Last updated: November 2016 www.ojjdp.gov/mpg

 Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 1

Family Drug Courts 

Family drug courts (FDCs) are specialized courts within the justice system, which handle cases of child 

abuse and neglect that involve substance use by the child’s parents or guardians (Brook et al. 2015; 

Chuang et al. 2012). FDCs are one method of addressing parental substance use disorders and parenting 

issues within the court and child welfare systems, using a collaborative, family-centered approach 

(Children and Family Futures 2015). Also called family treatment courts, family treatment drug courts, 

or family dependency treatment courts, FDCs operate as alternatives to traditional family courts or 

dependency courts and work to balance the rights and needs of both parents and children (Brook et al. 

2015). The overall goal of FDCs is to reduce child maltreatment by treating parents’ underlying 

substance use disorders through a coordinated and collaborative approach that involves a multitude of 

agencies and professionals such as the court system, child protective services (CPS) or child welfare, 

substance use treatment providers, and the attorneys involved in the case (Pach 2008; Gifford et al. 

2014).

Modeled after adult drug courts, FDCs were developed by communities in the mid-1990s as a response 

to the estimated high percentage (60–80 percent) of substantiated child abuse and neglect cases that 

involved substance use by a parent or guardian (Marlowe and Carey 2012; National Council of Juvenile 

and Family Court Judges 2016). The court programs were designed to address the parental substance 

use and child neglect connection in an appropriate, but timely manner (van Wormer and Hsieh 2016). 

FDCs were also created to help keep families together and address the poor outcomes of family 

reunification programs that left many children in foster care for years instead of being raised in stable, 

permanent homes (Marlowe and Carey 2012). In addition, at around the same time that FDCs emerged 

in communities, the drug court model was being adapted by tribal communities. The first Tribal 

Healing to Wellness Court was established in 1997, and later, Tribal Family Health to Wellness Courts 

also emerged (Bureau of Justice Assistance, 2014) (further discussion on the similarities and differences 

of FDCs and tribal healing wellness courts is provided below). 

In addition, FDCs were established to respond to new requirements by the Adoption and Safe 

Families Act (ASFA) of 19971, which Congress passed in an effort to decrease the amount of time 

children spent in non-permanent placement settings. As Traube and colleagues explained, ASFA 

regulations “require permanency hearings to take place within 12 months of a child being placed in 

foster care, making parents with substance use disorders particularly vulnerable to losing their 

parental rights” (2015, p. 47). Although ASFA increased the need for the system to provide treatment 

to parents, this need was not always met. For example, only 31 percent of families who needed 

1

 The Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997, 42 U.S.C. §§ 670-679

Suggested Reference: Development Services Group, Inc. 2016. “Family Drug Courts.” Literature review. Washington, D.C.: 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. https://www.ojjdp.gov/mpg/litreviews/Family_Drug_Courts.pdf

Prepared by Development Services Group, Inc., under cooperative agreement number 2013–JF–FX–K002. Points of view or 

opinions expressed in this document are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of 

OJJDP or the U.S. Department of Justice.
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 2

treatment received it in the year ASFA became law (Powell et al. 2012). However, because FDCs 

ultimately strive for family reunification (if in the best interest of the child), they are designed to address 

the treatment needs of parents and meet the requirements set by ASFA to increase the chances of 

reunification, while assuring that children are receiving the developmental services they need (Bureau 

of Justice Assistance 2004a; Marlowe and Carey 2012).

To achieve the aim of ASFA and to address the high number of dependency cases of child maltreatment 

and neglect that involve parents with a substance use disorder, FDCs identify and assess parents’ needs, 

provide access to treatment, attempt to remove barriers that may impact successful completion of 

treatment (such as helping parents to develop skills to achieve recovery), and provide ongoing 

monitoring of parental compliance (Pach 2008). FDCs also help parents to become emotionally and 

financially self-sufficient and provide them with tools to become responsible parents (Brook et al. 2015; 

Office of Justice Programs Drug Court Clearinghouse and Technical Assistance Project [DCCTAP] 

1998). Children’s needs are simultaneously addressed, as the likelihood of reunification is increased 

when family and children’s services are provided at a high level in substance use treatment (Grella et 

al. 2009). 

Alternatively, if reunification is not in the best interest of the child, the courts develop a different 

placement plan. To do so, CPS is brought into the process to terminate parental rights and find a 

permanent home for the child. This process must be completed within a developmentally appropriate 

timeframe and conducted in a manner that is the least harmful and most beneficial to the child (Pach 

2008; DCCTAP 1998). The court and child welfare components of this process occur simultaneously, as 

permanency for the child is one of the collaborative goals of the FDC team along with safety and wellbeing of children and parents in recovery (Children and Family Futures (2015).

Target Population

FDCs assist families that have been disrupted by parental substance use, which has led to allegations 

of child neglect and abuse. Parents and guardians are generally eligible to participate in FDCs when 

they have an abuse, neglect, or dependency case pending before the court and the contributing factor 

to maltreatment substantiation is a diagnosed substance use disorder. Participation in the program is 

usually voluntary; parents and guardians can refuse to participate (Gifford et al. 2014). 

Local FDC programs may vary in their eligibility criteria and requirements. However, research suggests 

that FDCs may benefit from having the least amount of exclusionary criteria. For example, Worcel and 

colleagues (2007) found that FDCs have the same or slightly better outcomes when serving parents with 

co-occurring mental health issues, and other challenges such as unemployment. 

Characteristics of Family Drug Courts

FDCs are not separate legal entities that operate outside the court system. Instead, they operate within 

family courts, specifically addressing issues related to parental substance abuse (Pach 2008). In 2013, 

the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) developed a list of 10 

recommendations for implementing FDCs (Children and Family Futures 2015). These 

recommendations focused on the need for a centralized mission, collaborative partnerships in public 

and community-based agencies, and ensuring that the needs of both parents and children are 

considered (Brook et al. 2015; Children and Family Futures 2015).

The characteristics and operations of FDCs can vary by jurisdictions, and they can differ on program 

elements such as eligibility criteria, whether the case is overseen by one or two judges, composition of 

the court team, requirements for successful completion of the program, and the quality and availability 

of substance abuse treatment services (Brook et al. 2015). 
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 3

Despite these variances, certain components are central to most FDCs. Given that these courts are 

modeled after criminal drug courts, they began using the same 10 key components as drug courts 

(Bureau of Justice Assistance 2004b) as a starting point for the provision of services. More recently, 

however, the following 10 recommendations were developed specifically for FDCs (Children and 

Family Futures 2015): 

1. Create shared mission and vision. 

2. Develop interagency partnerships. 

3. Create effective communication protocols for sharing information. 

4. Ensure interdisciplinary knowledge. 

5. Develop protocols for early identification and assessment. 

6. Address the needs of parents. 

7. Address the needs of children. 

8. Garner community support. 

9. Implement funding and sustainability strategies. 

10. Evaluate for shared outcomes and accountability.

FDCs use an interdisciplinary team that works to address the needs of both the parent and child. 

Through this collaborative approach, the child can avoid long-term placement in the foster care system, 

and parents have the opportunity to show the court they can become responsible caregivers (Brook et 

al. 2015; Children and Family Futures 2015).

In addition, although the drug court and FDC models are similar, there are some important differences 

between the two. First, the majority of participants in adult criminal drug court programs tend to be 

men, while the majority of FDC participants are women, which could have implications for genderspecific treatment needs (Powell et al. 2012). Second, drug court programs handle cases that involve 

criminal offenses and may employ criminal sanctions (if necessary), while FDCs handle non-criminal 

cases of abuse and neglect and generally do not use criminal sanctions; rather, they use the prospect of 

family reunification as a motivating factor for participants (Marlowe and Carey 2012). As Worcel and 

colleagues explained (2007, 2), “Put another way, the ‘threat’ for adult drug court participants is 

incarceration, while the ‘threat’ for [family treatment drug court] participants is losing custody of their 

children, often permanently.” Finally, FDCs deal with the complexities of family issues and focus on 

the needs of the parents and children, while adult criminal drug courts tend to focus only on the needs 

of the adult participant.

As mentioned previously, another problem-solving court that shares similar characteristics to FDCs is 

a Tribal Healing Wellness Court (THWC). THWCs also use the drug court model, but they incorporate 

concepts of wellness to address the specific substance abuse needs of each tribal community in a nonadversarial process (Bureau of Justice Assistance 2014). Similar to FDCs, THWCs began by using the 10 

components of drug courts as a starting point to guide treatment and services for program participants. 

However, specific guidance has been published for THWCs, which incorporate information about the 
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 4

importance of focusing on children and family in cases of child abuse and maltreatment due to parental 

substance abuse (Bureau of Justice Assistance 2014). A further adaptation, Tribal Family Healing to 

Wellness Courts, are also based on the THWC and FDC models; however, since it is unclear how many 

Tribal Family Healing to Wellness Courts are currently operating in the country, little research on the 

program is currently available. 

FDCs generally come in three types: 1) parallel; 2) integrated (one family, one judge); and 3) dualtrack/two-tiered (also referred to as “hybrid model”). In a parallel FDC, one judge oversees the child 

welfare part of the client’s case, while another judge oversees the client’s substance use disorder 

treatment progress and assists in coordinating family and children’s services. Parallel FDCs are less 

common than integrated FDCs (Green et al. 2009). As the name suggests, in a “one family, one judge” 

integrated FDC, one family court judge oversees the child welfare case while also ensuring parental 

compliance with the substance abuse treatment order (Brook et al. 2015). Finally, the dual track/two-tiered

FDC is essentially a hybrid of the other two models (Powell et al. 2012). The first track includes 

recovery-management services and access to substance abuse treatment for child abuse and neglect 

cases in which there is an allegation of parental substance use. The second track is a separate FDC for 

parents who fail to comply with court orders. The FDC then operates in a separate court than the child 

welfare case, with separate judges overseeing the two cases, and is primarily concerned with ensuring 

parents’ compliance with treatment orders (Boles et al. 2007; Powell et al. 2012).

Outcome Evidence

There have been fewer evaluation studies (less than 20) conducted on the effectiveness of FDCs, 

compared with the number of studies (more than 50) of adult drug courts (Gifford et al. 2014; van 

Wormer and Hsieh 2016). Although parents and guardians participate in the program and receive 

substance use treatment, evaluations of FDCs have generally focused on the programs’ direct impacts 

on children. For example, evaluations have focused on outcome measures related to ASFA 

requirements, including dependency outcomes, treatment completion, number of days in out-of-home 

care, and reentry into care (Gifford et al. 2014; Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services 

Administration 2014; van Wormer and Hsieh 2016). Many of the outcomes examined in studies of FDCs 

relate to the goals of the ASFA (van Wormer and Hsieh 2016). When changes in parental behavior are 

measured, outcomes generally include rearrest rates, treatment completion, substance abuse following 

treatment, and measures of family functioning (Dakof et al. 2010; Carey et al. 2010). 

To reach the desired outcomes of the FDC, evaluation research has shown the importance of serving 

the needs of parents, children, and families. For example, a descriptive study of the Children Affected 

by Methamphetamine (CAM) grant program found that comprehensively addressing families’ needs 

and adding child-focused services with adult recovery-support services was associated with better 

outcome measures of child safety, permanency, adult recovery, and family well-being. Specifically, 

when child-focused services with adult recovery-support services were offered in the FDC setting, 

parental substance use was reduced, parents’ participation in substance use disorder treatment was 

improved, children were subjected to less neglect and abuse, and out-of-home placements were shorter 

(Rodi et al. 2015). Overall, the results of the study suggested that FDCs should focus on providing 

appropriate services that aim to improve outcomes for parents, children, and families; however, the 

study authors did note the implementation challenges that jurisdictions may face in order to address 

the complex and diverse needs of family members (Rodi et al. 2015).

Despite the limited number of studies available, there are a number of evidence-based FDC programs. 

Below is a discussion of three such programs.
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 5

Jackson County Community Family Court (CFC). The Jackson County CFC in Oregon is an FDC 

program for parents with admitted substance abuse allegations whose children are wards of the state 

and are in the custody of the Oregon Department of Human Services. The CFC was designed to 

coordinate services and interventions that help to rehabilitate court-involved parents and their families. 

The goal of the program is to work toward parental sobriety, family reunification, and child safety 

(Carey et al. 2010).

A program evaluation by Carey and colleagues (2010) found that the children of parents who 

participated in CFC spent significantly less time in foster care in the 4 years after entering the program 

than children of non-CFC parents. Children of CFC parents were also returned significantly sooner, 

were significantly more likely to be reunited with their parents, and experienced significantly fewer 

adoptions and termination of parental rights. However, not all child welfare outcomes were positive. 

There were no significant differences in placement stability (i.e., how often children moved from one 

foster care placement to another). Also, children of CFC parents had significantly more new foster care 

episodes, compared with children of non-CFC parents. Finally, parents who participated in CFC were 

significantly less often rearrested over the 4 years from program entry, compared with non-CFC 

parents.

Baltimore City Family Recovery Program (FRP). The Baltimore City FRP is an FDC designed to serve 

families involved with child welfare due to parental substance use. The program provides 

comprehensive case management and immediate, intensive substance abuse services for parents 

involved in proceedings for Children in Need of Assistance. The program serves parents with substance 

use disorders that led to the placement of their children in foster care after removal from the home. The 

goal of FRP is to encourage sobriety and improve quality of life for parents to increase the likelihood of 

reunification for families and decrease the length of stay in foster care for children (Burrus, Mackin, and 

Finigan 2011).

A study by Burrus, Mackin, and Aborn (2008) found that FRP cases resulted in significantly more 

reunifications and significantly fewer placements in longer-term foster care, compared with non-FRP 

cases. Children whose parents attended FRP spent significantly less time in non-kinship foster care than 

children whose parents did not participate. In addition, FRP parents entered treatment more rapidly 

and completed treatment more often than non-FRP parents. However, there was no statistical 

difference between the number of FRP cases and non-FRP cases that reached permanency and no 

difference in the number of days children spent in non-kinship foster care.

The Engaging Moms Program (EMP). The EMP in Miami, Florida, is a gender-specific, family-based 

intervention designed to help substance-abusing mothers who participate in drug court maintain their 

parental rights. The program helps mothers demonstrate that they can be reunited with their children. 

It provides mothers the tools and services to comply with all court orders, attend court sessions, remain 

drug free, and demonstrate the capacity to parent their children, thereby helping them to succeed in 

drug court. EMP was adapted for use in FDCs, based on the theory and method of multidimensional 

family therapy (Dakof et al. 2010).

A study by Dakof and colleagues (2010) showed that there was a statistically significant difference 

between mothers who participated in EMP and mothers who received intensive case- management 

services. The EMP mothers were more likely to have positive child welfare outcomes (defined as 

welfare dispositions that led to sole custody, joint custody, or permanent guardianship with family 

members, without termination of the mother’s parental rights). However, there were no statistically 

significant differences between the two groups on measures of maternal substance use, psychosocial

functioning, and family functioning.
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 6

For more information on the programs, please click on the links below.

Jackson County (Ore.) Community Family Court

Baltimore City (Md.) Family Recovery Program

Engaging Moms Program

 

Conclusion

FDCs have grown in popularity in the last decade, due to the increasing impact of parental substance 

use disorders in child welfare cases. As of 2013, there were over 300 FDCs in operation across the 

country (Children and Family Futures 2015). However, there are some challenges in assessing these 

programs. These include several methodological limitations such as a lack of rigorous study designs, 

small sample sizes, absence of comparison groups or use of inappropriate comparison groups, inclusion 

of only program graduates in the outcome data, and lack of appropriate statistical controls when 

calculating results (Brook et al. 2015; van Wormer and Hsieh 2016). 

Future research on FDCs could aim to overcome these limitations. Furthermore, future research could 

focus on other important aspects of the programs that may impact parent- and child-related outcomes 

such as the effect of the type of substance use disorder treatment that parents receive, the factors that 

are related to improving the start and completion of treatment, and the comparative effectiveness of 

the three types of FDCs (Chuang et al. 2012; Gifford et al. 2014). Research could also examine ways to 

improve family engagement throughout the process and the factors related to successful 

implementation of FDCs. 

For more information about developing an FDC program, see the guidebook produced for the OJJDP, 

Guidance to States: Recommendations for Developing Family Drug Court Guidelines (Children and Family 

Futures 2015). Or check the Children and Family Futures Web site to learn more about Family Drug 

Court Peer Learning Courts.

References

Boles, Sharon M., Nancy K. Young, Toni Moore, and Sharon DiPirro-Beard. 2007. “The Sacramento

Dependency Drug Court: Development and Outcomes.” Child Maltreatment 12(2):161–71.

Brook, Jody, Becci A. Akin, Margaret H. Lloyd, and Yueqi Yan. 2015. “Family Drug Court, Targeted 

Parent Training and Family Reunification: Did this Enhanced Service Strategy Make a 

Difference?” Juvenile & Family Court Journal 66(2):35–52.

Bureau of Justice Assistance. 2004a. Family Dependency Treatment Courts: Addressing Child Abuse and 

Neglect Cases Using the Drug Court Model. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of 

Justice Assistance.

Bureau of Justice Assistance. 2004b. Defining Drug Courts: The Key Components. Washington, D.C.: U.S. 

Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance.

Bureau of Justice Assistance. 2014. Tribal Healing to Wellness Courts: The Key Components. Washington, 

D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance.

Burrus, Scott W.M., Juliette R. Mackin, and Jennifer A. Aborn. 2008. Baltimore City Family Recovery 

Program (FRP) Independent Evaluation: Outcome and Cost Report. Portland, Ore.: NPC Research.

Burrus, Scott W.M., Juliette R. Mackin, and Michael W. Finigan. 2011. “Show Me the Money: Child 

Welfare Cost Savings of a Family Drug Court.” Juvenile and Family Court Journal 62(3):1–14. 
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 7

Carey, Shannon M., Mary Beth Sanders, Mark S. Waller, Scott W. M. Burrus, and Jennifer A. Aborn. 

2010. Jackson County Community Family Court Process, Outcome, and Cost Evaluation. Portland, Ore.: 

NPC Research. 

Children and Family Futures. 2015. Guidance to States: Recommendations for Developing Family Drug 

Court Guidelines. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office 

of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 

http://www.cffutures.org/files/publications/FDC-Guidelines.pdf

Chuang, Emmeline, Kathleen Moore, Blake Barrett, and M. Scott Young. 2012. “Effect of an Integrated 

Family Dependency Treatment Court on Child Welfare Reunification, Time to Permanency and 

Re-Entry Rates.” Children and Youth Services Review 34(9):1896–902.

Cohen, Jeri B., Gayle A. Dakof, and Eliette Duarte. 2011. “Dependency Drug Court: An Intensive 

Intervention for Traumatized Mothers and Young Children.” In Joy D. Osofsky (ed.). Clinical Work 

With Traumatized Young Children. New York, N.Y.: Guilford Press, 252–68.

Dakof, Gayle A., Jeri B. Cohen, Craig E. Henderson, Eliette Durate, Maya Boustani, Audra Blackburn, 

Ellen Venzer, and Sam Hawes. 2010. “A Randomized Pilot of the Engaging Moms Program for 

Family Drug Court.” Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 38:263–74.

Dakof, Gayle A., Tanya J. Quille, Manuel J. Tejeda, Linda R. Alberga, Emmalee Bandstra, and Jose 

Szapocznik. 2003. “Enrolling and Retaining Mothers of Substance-Exposed Infants in Drug Abuse 

Treatment.” Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 71(4):764–72.

Dakof, Gayle A., Jeri B. Cohen, and Eliette Duarte. 2009. “Increasing Family Reunification for 

Substance-Abusing Mothers and Their Children: Comparing Two Drug Court Interventions in 

Miami.” Juvenile and Family Court Journal 60(4):11–23. 

(DCCTAP) Office of Justice Programs Drug Court Clearinghouse and Technical Assistance Project. 

1998. Juvenile and Family Drug Courts: An Overview. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 

Office of Justice Programs, Drug Courts Program Office. 

Gifford, Elizabeth J., Lindsey M. Eldred, Allison Vernerey, and Frank A. Sloan. 2014. “How Does 

Family Drug Treatment Court Participation Affect Child Welfare Outcomes?” Child Abuse & 

Neglect 38:1659–70.

Green, Beth L., Carrie J. Furrer, Sonia D. Worsel, Scott W.M. Burrus, and Michael W. Finigan. 2009. 

“Building the Evidence Base for Family Drug Treatment Courts: Results From Recent Outcome 

Studies.” Drug Court Review 11(2):53–82.

Grella, Christine E., Barbara Needell, Yifei Shi, and Yih-Ing Hser. 2009. “Do Drug Treatment Services 

Predict Reunification Outcomes of Mothers and Their Children in Child Welfare?”

Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 36(3):278–93.

Marlowe, Douglas B., and Shannon M. Carey. 2012. Research Update on Family Drug Courts.

Alexandria, Va.: National Association of Drug Court Professionals.

National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges. 2016. Enhanced Resource Guidelines: Improving 

Court Practice in Child Abuse and Neglect Cases. Reno, Nev.: National Council of Juvenile and 

Family Court Judges.

Pach, Nicolette M. 2008. “An Overview of Operational Family Dependency Treatment Courts.” Drug 

Court Review 6(1):67–108.
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 8

Powell, Claudia, Sally Stevens, Becky L. Dolce, Katerina O. Sinclair, and Christine Swenson-Smith. 

2012. “Outcomes of a Trauma-Informed Arizona Family Drug Court.” Journal of Social Work 

Practice in Addictions 12:219–41.

Rivera, Marny. 2008. “Healing Families: An Outcome Evaluation of a Community Family Court.” 

Juvenile and Family Court Journal 59(1):17–32.

Rodi, Michael S., Colleen M. Killian, Philip Breitenbucher, Nancy K. Young, Sharon Amatetti, Russ 

Bermejo, and Erin Hall. 2015. “New Approaches for Working with Children and Families 

Involved in Family Treatment Drug Courts: Findings from the Children Affected by 

Methamphetamine Program.” Child Welfare 94(4):205–32.

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. 2014. Grants to Expand Services to 

Children Affected by Methamphetamine in Families Participating in Family Treatment Drug Court.

Rockville, Md.: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.

Traube, Dorian E., Amy S. He, Limei Zhu, Christine Scalise, and Tyrone Richardson. 2015. “Predictors 

of Substance Abuse Assessment and Treatment Completion for Parents Involved with Child 

Welfare: One State’s Experience in Matching across Systems.” Child Welfare 94(5):45–66.

Wheeler, Meghan M., and Carson L. Fox, Jr. 2006. “Family Dependency Treatment Court: Applying 

the Drug Court Model in Child Maltreatment Cases.” National Drug Court Institute 5(1):1–7.

Wheeler, Megan M., and J. Siegerist. 2003. Family Dependency Treatment Court Planning Initiative 

Training Curricula. Alexandria, Va.: National Drug Court Institute. 

Worcel, Sonia D., Beth L. Green, Carrie J. Furrer, Scott W.M. Burrus, and Michael W. Finigan. 2007. 

Family Treatment Drug Court Evaluation: Final Report. Portland, Ore.: NPC Research. 

Worcel, Sonia D., Carrie J. Furrer, Beth L. Green, Scott W.M. Burrus, and Michael W. Finigan. 2008. 

“Effects of Family Treatment Drug Courts on Substance Abuse and Child Welfare Outcomes.” 

Child Abuse Review 17:427–43.

van Wormer, Jacqueline, and Ming-Li Hsieh. 2016. “Healing Families: Outcomes from a Family Drug 

Treatment Court.” Juvenile & Family Court Journal 67(2):49–65.