 2001
Length
128 pages
Annotation
This document discusses drug court policy in Washington State.
Abstract
Drug courts were designed to administer cases referred for judicially supervised drug treatment and rehabilitation. Offenders that met clearly defined criteria and agreed to participate were diverted to drug court programs in exchange for the possibility of dismissed or reduced sentences. Between 1994 and 1999 six counties in Washington started adult drug court programs. An evaluation of the organizational and operational characteristics of the courts shows that, while there are differences among the programs in the specifics of implementation, all have strongly incorporated most of the Drug Court Program Office key elements in the ongoing operation of their programs. These key elements include judicial leadership and the drug court team, access to comprehensive treatment based on the needs of the offender, monitoring, frequent and personal contact with the drug court judge, eligibility criteria, and relationships with law enforcement. Common issues facing the drug court programs are developing a stable and adequate funding base and developing and supporting adequate data systems. Eleven administrative data sets were analyzed to determine outcomes of the drug court programs. Results show that graduates have fewer re-arrests than any of the other outcome groups. Offenders that graduated from drug court were less likely than offenders in any other group to be re-convicted in the 3 years following referral to drug court. Graduates had zero rates of imprisonment in the post drug court referral period in all counties except one. Graduate groups showed systematic and substantial increases in incomes, with some tail-off in the third year. In general the counties have similar lengths of stay for the groups. Drug court participants appear to be receiving, on average, as much treatment as is useful. References, 3 appendices

Downloads

No download available

Availability