![](media/image1.jpeg){width="13.196527777777778in"
height="1.0319444444444446in"}

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Volusia County Juvenile Dependency Drug Treatment Division:**       |
|                                                                       |
| ***Innovation in Program Design for Strengthening Families***         |
|                                                                       |
| ![](media/image2.png){width="2.6333333333333333in"                    |
| height="2.6333333333333333in"}                                        |
|                                                                       |
| Robert A. Kirchner, Ph.D.                                             |
|                                                                       |
| Kimberly Jackson Prachniak                                            |
|                                                                       |
| Kenneth D. Robinson, ED.D.                                            |
|                                                                       |
| Glacier Consulting, Inc.                                              |
|                                                                       |
| March 2005                                                            |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

**Volusia County Juvenile Dependency Drug Treatment Division
(VCJDDTD):**

***Innovation in Program Design for Strengthening Families***

![](media/image3.png){width="3.061111111111111in"
height="2.9805555555555556in"}

Prepared by:

Robert A. Kirchner, Ph.D.

Kimberly Jackson Prachniak

Kenneth D. Robinson, Ed.D.

**Glacier Consulting, Inc.**

March 2005

This report is an evaluation of the Volusia County Juvenile Dependency
Drug Treatment Division program. The evaluators would like to thank all
of the Team members, as well as other individuals interviewed for taking
time out of their busy schedules to make this evaluation a success. This
report was prepared under Grant No. 2003-DC-BX-0025 received from the
Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office of Justice Programs, U. S.
Department of Justice, by Volusia County, Florida. The views of the
authors do not represent the opinions, policies or official positions of
DOJ, Volusia County or others offices and organizations included in the
report.

#### Table of Contents

**[OVERVIEW OF THE EVALUATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 4]{.smallcaps}**

**[Scope and Methodology of the Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . .
12]{.smallcaps}**

**[PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . 17]{.smallcaps}**

**VCJDDTD PROGRAM DESIGN. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
19**

**[CRITICAL DRUG COURT ELEMENTS]{.smallcaps}**

**[AND STATUS OF IMPLEMENTATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
35]{.smallcaps}**

**[REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41]{.smallcaps}**

**VISUAL PRESENTATIONS**

**Volusia County Juvenile Dependency Drug Treatment Division (VCJDDTD)**

**Framework for Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
. . . . . . . . 11**

**Volusia County Juvenile Dependency Drug Treatment Division (VCJDDTD)**

**Drug Court Team and Organization. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 21**

**OVERVIEW OF THE EVALUATION**

Volusia County contracted for an intensive evaluation to support their
efforts under the Drug Court Enhancement Grand during all stages of
program implementation. The independent evaluation team[^1] performed
the first stage of the evaluation of the Volusia County Juvenile
Dependency Drug Treatment Division (VCJDDTD) from July 2004 through
March 2005, including intensive periods of fieldwork.. This is the first
in a series of reports, and represents an implementation study of
VCJDDTD, an adult drug court program located in western Washington, with
principal city of Olympia.

From September 2002 to the present, the VCJDDTD attempted a series of
enhancements to meet the needs of the target population and to provide
additional access to treatment and other supporting activities involving
outreach and coordination of services. With the first graduation on
October 15, 2003, the program reached its first stage of full
performance, and has continually grown in both participant numbers and
program services.

Drug Court programs must include research and evaluation components
before implementation begins. A standard method to perform ongoing
evaluation activities is needed. Information on programs that work, and
confirmation on why they work, is needed as well. Evaluation is
important to improving the effectiveness and quality of drug court
programs. Integration of the program evaluation when the program is
designed is the preferred approach. An evaluation systems approach to
program development is needed to ensure that: (1) effectiveness and
efficiency are maintained within the program and (2) progress on the
program objectives is communicated to key policy makers, managers, and
the public. Building evaluation into program development truly makes a
drug court \"whole\" and ready for implementation. It is important for
the evaluation to answer the questions that decision-makers have, so
that the results will be readily useful.

The application of the framework and methods below creates an analytical
model that must be made an ongoing part of the program management for
drug courts. With information provided by program evaluations, program
managers can ensure effective program performance and accountability. If
program evaluation is to be a fundamental part of effective public
administration, the primary responsibility for program evaluation should
rest with oversight officials. To more closely integrate an evaluation
with program administration, we propose that managers be assigned the
primary responsibility for assuring that program evaluation demonstrates
the extent to which the program is effectively administered. It is
important as well to support the manager in producing an effectively
adminis­tered program.

A useful definition for evaluation: Evaluation involves the systematic
assessment of whether and to what extent projects or programs are
implemented as intended and whether they achieve their intended
objectives. This entails asking questions about programs, and collecting
and analyzing information to learn about program operations and to
discover program results.

The incremental phases of developing a complete evaluation system that
are presented here are fully explained in [Assessing the Effectiveness
of Criminal Justice Programs]{.underline}[^2]. Assessing the
effectiveness of programs for the purpose of finding out how well they
have been implemented and to compare the extent to which the activities
funded have achieved the program\'s goals is always possible, even given
limited resources and funding constraints. The three incremental phases
for "complete" evaluation systems include program logic analysis,
process evaluation and impact/intensive evaluation.

The purpose of \"program logic analysis\" is to provide the basic
foundation of program design, including the established linkages between
objectives and program activities and consensus on performance and
impact indicators. Developing a \"model\" of the program in the planning
stage permits managers to formulate their expectations for program
outcomes, which can be used later for program analysis and evaluation.
Actual results are of little use, if they cannot be compared with
expected results. Program logic analysis also provides needed
information to conduct initial implementation studies and assessments
directed by inquiries on program progress. Implementation analysis
specifically identifies what is often forgotten \-- descriptions of
program [activities]{.underline}, which are the formative basis for
evaluation. Hence, the program manager can begin with evaluation as a
management tool. Finally, this phase builds the foundation for both
process and impact evaluations.

The purpose of the \"process evaluation\" is to provide evaluators with
technical information that can assist it in developing and implementing
similar programs. Special attention is given to identifying the lessons
learned at the various sites and the guidance they can provide to other
jurisdictions regarding organization and development of program
activities and to the implementation of program elements which are
useful in addressing particular kinds of purposes or problems. Notably,
performing process evaluations establishes the foundation for more
intensive impact evaluations.

The purpose of the \"impact/intensive evaluation\" is to provide
management information needed by Federal, State or local officials and
community leaders involved in policy and programming decisions which
clearly confirm that specific programs and/or activities do work, or do
not work. The impacts observed in the demonstration projects are
distilled to provide assessment of the impact to the program strategies.
Measuring the impact of activities in relation to the goals and
objectives, which they seek to achieve, requires the development of
"performance indicators." An [indicator]{.underline} is defined as an
explicit measure of effects or results expected. It tells to what extent
an activity has been successful in achieving, or contributing to, an
objective.

The project contracted to by Glacier Consulting, Inc. (GCI) proposes to
accomplish these five (5) goals for the Volusia County Juvenile
Dependency Drug Treatment Division (VCJDDTD):

> 1\. Assess the outcome measures of the Volusia County Family Court
> Drug Court Program, including but not limited to, the number of
> defendants who applied to the drug court program and where denied,
> number of VCJDDTD participants, participant demographics, number of
> VCJDDTD terminations, number of completions, VCJDDTD compliance,
> number arrests while in VCJDDTD, number of arrests after completion/
> termination from VCJDDTD, number of urine drug screens and results,
> employment and education services achieved by clients, drug of choice
> and number of drug free babies born to the VCJDDTD.
>
> 2\. Compare the outcome measures of the Volusia County Family Drug
> Court Program participants to matched groups to examine the
> success/failure of compliance, recidivism and improved quality of life
> (employment and education services).
>
> 3\. Examine process evaluation measures of the Volusia County Family
> Drug Court Program since implementation to detect any environmental
> changes that would affect outcomes.
>
> 4\. To establish a baseline for use in future outcome research studies
> of the Volusia County Family Drug Court Program.
>
> 5\. To assess the drug court program's compliance with goals set forth
> in the Bureau of Justice Assistance, Drug Court Program's funding
> grant.

The diagram below presents the process used to design the evaluation
purposes, tasks, results and stages.

Volusia County Juvenile Dependency Drug Treatment Division (VCJDDTD)

[Framework for Evaluation]{.underline}

**Phase 1. Establishing the Foundation**

**Phase 2. Implementing Action Plan**

**Scope and Methodology of the Evaluation**

A need exists for information on programs that work and confirmation on
why they work. Drug Court Programs, and specifically new cost-effective,
innovative demonstration drug courts must include research and
evaluation components before implementation begins. We all work in
complex political and bureaucratic environments attempting to accomplish
numerous and conflicting goals, and having critical data on VCJDDTD
performance is often the best offense for VCJDDTD managers.

Assessment and evaluation can be important tools in improving the
effectiveness and quality of the success of drug courts, if they are
integrated into the plans and designs of criminal justice strategies
rather than added on afterward. An evaluation systems approach to
Program development is needed to ensure that: (1) effectiveness and
efficiency are maintained within the Program and (2) progress on the
VCJDDTD objectives is communicated to key policy makers, managers, and
the public. Building evaluation into program development truly makes a
drug court \"whole\" and ready for implementation. Evaluation activities
and methods become \"applied\" in their use, and provide for on-going
VCJDDTD improvement and - perhaps more important - opportunities for
future, more intensive evaluation. \"Applied\" simply dictates that
evaluations answer the questions of decision makers, and present results
and recommendations that are readily useful to practitioners.

The primary analysis strategy is to examine the current operation of the
program and assessing the implementation process, situational factors
and VCJDDTD impact. All results and findings will also be used to
compare and clarify how the evolution of the adult drug court is similar
and different from national critical elements and key components. This
will be accomplished by implementing a three (3) step evaluation design
that consists of site visits, focus groups, surveys and data collection:

Intensive interviews with members of each member of the Drug Court Team
and its participants, including documentation of the requirements and
expectations of each; Interactive Focus Groups using a structured
instrument addressing issues and status of implementation; and
intensive, systematic review of process and outcome indicators of past
performance. Collection, compilation and analysis of all available
quantified data, including reviews and assessments of prior reports and
case management and treatment files.

Completing the intensive, systematic review of process and outcome
indicators of past performance will be facilitated through this
approach. The collection, compilation and analysis of all available
quantified data for the drug court depend on the cooperation from those
involved in the VCJDDTD Program.

The framework used by this approach to documenting the program provides
a basis for specifying its uniqueness. The evaluation formulates a
program logic model, including descriptions of all VCJDDTD components
and the relationships between VCJDDTD components. The model establishes
a baseline for the process evaluation to determine (1) if the components
are being implemented as designed and expected and (2) to determine if
improvements can be made to current operations. This approach should
yield useful information for consideration of the Drug Court Team.

GCI is establishing an ongoing evaluation system that will allow the
Court to examine the degree to which their objectives have been met and
the extent to which different combinations of judicial oversight,
treatment services and supervisory services have produced successful
short term client outcomes (retention and discharge) or long term client
outcomes (recidivism). The evaluation design will contribute this
information and allow the drug court to adjust their focus and practices
and improve both short term and long term client behaviors and outcomes.

GCI will derive both qualitative and quantitative data that will ensure
that the drug court (1) is treating the clients it expected to, (2)
client presenting problems are sufficient to warrant drug court
intervention, (3) treatment plans match client presenting problems, (4)
client treatment and supervision produce progress, (5) client progress
forecasts successful client retention and discharge, and (6) client
retention and successful discharge create positive client long term
behaviors.

An outcome/impact evaluation shall be conducted to analyze the
effectiveness of the VCJDDTD, cost-benefit effectiveness, and the
achievement of VCJDDTD goals. The evaluation period shall cover the
period from the initial pilot VCJDDTD begun in May 1998 if feasible
based on available data, through the end of the grant period, which is
approximately a 2 year time period.

The Drug Court will utilize its own MIS that is currently in use to
store and record data from the VCJDDTD on a regular and timely basis. It
will provide this data to the evaluator upon request. The Drug Court
Team will work with GCI to revise database as required utilizing its own
resources and database expert.

**PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT**

The drug court program is a relatively new program where traditional
adjudication is combined with substance abuse treatment and other
ancillary services that are targeted to reduce substance abuse and
substance abuse related crime. Drug courts have been operating since the
first successful implementation in Miami, Florida in 1989. Since that
time there are now approximately 1,600 drug courts in the United States
either operating or in the planning stages.[^3]

Even with the increased expansion of drug courts in the past nine years,
the amount of research and evaluations showcasing successful programs
have not caught up.[^4] Antidotal data have shown that practitioners
believe the drug court to be an overall effective measure, but the
primary goals of retaining drug offenders in treatment, reducing costs
of processing drug offenders thorough the court system and reduced
recidivism and incarceration needs to be documented with accurate
outcome data and correct methodological practices.

The VCJDDTD program began as a new initiation of the Seventh Judicial
Circuit Court system in September 2002 as a separate docket sponsored by
Volusia County. After receiving the Family Drug Court Implementation
Grant in late 2003 from the Bureau of Justice Assistance, VCJDDTD
program expanded its services and the number of clients for their
program. The current participant status of the program is (as of March
1, 2005):

**ACTIVE CLIENTS:**

-   **Family Units 23**

-   **Adults 25**

-   **Children 50**

**GRADUATES:**

-   **Family Units 9**

-   **Adults 9**

-   **Children 26**

**EXPLUSION/DISCHARGE 9 Family Units**

**NOT ADMITTED 4 Family Units**

**VCJDDTD PROGRAM DESIGN**[^5]

***MISSION STATEMENT***

The Volusia County Juvenile Dependency Drug Treatment Division (VCJDDTD)
is a judicially led Program, specifically designed to facilitate the
treatment and rehabilitation of Dependency Court-involved,
substance-abusing, adult parents, who meet established eligibility
criteria. The VCJDDTD's intent is to work with participants who have a
significant substance abuse history.

In drug court programs, it is interesting to note that some team members
shed their traditional roles and adapt the manner in which they operate.
Such team members keep the goals of the program in mind. As a result,
Program participants that once taxed the resources of the community
become assets to the community. Society becomes a safer place. VCJDDTD
relies heavily upon the cooperation of stakeholders in the community.
Even though the Steering Committee and the VCJDDTD Team include many
entities within the community, there are others who might share goals
that are common to those of the program. Additional assistance is always
welcome. There is a standing invitation to all community stakeholders to
join in the endeavor.

The Volusia County Juvenile Dependency Drug Treatment Division Team and
other individuals involved with the program, are presented in the
following the organizational diagram of the program:

Volusia County Juvenile Dependency Drug Treatment Division

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  Guardian Ad Litem

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  Private Attorneys

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

Through collaboration, several important items have been identified,
which are:

-   The removal and sheltering of children often makes addicts good
    candidates for intervention. Therefore, placement into VCJDDTD as
    soon after removal as possible will likely increase the chances for
    success.

-   The level of communications among VCJDDTD Team members must be
    unfaltering to ensure that the Judge is able to use incentives and
    consequences effectively.

-   Substance abuse often inflicts damage over several years time.
    Likewise, the treatment response for such a malady will likely
    require a long-term solution.

-   Substance abuse is often an external indicator of other problems
    that an individual faces. Isolating and treating this underlying
    cause may assist an addict in recovery.

-   Relapse and sporadic progress is to be expected, therefore
    progressive incentives and consequences are integral components of
    the VCJDDTD program.

**[VCJDDTD PROGRAM DESIGN -- GOALS AND OBJECTIVES]{.underline}**

The program's goals are:

-   To enhance communication and collaboration among the dependency
    court, defense attorneys, and child protective services, substance
    abuse treatment providers, social services and interested community
    stakeholders.

-   To design a complete case processing plan from program entry to
    graduation.

-   To ensure that individuals who participate in the program for sixty
    days will be subsequently involved with child protective services
    less often than non-participants with similar profiles.

-   To ensure that graduates are subsequently involved with child
    protective services less often than are non-graduates with similar
    profiles.

-   To facilitate quick entry into substance abuse treatment.

-   To ensure high rates of retention in treatment among participants.

-   To ensure that program graduates are more actively involved in the
    community than are non-participants with similar profiles.

-   To ensure full and adequate compliance with the American Society of
    Addictions Medicine standards.

**[Eligibility criteria:]{.underline}**

-   Age: 18 and above.

-   Documented history of chronic substance dependence and prior
    treatment failure or refusal to participate in treatment.

-   Multiple children within the dependency system.

-   Non-compliant with case plan, found in contempt of judicial orders,
    facing potential incarceration and/or termination of parental
    rights.

-   Respondent is a current Volusia County resident.

-   Reasonable likelihood of successful completion based on mental and
    physical capabilities, as well as psychosocial, environmental and
    family considerations.

-   Respondent voices motivation toward re-unification.

-   Respondent has not failed a drug court program within the last five
    years.

**[Program Eligibility and Screening:]{.underline}**

-   Members of the VCJDDTD Team will refer candidates who appear to meet
    eligibility criteria to the program's Coordinator.

-   If the respondent is interested in entering the program, the
    Coordinator will compile screening information from substance abuse
    treatment, the Department of Children and Families (DCF), Community
    Based Care (CBC) and other service providers, if appropriate, to
    determine if the candidate qualifies for the program.

-   The Coordinator will share these findings with the Drug Court Judge
    to approve or not approve the candidate's entry into the program.

-   If approved, the respondent's attorney will meet with their client
    to fully explain the VCJDDTD program in order to ensure that the
    individual only volunteers to participate based upon complete
    information regarding the potential benefits and liabilities
    associated with participating in the program.

-   If the respondent meets the entrance criteria and agrees to a
    revised case plan that includes participation in the VCJDDTD, the
    Judge will modify the case plan in such a way that mandates full
    participation in the Program.

+------------+---------------------------+----------------------------+
| [E         |                           |                            |
| ligibility |                           |                            |
| Criteria   |                           |                            |
| Matrix:]{. |                           |                            |
| underline} |                           |                            |
+------------+---------------------------+----------------------------+
|            | **Qualifying Factors**    | **Disqualifying Factors**  |
+------------+---------------------------+----------------------------+
| **Client   | -   Chronic Substance     | -   \< 18 years old        |
| Charact    |     Abuse                 |                            |
| eristics** |                           | -   Not a resident of      |
|            | -   Prior substance abuse |     Volusia County         |
|            |     treatment failure or  |                            |
|            |     prior refusal to      | -   Life threatening       |
|            |     participate           |     illness requiring      |
|            |                           |     intensive medical care |
|            | -   Motivated toward      |                            |
|            |     reunification         | -   Persistent and Primary |
|            |                           |     Axis I mental health   |
|            | -   Voluntary agreement   |     disorder not amenable  |
|            |     to participate        |     to treatment based on  |
|            |                           |     history                |
+------------+---------------------------+----------------------------+
| **Case     | -   Multiple children in  | -   1^st^ time dependency  |
| Charact    |     dependency system     |     referral               |
| eristics** |                           |                            |
|            | -   Non-compliant with    | -   Prior drug court       |
|            |     case plan, found in   |     failure within past 5  |
|            |     contempt, given       |     years                  |
|            |     dependency drug court |                            |
|            |     as final option to    |                            |
|            |     incarceration         |                            |
+------------+---------------------------+----------------------------+

**[Design of the Phase Requirement Structure:]{.underline}**

The phase requirement structure accommodates individualized treatment
plans in such a way that participants who excel in the program will be
able to complete the VCJDDTD in as few as twelve months. If the
substance abuse assessment indicates that a participant is in need of
residential treatment, graduation from the program may take a few extra
months. If an individual has been in the program for 36 months and a new
candidate is unable to enter the program because the program is at
capacity, the participant will be terminated from the program without
graduating to make room for the new candidate.

The program's seven-phase design enables the program to interrupt a
participant's drug using crisis by requiring quick entry into substance
abuse treatment and to obligate them to remain in effective treatment
for a significant amount of time. The design also ensures that
participants are ready to function on their own before graduating.
Treatment services will be available after graduation as well. The
program has seven phases because it is important for participants to
earn and experience success early and often. Additionally, participants
will know exactly what the program requires because orientations will be
conducted at the start of every phase.

The primary purpose for a nominal program fee will be to facilitate
participant accountability to help them to perceive the value of there
own recovery. There will be provisions to reduce or waive program fees
based on ability to pay. Community service hours will also be permitted
in lieu of paying cash. Finally, these fees will also offset the future
costs of operating the program.

Although the program will place a great deal of importance on addressing
the individual needs of the participant, maintaining the integrity of
the program is also necessary. This will be accomplished by establishing
a minimum number of supervision contacts, treatment sessions, court
appearances and random drug tests for each phase of the program.

**[Appropriate Assessment:]{.underline}**

Care Managers employed by Serenity House and Intervention Specialists
(IS) employed by Stewart-Marchman Center work in conjunction with
Protective Service Investigators employed by the Department of Children
and Families (DCF), the State of Florida's agent responsible to protect
neglected and abused children. IS workers and Care Managers also working
closely with Community Based Care (CBC) Case Managers. CBC is a local
non-profit agency with witch DCF has contracted to handle case
management functions within the dependency court system. The IS will,
within 5 days of referral, complete and provide the Drug Court Team with
a written clinical assessment report. These evaluations will be
completed by a Certified Addiction Professional (CAP), a licensed
practitioner as provided for in Chapter 491, Florida Statutes, or a
qualified professional overseen by a CAP or licensed practitioner,
through a clinical interview process. The following types of assessment
tools may be used: the Michigan Alcoholism Screening Test (MAST), the
Addictions Severity Index (ASI), the Substance Abuse Subtle Screening
Instrument (SASSI) or one with similar validity. Assessment information
will include alcohol and drug use history, psychosocial evaluation,
initial urine screen, physical health, employment history, legal
history, educational status, and, where indicated, mental health
assessment. Positive past treatment attempts and a strength-based
treatment history will be included. The assessment will rule out
problems that are beyond the scope of the program and develop an
individualized treatment plan with the participant. Assessing the
participant's strengths and needs will assist in the creation of a plan
that matches the needs of the client.

**[Treatment and Wraparound Services:]{.underline}**

The VCJDDTD will employ the services of substance abuse treatment
agencies, child protective caseworkers, primary health care providers,
and other community resources to provide services to targeted
individuals. Treatment will provide assessments, residential and
outpatient treatment, and training that emphasizes parenting and family
life-skills that will meet the developmental needs of children.
Treatment counselors will typically make referrals to primary health
care providers, mental health services and domestic abuse counseling.
Facilitating individual, group and family counseling will be a primary
function of treatment. Recreational aspects of recovery, linkages with
twelve-step programs, nutritional guidance, and assisting in the
collection of urine samples will also be under the purview of treatment.
Additional services will be arranged with other community providers that
specialize in the delivery of those services (e.g., domestic violence
counseling, parent training, mental health, primary health services,
etc.).

The primary substance abuse treatment providers that are currently
active members of this planning process include Serenity House and
Stewart-Marchman Center. These agencies are private, non-profit
organizations. Each offers specialty residential programs that serve
drug dependent, women and their children. In addition to these
specialized services the three agencies cover, the entire continuum of
substance abuse treatment services includes substance abuse and mental
health assessments and evaluations, detoxification, intervention and
outpatient treatment services for adults and juveniles, vocational and
rehabilitative counseling, continuing care, and halfway houses.

The providers have formally agreed to network and partner with one
another to deliver an effective continuum of treatment services for the
VCJDDTD. Information concerning client progress will be exchanged
through the use of Consent to Release Information Forms, written
reports, and verbal reports. The Volusia/Flagler Substance Abuse
Coordinating Counsel uses a widely accepted, shared Management
Information System (MIS) provided by CMHC Systems. The providers also
use a unified assessment tool and treatment protocols.

Individualized client-oriented treatment plans will be developed with
the participants and their families to address strengths and needs
consistently and frequently. Treatment plans will include goals and
related measurable behavioral objectives to be achieved by the client
with their input. These plans will be reviewed on a monthly basis with
the client and their primary treatment counselor. Counseling groups,
individualized sessions, and family counseling will be used in
treatment. Family members and significant others will be encouraged to
attend court appearances (as appropriate) with the participants during
all phases of their program involvement. The VCJDDTD Team members will
strongly encourage family members to participate in substance abuse
treatment and/or family therapy sessions, as indicated on the
participant's treatment plan. Teamwork between treatment and child
welfare case managers will help to encourage family members to assist
the participants in recovery.

**[Cultural Competence:]{.underline}**

Ethnic and racial characteristics, gender, religious affiliation, creed,
sexual orientation, literacy, disability, color and national origin will
have no bearing as to which participants will be permitted to enter the
program and receive services. Gender specific groups addressing topics
such as sexual behavior and its consequences and roles and
responsibilities in interpersonal relationships will be components of
the treatment. The ethnicity of treatment staff will be comparable with
the program's target population. The treatment curriculum will include
culturally diverse subject matter as well as address issues on anger
management, grief and loss, communication, victimization, values
clarification, enhancement of life skills, stress and coping skills,
nutrition, and topics designed for participants of specific ages.
Treatment will provide individual assistance to those participants who
are illiterate. Treatment will also ensure that services are delivered
in such a way that assists clients regardless of their sexual
orientation. Continuing training and education of treatment staff will
be a primary tool to ensure that participants receive effective
treatment regardless of any of the before mentioned client differences
(i.e. race, age, gender, etc.).

**[Case Management and Wraparound Services:]{.underline}**

Case management services will be provided by Community Based Care (CBC),
the state approved, private non-profit organization that DCF has
selected as the group child welfare service provider. Case management
includes identifying and assessing child and family needs and
evaluating, coordinating and ensuring that necessary services are
provided; providing in-home services to clients; assisting and
counseling individuals and families by suggesting alternatives, helping
to articulate goals and providing information. Tracking participant
compliance and reporting progress to the Team are inclusive of a Case
Manager's duties. They will develop strengthen relationships with
traditional vocational and educational sources to enable access for
participants. Case managers will refer participants to needed health and
social services, child-care providers, potential employers,
educational/vocational services and community service work sites. Home
visits, office visits and field visits to locations such as participant
work/school sites and treatment sites will be important case management
tools.

Case Managers will be the keys to ensuring transition and continuity
from residential to outpatient treatment and linkages with ancillary
services. Case Managers will have the primary responsibility of
collecting urine samples for drug testing purposes. The Case Manager
will be able to perform these required duties because the ratio of
participants to case managers will be no greater than 17:1, considerably
less than the existing ratio which exceeds 23:1. CBC will provide one
such Case Manager via current funding sources. The additional two Case
Managers will be funded by future grant dollars.

**[Frequent Judicial Supervision:]{.underline}**

Pre-hearings and hearings will be held once a week. The entire Team will
participate in the pre-hearings, which will take place immediately
before hearings begin. Written and verbal reports will be provided to
the Court. The participants will appear in Court frequently according to
the Phase Requirement Structure. Other parties with information
important to the progress of the participant will be invited to attend
pre-hearings on an as needed basis. The roles of the Team members will
be to report participant progress, recommend the application of
incentives or sanctions in a non-adversarial fashion, and to advise the
Court concerning alternatives. The goal is to take the course of action
that is most likely to reduce the participant's substance abuse and
reflect the best interests of the children involved. Although the Court
allows significant Team input, the Judge makes the final decision.

**[Drug Testing]{.underline}:**

In Volusia, Court Administration has operated its own drug testing
laboratory for well over five years. The lab procedures, reliability,
accuracy and cost effectiveness are well documented and widely accepted.
Among others, the Judiciary, Pretrial Services, and the other Drug Court
Programs rely heavily on the abilities of this lab. Court
Administration's Lab will provide drug-testing services for the VCJDDTD.
Procedures for maintaining a secure chain of custody, sending out for
GCMS testing and true randomization systems are already in place. Test
results are routinely provided within one day and can be available in
minutes, if necessary. Full panel tests include up to ten assays to
include dilution and adulteration testing. The lab is able to routinely
test for cocaine, marijuana, alcohol, opiates, barbiturates,
amphetamines and propoxyphene but, if necessary, it can test for other
drugs of abuse with relative ease.

While in residential, treatment providers will have the responsibility
for collecting samples. The collecting of urine samples will be
observed. Once in phase 4 participants are required to provide at least
three samples a week. The drug-testing laboratory will collect two
urinalysis tests a week, with treatment collecting the other. The tests
will be conducted via a true random number system whereby participants
will not easily be able to predict when they will be asked to provide a
sample.

**[Incentives and Sanctions:]{.underline}**

All Drug Court Team members will frequently encourage program
participants by using honest and meaningful positive reinforcement.
Incentives that will be used include verbal praise from the bench, phase
advancements, certificates and tokens for achievement, a reduction in
supervision requirements, and a graduation ceremony. The program will
constantly look for new ways to encourage participants to succeed.
Incentives will be applied as soon as possible and no later than the
next court hearing for achievement, progressing well, full
participation, good reports, clean urine samples and heroic acts.

Behavior modification often requires a large measure of encouragement
and a small measure of correction. After considering input from the
Team, the Judge will apply sanctions in a fair, consistent, and
expedient fashion.

Application of sanctions will be increasingly severe based on the
frequency and magnitude of the infraction. Sanctions may be used to
address minor rule infractions, missed treatment sessions, missed case
management contacts, law violations, positive urinalysis results,
negative attitudes, and failure to participate in treatment. The types
of sanctions that will be used are judicial warnings and admonishments,
curfews, written assignments, jail confinement and community service
work. Increased supervision requirements, deferral of phase advancement,
and relegation back to previous phases will also be used as sanctions.
An increase in the amount of participation in treatment activities may
be required by the Judge, however, this will not be used for purposes of
sanctioning. Factors used in determining when treatment activities
should be increased will be based on treatment needs. If clinically
necessary, treatment requirements can be increased by the treatment
provider before being formally supported by the Court at a hearing.
Additionally, hearing dates may be moved to an earlier date if
necessary.

**[Graduation Requirements:]{.underline}**

A program participant will be eligible to graduate upon approval of the
Drug Court Judge, which will be based on the input of the Team. To
graduate, one will be required to advance to the program's seventh phase
and complete the phase requirements, including the treatment plan and
case plan.

**[Expulsion Criteria:]{.underline}**

Participants in the program may be terminated from the VCJDDTD at the
discretion of the Judge, based on Team input. Dismissal from the program
may occur due to continuous failure to participate in treatment,
continuous failure to complete all program requirements, numerous
positive urinalysis results and/or a new adjudication of child neglect.
Program participants that are charged with specific criminal offenses
will be terminated from the program, if probable cause is found. Such
offenses include drug sales, drug trafficking, violent offenses and
sexual offenses. Other charges will be considered on a case-by-case
basis.

PHASE STRUCTURE

+----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| **[Phase 1 (Assessment,          | Program Fees: None                |
| Orientation and                  |                                   |
| Placement)]{.underline}**        | Participate in Full Program       |
|                                  | Orientation                       |
| Location: Addiction Receiving    |                                   |
| Facility                         | Complete all program-related      |
|                                  | paperwork                         |
| Minimum Duration: 3 Days         |                                   |
|                                  | [**To Advance to Next             |
| Orientation: Participate in      | Phase**:]{.underline}             |
| Program and Phase Orientation    |                                   |
|                                  | Consecutive Clean Days: None      |
| Court Appearances: Once a Week   | Required                          |
|                                  |                                   |
| Drug tests: Once a day           | Complete Substance Abuse          |
|                                  | Assessment                        |
| Support Groups: Once a day (at   |                                   |
| least)                           | Complete Physical Examination by  |
|                                  | trained medical staff             |
| Treatment Groups: None           |                                   |
|                                  | Complete Specific Treatment       |
| Individual Treatment Counseling: | Recommendation                    |
| Once a day (at least)            |                                   |
|                                  | Approval of Program Team          |
| Face-to-Face Contact with CBC:   |                                   |
| Once during this phase           | Formal Approval of the Program    |
|                                  | Judge at Hearing                  |
+----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+

+-----------------------------------+----------------------------------+
| **[Phase 2 (Residential Treatment | Treatment Plan Update: A minimum |
| if Needed)]{.underline}**         | of one time per month            |
|                                   |                                  |
| Location: Residential Facility    | Family Counseling: As indicated  |
|                                   | in individualized treatment plan |
| Duration: Minimum of 60 Days or   |                                  |
| as indicated by Assessment        | Face-to-Face Contact with CBC:   |
|                                   | At least once every two weeks    |
| Orientation: Participate in       |                                  |
| Program and Phase Orientation     | Program Fees: None               |
|                                   |                                  |
| Court Appearances: Once a week    | **[To Advance to Next            |
|                                   | Phase:]{.underline}**            |
| Drug tests: A minimum of one      |                                  |
| random test per week              | Consecutive Clean Days: 45 (at   |
|                                   | least)                           |
| Support Groups: A minimum of      |                                  |
| three per week                    | Submit Written Phase Advancement |
|                                   | Request                          |
| Treatment Groups: A minimum of    |                                  |
| seven per week                    | Approval of the Program Team     |
|                                   |                                  |
| Individual Treatment Counseling:  | Formal Approval of the Program   |
| A minimum of one per week         | Judge at Hearing                 |
+-----------------------------------+----------------------------------+
|                                   |                                  |
+-----------------------------------+----------------------------------+

+----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| **[Phase 3 (Continued            | Family Counseling: As indicated   |
| Residential Treatment if         | in individualized treatment plan  |
| Needed)]{.underline}**           |                                   |
|                                  | Face-to-Face Contact with CBC: At |
| Location: Residential Facility   | least once every two weeks        |
|                                  |                                   |
| Duration: Minimum of 60 Days or  | Program Fees: None                |
| as indicated by Assessment       |                                   |
|                                  | **[To Advance to Next             |
| Orientation: Participate in      | Phase:]{.underline}**             |
| Program and Phase Orientation    |                                   |
|                                  | Consecutive Clean Days: 45 (at    |
| Court Appearances: Once per week | least)                            |
|                                  |                                   |
| Drug tests: A minimum of one     | Secure Approved Half Way House or |
| random test per week             | Residence in Community            |
|                                  |                                   |
| Support Groups: A minimum of     | Submit Written Phase Advancement  |
| three per week                   | Request                           |
|                                  |                                   |
| Treatment Groups: A minimum of   | Approval of Program Team          |
| seven per week                   |                                   |
|                                  | Formal Approval of the Program    |
| Individual Treatment Counseling: | Judge at Hearing                  |
| A minimum of one per week        |                                   |
|                                  |                                   |
| Treatment Plan Update: A minimum |                                   |
| of one time per month            |                                   |
+----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+

+-----------------------------------+----------------------------------+
| **[Phase 4 (Intensive Outpatient  | Family Counseling: As indicated  |
| Treatment)]{.underline}**         | by individualized treatment plan |
|                                   |                                  |
| Location: Half Way House Facility | Face-to-Face Contact with CBC:   |
| or Community Residence            | At least once a week             |
|                                   |                                  |
| Duration: Minimum of 60 Days or   | Program Fees: None               |
| as indicated by Assessment        |                                  |
|                                   | **[To Advance to Next            |
| Orientation: Participate in       | Phase:]{.underline}**            |
| Program and Phase Orientation     |                                  |
|                                   | Consecutive Clean Days: 45 (at   |
| Court Appearances: Once per week  | least)                           |
|                                   |                                  |
| Drug tests: A minimum of three    | Submit Written Phase Advancement |
| random tests per week             | Request                          |
|                                   |                                  |
| Support Groups: One a day (at     | Secure and Maintain Residence in |
| least)                            | Community                        |
|                                   |                                  |
| Treatment Groups: A minimum of    | Approval of Drug Court Team      |
| three per week                    |                                  |
|                                   | Formal Approval of the Drug      |
| Individual Treatment Counseling:  | Court Judge at Hearing           |
| one per Week                      |                                  |
|                                   |                                  |
| Treatment Plan Update: A minimum  |                                  |
| of one per month                  |                                  |
+-----------------------------------+----------------------------------+

+-----------------------------------+----------------------------------+
| **[Phase 5 (Outpatient Treatment  | Treatment Plan Update: A minimum |
| and Community                     | of one per month                 |
| Transition)]{.underline}**        |                                  |
|                                   | Family Counseling: A minimum of  |
| Location: Participant's Community | one per week                     |
| Residence                         |                                  |
|                                   | Face-to-Face Contact w/CBC: A    |
| Duration: Minimum of 90 Days or   | minimum of one every 2 weeks     |
| as indicated by Substance Abuse   |                                  |
| Assessment                        | Program Fees: \$2 per week       |
|                                   |                                  |
| Orientation: Participate in       | **[To Advance to Next            |
| Program and Phase Orientation     | Phase:]{.underline}**            |
|                                   |                                  |
| Court Appearances: Every Other    | Consecutive Clean Days: 90 (at   |
| Week                              | least)                           |
|                                   |                                  |
| Drug tests: A minimum of two      | Submit Written Phase Advancement |
| random tests per week             | Request                          |
|                                   |                                  |
| Support Groups: Attend at least   | Approval of Program Team         |
| one meeting, four days per week   |                                  |
|                                   | Formal Approval of the Program   |
| Treatment Groups: A minimum of    | Judge at Hearing                 |
| two per week                      |                                  |
|                                   |                                  |
| Individual Treatment Counseling:  |                                  |
| A minimum of one per month        |                                  |
+-----------------------------------+----------------------------------+

+----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| **[Phase 6                       | Life Skills Training: A minimum   |
| (Skills)]{.underline}**          | of one per week                   |
|                                  |                                   |
| Location: Participant's          | Family Counseling: A minimum of   |
| Community Residence              | one per week                      |
|                                  |                                   |
| Duration: Minimum of 90 Days     | Face-to-Face Contact w/CBC: A     |
|                                  | minimum of one every 2 weeks      |
| Orientation: Participate in      |                                   |
| Program and Phase Orientation    | Program Fees: \$3 per week        |
|                                  |                                   |
| Court Appearances: Every Other   | **[To Advance to Next             |
| Week                             | Phase:]{.underline}**             |
|                                  |                                   |
| Drug tests: A minimum of one     | Consecutive Clean Days: 120 (at   |
| random test per week             | least)                            |
|                                  |                                   |
| Support Groups: Attend at least  | Submit Written Phase Advancement  |
| one meeting, four days per week  | Request                           |
|                                  |                                   |
| Treatment Groups: A minimum of   | Approval of Drug Court Team       |
| one per week                     |                                   |
|                                  | Formal Approval of the Drug Court |
| Individual Treatment Counseling: | Judge at Hearing                  |
| A minimum of one per month       |                                   |
|                                  |                                   |
| Treatment Plan Update: A minimum |                                   |
| of one per month                 |                                   |
+----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+

+-----------------------------------+----------------------------------+
| **[Phase 7 (Continuing            | Treatment Plan Update: A minimum |
| Care)]{.underline}**              | of one per month                 |
|                                   |                                  |
| Location: Participant's Community | Family Counseling: As indicated  |
| Residence                         | by treatment plan                |
|                                   |                                  |
| Duration: Minimum of 90 Days      | Face-to-Face Contact w/CBC: A    |
|                                   | minimum of one every 2 weeks     |
| Orientation: Participate in       |                                  |
| Program and Phase Orientation     | Program Fees: \$5 per week       |
|                                   |                                  |
| Court Appearances: Once per month | **[To Graduate from the          |
|                                   | Program:]{.underline}**          |
| Drug tests: A minimum of one per  |                                  |
| month                             | Consecutive Clean Days: (180 at  |
|                                   | least includes Phases 5 and 6)   |
| Support Groups: Attend at least   |                                  |
| one meeting per week              | Submit Written Request to        |
|                                   | Graduate                         |
| Treatment Groups: A minimum of    |                                  |
| one per month                     | Approval of Drug Court Team      |
|                                   |                                  |
| Individual Treatment Counseling:  | Formal Approval of the Drug      |
| A minimum of one per month        | Court Judge at Hearing           |
+-----------------------------------+----------------------------------+

**CRITICAL DRUG COURT ELEMENTS**

**AND STATUS OF IMPLEMENTATION**

Most drug courts evolve to represent the practices and culture of their
local jurisdiction. Institutionalizing a drug court program should be an
important goal of this new initiative to improve criminal justice system
responses to dealing drug offenders. Volusia County's Family Drug Court,
the Volusia County Juvenile Dependency Drug Treatment Division
(VCJDDTD), has taken on this goal and is producing a program that should
be a model for other jurisdictions, as well as supporting their desire
to integrate and sustain their efforts in the County. Because Family
Drug Courts are uniquely different from criminal programs in the
juvenile and adult arena they require research designs that differ
greatly from drug court evaluations in the past.

After almost two decades of implementing drug court programs, knowledge
has been accumulated about [lessons learned and critical components or
elements]{.underline} that are essential for success and
institutionalization. The following section, Critical Elements and
Status of Implementation, is based on the development of Characteristics
of the VCJDDTD program, which includes the emphasis on the current ten
(10) national Key Components of Drug Courts, as well as guidance on
characteristics of Family Drug Courts from prior research.[^6] The focus
here is on VCJDDTD\'s condition on each to identify successful
accomplishment of both programmatic and organizational objectives.
Performance by VCJDDTD across the components has been impressive and
constantly improving over time. Finally, GCI will perform its first
intensive Process evaluation of the program in June 2005. Preliminary
observations of implementation status of the VCJDDTD are presented
below.

***[Characteristics of the Family Drug Court Program in Volusia
County]{.underline}*.**

> **• Integrated focus on the permanency, safety, and welfare of abused
> and neglected children with the needs of the parents.**

**VCJDDTD:** The program was established as an adjunct to the existing
Dependency Court and maintains its relationship with that court on a
daily basis. Both Courts sustain objectives that meet the criteria of
this component, with the Family Treatment Division providing
enhancements to meet the needs of families with drug abuse problems.

> **• Intervened early to involve parents in developmentally
> appropriate, comprehensive services with increased judicial
> supervision.**

**VCJDDTD:** Once found eligible, and entered into the program from the
normal dependency docket, family case plans are revised to incorporate
activities and services provided through the Family Treatment Division
program. Increases in judicial supervision are determined by the VCJDDTD
phase of their individual program a family is currently implementing,
but in all cases reviews are more intensive and comprehensive.

> **• Adopted a holistic approach to strengthening family function.**

**VCJDDTD:** When a "family unit" is entered into the VCJDDTD program,
strategies are developed to meet the requirements to produce objectives
specific to each case. Whether one or two parents or guardians are
involved, and one or numerous children, individual plans are constructed
to meet the needs of all involved in the family unit case file.

> **• Used individualized case planning based on comprehensive
> assessment.**

**VCJDDTD:** A critical step in meeting the program's objectives for
their clients is family and clinical assessments, including
strength-based approaches. This process leads to the resultant
"Maintain/Strengthen Case Plan." All members of the Drug Court Team
participate in the assessment process, bringing their perspectives to
the process of producing plans with high potential of success.

> **• Ensured legal rights, advocacy, and confidentiality for parents
> and children.**

**VCJDDTD:** The Seventh Judicial Circuit Court ensures confidentiality
across its entire program, with close scrutiny directing the activities
of special programs through the Circuit's Drug Court Administrator.
Individual families also receive assistance from the

Guardian Ad Litem program to watch out the children's interests in
court. Legal rights have been maintained in the development of all
aspects of the program.

> **• Scheduled regular progress report staffing sessions and judicial
> court reviews.**

**VCJDDTD:** During this developmental phase of the program, Drug Court
Team participation and input has been its greatest strength. Utilizing
the program's Management Information System, and online linkages to all
team members, the progress reporting sessions are efficient and
effective in preparing for status hearings. During Pre-Hearings with the
Judge, the results of the staffing process make this step in the process
meaningful for all participants, focusing on important issues and how to
apply incentives and sanctions.

> **• Implemented a system of graduated sanctions and incentives.**

**VCJDDTD:** The Drug Court Team has developed the program's initial
version of sanctions and incentives. Because the Family Treatment Court
is uniquely different from criminal court processes, sanctions become an
issue in application. The program has been successful in applying
necessary sanctions and continually reconsiderations current and other
options to improve their approach. Notably, the Team's use of incentives
is creative and well received by program participants.

> **• Operated within the mandates of the Adoption and Safe Families Act
> (ASFA) of 1997 and the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1979**.

**VCJDDTD:** The mandates of these Acts are well understood by the
entire Drug Court Team, and program development has complied with all
mandates.

> **• Relied on judicial leadership for both planning and implementing
> the court.**

**VCJDDTD:** The Seventh Judicial Circuit Court, which includes four (4)
Florida Counties under its circuit, has been a statewide leader in the
successful implementation of adult and juvenile drug courts programs.
With the development and implementation of its first Family Drug
Treatment Court, the support of both the judicial bench and court
administration has been essential and consistent. The Circuit's Drug
Court Administrator ensures that each program (1) maintains an active
steering committee, (2) continually updates its sustainability efforts,
and (3) relies on monitoring, evaluation and reporting to manage each
program.

> **• Made a commitment to measuring program outcomes.**

**VCJDDTD:** The program is supported by a customized Microsoft ACCESS
MIS system that meets their required for (1) case management; (2)
progress reporting; and (3) monitoring and evaluation. The system allows
constant and reliable measurement of process indicators and outcomes in
easily accomplished, which meets the internal needs for program review
and external demands for program impact.

> **• Plan for program sustainability.**

**VCJDDTD:** The program has received high levels of support from the
participating agencies, as well as from the community at large. Efforts
are being made to enhance funding, especially for treatment services,
including local and state government support. The program's Steering
Committee is its best advocate for the future. The ability of the
program to report on its efforts, outcomes and community impact has
gained substantial support that should sustain its future.

> **• Strived to work as a collaborative, non-adversarial team supported
> by cross training.**

**VCJDDTD:** The complexity of implementing a Family Drug Court requires
that many new players have to be included in the planning and activities
of successful program development. Each Drug Court Team Member has to
gain knowledge of numerous agencies policies and procedures, and then
apply them to a court setting. The VCJDDTD program has responded to this
challenge by promoting constant interaction between all team members.
Consensus is not always possible, but decisions are formulated in a
non-adversarial approach with all members participating.

**REFERENCES**

**Drug Court Guidelines and Previous Studies, Evaluation and
Methodology.**

Bickman, L., ed. (1990) *Advances in Program Theory.* New Directions for
Program Evaluation Series, no. 47. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

> Bureau of Justice Assistance (2004) *Family Dependency Treatment
> Courts: Addressing Abuse and Neglect Cases Using the Drug Court
> Model.* Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice.

Bureau of Justice Statistics. (1992) *Drugs, Crime, and the Justice
System.* Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice,
Washington, D.C.

Byrnes, Edward C. (2000). Utah's juvenile drug court and recidivism. In
*The U.S. Department of Justice Annual Conference on Criminal Justice
Research and Evaluation.* (pp. 16-17). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department
of Justice, Office of Justice Programs.

Byrnes, Edward C., and Audrey O. Hickert. (2004) *Process and Outcome
Evaluation Of the Third District Juvenile Drug Court In Dona Ana County,
New Mexico*. Annapolis, MD: Glacier Consulting, Inc.

Byrnes, Edward C. and Robert A. Kirchner (2003) *Implementation
Evaluation of the Spokane Tribe of Indian's Strong Heart Wellness Court
Program*. Annapolis, MD: Glacier Consulting, Inc.

Byrnes, Edward C., and B.V. Parsons. (1999). Utah's juvenile drug court
and recidivism. *The National Drug Court Institute Review, 2,* 109-110.

Byrnes, Edward C., and Kenneth D. Robinson. *Reasons for Optimism in
Measuring Offender Change.* Presented at The U.S. Department of Justice
Annual Conference on Criminal Justice Research and Evaluation*.*
Washington, D.C. July 17, 2000.

Cole, Galen E. (1999) "Advancing the Development and Application of
Theory-based Evaluation in the Practice of Public Health." *American
Journal of Evaluation*. Vol. 20, No. 3, pp. 453-470.

Cooper, Caroline, Shanie Bartlett, Michelle Shaw and Kayla Yang. (1997)
[1997 Drug Court Survey Report: Participants Perspectives.]{.underline}
Office of Justice Programs, Drug Court Clearinghouse and Technical
Assistance Project. Washington D.C.

Cooper Caroline, Shanie Bartlett, Michelle Shaw and Kayla Yang. (1997)
[1997 Drug Court Survey Report: Treatment Provider Services and
Perspectives.]{.underline} Office of Justice Programs, Drug Court
Clearinghouse and Technical Assistance Project. Washington D.C.

General Accounting Office. (1997) [Drug Courts: Overview of Growth,
Characteristics, and Results.]{.underline} United States General
Accounting Office, Washington, D.C.

Harrell, Adele, and Barbara Smith. (1997) \"Evaluation of the District
of Columbia Superior Court Drug Intervention Program: Focus Group
Interviews.\" Urban Institute, Washington, D.C.

Hora, Peggy and Schma, William. (1998) \"Therapeutic Jurisprudence.\"
American Judicature Society. Vol. 82(1), July/Aug.

Kirchner, Robert A. (2004) *St. Johns County Adult Drug Treatment
Division: Clarifying Program Design and Treatment Delivery*. Annapolis,
MD: Glacier Consulting, Inc.

Kirchner, Robert A. (2004) *Valencia County Juvenile Drug Court Program:
Expanding and Improving Program Design*. Annapolis, MD: Glacier
Consulting, Inc.

Kirchner, Robert A. (2004) *Putnam Adult Drug Court Program (PADCO):
Developing the Complete Program Design.* Annapolis, MD: Glacier
Consulting, Inc.

Kirchner, Robert A. (2003) *Valencia County Juvenile Drug Court (VCJDC):
Initial Evaluation Visit.* Annapolis, MD: Glacier Consulting, Inc.

Kirchner, Robert A. (2003) *Evaluating Innovation in the Seventh
Judicial Circuit, Florida: Program Review of Putnam Adult Drug Court
Operation.* Annapolis, MD: Glacier Consulting, Inc.

Kirchner, Robert A. (2003) *Success and Future of the Volusia County
Juvenile Delinquency Drug Court: Evaluating Innovation in the Seventh
Judicial Circuit, Florida.* Annapolis,, MD: Glacier Consulting, Inc.

Kirchner, Robert A. (2001) "A Realistic Approach to Drug Court
Evaluation," Presented at the 7^th^ Annual Putnam Adult Drug Court
Operation Training Conference, New Orleans, LA, May 30-June 2.

Kirchner, Robert A. (2000) \"Program Theory and Evaluation: The Critical
Linkages,\" Presented at the Annual Conference of the American
Evaluation Association, "Evaluation 2000," held in Waikiki, Hawaii,
November 1-4, 2000.

Kirchner, Robert A. (1999) "Creating and Sustaining State and Local
Evaluation Capacities: Program Evaluation Tools for the New Century,"
Presented at the Annual Conference of the American Evaluation
Association, *Evaluation '99 - The Territory Ahead: Foundations and
Frontiers*, held in Orlando, FL, November 4-7, 1999.

Kirchner, Robert A. (1996) *Improving the Capacity to Identify Effective
Criminal Justice Programs: Guidelines and Criteria for the Nomination of
Effective Programs*. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Justice Assistance,
Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice.

Kirchner, Robert A. (1995) "Making Programs Whole: Integrating
Implementation with Assessment and Evaluation." In *The State of
Corrections 1995*. Lanham, MD: American Corrections Association.

Kirchner, Robert A., Edward C. Byrnes and Kenneth D. Robinson. (2005)
*Thurston County Drug Court Program (TCDCP):Program Success and
Expansion, 1998-2005.* Annapolis, MD: Glacier Consulting, Inc.

Kirchner, Robert A., and Susan Greenough (2003) *St. Johns County Adult
Drug Treatment Division: Community-Based Drug Court Program*. Annapolis,
MD: Glacier Consulting, Inc.

Kirchner,Robert A., and Susan Greenough (2003) *Putnam Adult Drug Court
Program (PADCO): Model Program for a Small Jurisdiction.* Annapolis, MD:
Glacier Consulting, Inc.

Kirchner, Robert A., Susan Greenough (2003) *Valencia County Juvenile
Drug Court Program: Evaluating Innovation in the Thirteenth Judicial
District, New Mexico.* Annapolis, MD: Glacier Consulting, Inc.

Kirchner, Robert A., and Susan Greenough (2003) *Citizen Potawatomi
Nation Drug Court:* *Program Effectiveness and Expansion**.***
Annapolis, MD: Glacier Consulting, Inc.

Kirchner, Robert A., Susan Greenough and W. Clinton Terry III (2002)
*Success and Future of the Palm Beach County Drug Court: Evaluating
Innovation in Florida's Fifteenth Judicial Circuit.* Annapolis, MD:
Glacier Consulting, Inc.

Kirchner, Robert A., and Michael Jewell. (2003) "Evaluating Juvenile
Drug Courts at the Local Level," Presented at the National Association
of Drug Court Professional's 4^th^ Annual Juvenile and Family Drug Court
Training Conference, January 9-11, 2003, Washington, D.C.

Kirchner, Robert A., Joseph Myers and Janna Gourd-Gallegos. (2003)
"Evaluating Native American Healing to Wellness Courts," Presented at
the National Association of Drug Court Professional's 4^th^ Annual
Juvenile and Family Drug Court Training Conference, January 9-11, 2003,
Washington, D.C.

Kirchner, Robert A., and Roger K. Przybylski (2000) \"Evaluation and
Criminal Justice Program Theory: The Critical Linkages,\" Presented at
the Annual Conference of the American Society of Criminology, held in
San Francisco, CA, November 15-18, 2000.

Kirchner, Robert A., Roger K. Przybylski, and Ruth A. Cardella. (1994)
*Assessing the Effectiveness of Criminal Justice Programs*. Washington,
D.C.: Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office of Justice Programs, U.S.
Department of Justice.

Kirchner, Robert A., and Kenneth D. Robinson (2002) "Evaluating Drug
Courts at the Local Level," Presented at the National Association of
Drug Court Professionals' 8^th^ Annual Conference, held in Washington,
DC, June 13-15, 2002.

Kirchner, Robert A., and Kenneth D. Robinson (2002) *Citizen Potawatomi
Nation Drug Court Program: Evaluating a Multi-Jurisdictional Program*.
Annapolis, MD: Glacier Consulting, Inc.

Kirchner, Robert A., and Kenneth D. Robinson (2000) \"Preventing
Reincarceration of Felony Offenders: Reason for Optimism Based on
Ten-Year Treatment Outcome Data,\" Presented at the Annual Conference of
the American Society of Criminology, held in San Francisco, CA, November
15-18, 2000.

Kirchner, Robert A., and Kenneth D. Robinson (2000*) An Evaluation of
the Volusia County, Florida Drug Court: Assessing the Effectiveness of
the Treatment Component.* Annapolis, MD: Glacier Consulting, Inc.

Kirchner, Robert A., Kenneth D. Robinson and W. Clinton Terry III (2002)
*Success and Future of the Osceola County Drug Court: Evaluating
Innovation in Florida's Ninth Judicial Circuit.* Annapolis, MD: Glacier
Consulting, Inc.

# 

Kirchner, Robert A., and W. Clinton Terry III (2002) *Implementing An
Adult Drug Court in Putnam County: Evaluating Innovation in Florida's
Seventh Judicial Circuit.* Annapolis, MD: Glacier Consulting, Inc.

Leukefeld, C.G., and F.R. Tims (1994) "Drug abuse treatment in prisons
and jails,\" *Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment.* 10:77-84.

Little, Greg, and Kenneth D. Robinson, Katherine D. Burnette, and
Stephen Swan (1999) "Successful Ten-Year Outcome Data on MRT Treated
Felony Offenders," *Cognitive-Behavioral Treatment Review* Vol. 8, No.
1.

Little, G.L., and Robinson, K.D. (1994). [Understanding and Treating The
Antisocial Substance Abuser.]{.underline} Memphis: Eagle Wing Books.

Little, G.L. and Robinson, K.D. (1994). [Family Support, Responsibly
Fulfilling A Life's Obligation.]{.underline} Memphis: Eagle Wing Books.

Little, G.L. and Robinson, K.D. (1994). [Making Changes for
Good]{.underline}. Memphis: Eagle Wing Books.

Little, G.L., Burnette, K.D., and Robinson, K.D. (1994). [Effective
Counseling Approaches.]{.underline} Memphis: Eagle Wing Books.

Little, G.L., Burnette, K.D., and Robinson, K.D. (1994). [Crisis
Intervention.]{.underline} Memphis: Eagle Wing Books.

Little, Greg, and Kenneth D. Robinson (1988) "Moral Reconation Therapy:
a systematic, step-by-step treatment system for treatment resistant
clients," *Psychological Reports* 62, pp. 135-151.

Marlowe, Douglas B. and Kirby, Kimberly C. (1999) \"Effective Use of
Sanctions in Drug Courts: Lessons from Behavioral Research.\" National
Drug Court Institute Review. Vol. 2(1) Summer.

Maxfield, Michael G. (2000) *Guide to Frugal Evaluation for Criminal
Justice*. Forthcoming.

Maxfield, Michael G., and Earl Babbie (1998) *Research Methods for
Criminal Justice and Criminology*. (Second Edition) Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth.

McLaughlin, John A., and Gretchen B. Jordan. (1998) "Logic models: a
tool for telling your program's performance story." *Evaluation and
Program Planning*. Vol. 22, pp. 65-72.

Migdail, K., ed. (1995) *The 1995 Behavioral Outcomes and Guidelines
Sourcebook: A Progress Report and Resource Guide on Mental Health and
Substance Management.* New York: Faulkner & Gray.

Miller, Delbert S. (Series Editor) (1997-2000) *Blueprints for Violence
Prevention.* Boulder, CO: Institute of Behavioral Science, University of
Colorado.

Miller, William R. (1992) "The Effectiveness of Treatment for Substance
Abuse: Reasons for Optimism," *Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment*.
Vol. 9, pp.93-102.

Mohr, Lawrence B. (1996) *Impact Analysis for Program Evaluation.* 2nd.
ed. Newbury, CA: Sage Publications.

Mumola, Christopher. (1999) [Substance Abuse and Treatment, State and
Federal Prisoners, 1997.]{.underline} Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S.
Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.

National Association of Drug Court Professionals (NADCP). (1997)
[Defining Drug Courts: The Key Components.]{.underline} OJP. Washington
D.C.

> National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges.( 2002) *Adoption
> and Permanency Guidelines: Improving Court Practice in Child Abuse and
> Neglect Cases*. Reno, NV.
>
> National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges. (1998) *Judge's
> Guidebook on Adoption and Other Permanent Homes for Children*. Reno,
> NV: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and
> Delinquency Prevention.
>
> National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges. (1995) *Resource
> Guidelines: Improving Court Practice in Child Abuse and Neglect
> Cases*. Reno, NV.

National Institute of Drug Abuse (1999) *Principles of Drug Addiction
Treatment*. Washington, D.C.: NIH Publication No. 99-4180.

National Institute of Drug Abuse. (1993) *How Good is Your Drug Abuse
Treatment Program?* DHHS Publication ADM 93-3608. Rockville, MD:
National Institute on Drug Abuse.

Office for Substance Abuse Prevention. (1992) *Cultural Competence for
Evaluators: A Guide for Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse Prevention
Practitioners Working With Ethnic/Racial Communities*. Cultural
Competence Series. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, Office for Substance Abuse Prevention.

Olson, David E., et.al. (1994) *Documenting the extent and Nature of
Drug and Violent Crime: Developing Jurisdiction-Specific Profiles of the
Criminal Justice System*. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Justice
Assistance, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice.

Pawson, Ray, and Nick Tilley (1997) *Realistic Evaluation*. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.

Przybylski, Roger K. (1995) "Evaluation as an Important Tool in Criminal
Justice Planning." *The Compiler*. Illinois Criminal Justice Information
Authority.

Ralph, John, and M., Christine Dwyer (1988) *Making the Case: Evidence
of Program Effectiveness*. Washington, D.C.: Office of Educational
Research and Development, U.S. Department of Education.

Robinson, Kenneth D., and Michelle A. Shaw (July 2000) *A Process
Evaluation of the Blackfeet Tribal Drug Court*. Memphis, TN:
Correctional Counseling, Inc.

Robinson, Kenneth D., and Michelle A. Shaw (June 2000) *A Process and
Output Evaluation of the Macon County, Illinois Drug Court*. Memphis,
TN: Correctional Counseling, Inc.

Robinson, Kenneth D., and Michelle A. Shaw (April 2000) *A Process
Evaluation of the Poarch Creek Tribal Drug Court*. Memphis, TN:
Correctional Counseling, Inc.

Robinson, Kenneth D., Michelle A. Shaw (1999*) A Process and Output
Evaluation of the Volusia County, Florida Drug Court.* Memphis, TN:
Correctional Counseling, Inc.

Robinson, Kenneth D., and Michelle A. Shaw (2000) "An Evaluation Summary
of the Volusia County, Florida Drug Court," [Cognitive-Behavioral
Treatment Review]{.underline}, Vol.9.

Rogers, Patricia J., et.al., eds. (2000) \" Program Theory in
Evaluation: Challenges and Opportunities.\" [New Directions for
Evaluation]{.underline}. Number 87, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Satel, Sally. (1998) \"Observational Study on Courtroom Dynamics in
Selected Drug Courts\". The National Drug Court Institute Review. Vol.
1(1), Summer.

Terry, W. Clinton III, and Robert A. Kirchner (2003) *Implementing a
Juvenile Re-entry Drug Court in Orange County: Evaluating Innovation in
Florida's Ninth Judicial Circuit.* Annapolis, MD: Glacier Consulting,
Inc.

Tribal Law and Policy Institute. (1999) [Healing to Wellness Courts: A
Preliminary Overview of Tribal Drug Courts]{.underline}. Washington,
D.C.: Office of Justice Programs.

Weiss, Carol H. (1995) "Nothing As Practical As Good Theory: Exploring
Theory-Based Evaluation for Comprehensive Community Initiatives for
Children and Families." In Connell, James P., et. al. Editors *New
Approaches to Evaluating Community Initiatives: Concepts, Methods, and
Contexts*. Washington, D.C.: The Aspen Institute.

Wholey, Joseph S., et.al. (1977) *If You Don't Care Where You Get To,
Then It Doesn't Matter Which Way You Go*. Washington, D.C.: The Urban
Institute.

[^1]: The team was comprised of Dr. Robert A. Kirchner, Glacier
    Consulting, Inc., GCI Senior Research Associate, Dr. Kenneth D.
    Robinson, and GCI Research Associate, Kimberly Jackson Prachniak.
    This project was supported by a grant from the U.S. Department of
    Justice (DOJ), Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice
    Assistance.. The views of the authors do not represent the opinions,
    policies or official positions of DOJ or Volusia County, Washington.

[^2]: This approach and definitions presented here are fully explained
    and demonstrated in: Kirchner, Robert A., Roger K. Przybylski and
    Ruth A. Cardella [Assessing the Effectiveness of Criminal Justice
    Programs]{.underline}. Assessment and Evaluation Handbook Series
    Number 1, January 1994. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of
    Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Assistance. This publication is
    available on the INTERNET at: **www.bja.evaluationwebsite.org**.

[^3]: American University, Drug Court Clearinghouse and Technical
    Assistance Project, October, 1998

[^4]: Office of Justice Programs, Drug Court Programs Office. [Drug
    Court Monitoring, Evaluation, and Management Information
    Systems.]{.underline} May, 1998

[^5]: This section comprises a summary of program components as
    currently implemented, as contained in the *Volusia County Juvenile
    Dependency Drug Treatment Division Program Manual*, which comprises
    the policies and procedures of the program.

[^6]: See: Bureau of Justice Assistance (2004) *Family Dependency
    Treatment Courts: Addressing Abuse and Neglect Cases Using the Drug
    Court Model.* Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice.