The author(s) shown below used Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice and prepared the following final report: 

Document Title: National Evaluation of 14 Drug Courts 

Author(s): Susan Turner ; Doug Longshore ; Suzanne 

Wenzel ; Terry Fain ; Andrew Morral ; Elizabeth 

Deschenes ; Adele Harrell ; Judith Greene ; 

Martin Iguchi ; Duane McBride ; Faye Taxman 

Document No.: 191200 

Date Received: 11/29/2001 

Award Number: 98-DC-VX-K003 

This report has not been published by the U.S. Department of Justice. 

To provide better customer service, NCJRS has made this Federallyfunded grant final report available electronically in addition to

traditional paper copies.

 

Opinions or points of view expressed are those 

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect 

the official position or policies of the U.S. 

Department of Justice.
A National Evaluation of 14 

Drug Courts 

Susan Turner, Doug Longshore, Suzanne 

Wenzel, Terry Fain, Andrew Morral, Elizabeth 

Deschenes, Adele Harrell, Judith Greene, Martin 

Iguchi, Duane McBride, and Faye Taxman 

DR U-2637-NIJ 

September 2001 

FINAL REPORT 

hppro\mi By: 

Criminal Justice Program 

The RAND unrestricted draft series is intended to transmit 

///c/o, 

results of RAND research. This draft has not been formally rehas been reviewed by the client and revised in light of the 

reviews. This version is suitable for transmission to the 

National Criminal Justice Reference Service. 

viewed by the RAND quality assurance process. However, it Date: 

RAND is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. 

The research described in this report was supported by grant #98-DC-VX-K003from the National Institute of Justice, with finds transferred from 

the Drug Courts Program Ofice, Office of Justice Programs, United Stotes Department of Justice. Points of view are those ofthe authors and do not 

necessarihy reflect the ofiicial position or policies of the National Institute of Jirstice or the Drug Courts Program Ofice. 

A 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has

not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the

author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of

Justice.
.. , 

PREFACE 

This report presents findings from a national evaluation of 14 

drug court programs that received funding by the Drug Courts Program 

Office in 1995 and 1996. The evaluation was funded by the National 

Institute of Justice with funds transferred from the Drug Courts Program 

Office. This study was designed to develop a framework for drug courts, 

document program implementation, and assess the "evaluability" of the 14 

programs for future eva1uation.l In this report, we argue that drug 

court research currently has no unifying perspective regarding the 

structural and process characteristics of drug courts that can be used 

to link drug court components with outcomes. We develop a testable 

framework that should allow researchers to do this. Our findings on 

implementation are based on interviews and observations conducted during 

site visits to each jurisdiction, as well as program materials, existing 

evaluations, and management information systems. In addition, we present 

findings on the overall "evaluability" of the programs for rigorous 

process and outcome evaluations. 

The report should be of interest to practitioners and evaluators 

interested in sentencing options for drug-involved offenders, as well as 

those interested more specifically in drug courts. 

Other RAND research on drug courts includes: 

Douglas Longshore, Susan Turner, Suzanne L Wenzel, Andrew Morral, 

Adelle Harrell, Duane McBride, Elizabeth Piper Deschenes, and Martin 

Iguchi (2001). "Drug Courts: A Conceptual Framework," Journal of Drug 

Issues, Vol. 31, pp- 7-26. 

Additionally, the project was to propose a Phase I1 evaluation 

plan for each of the 14 sites. Our determination was that most sites 

could support only limited process and outcomes studies, and that an 

alternate methodology be employed. Details of this approach can be 

obtained from the authors. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has

not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the

author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of

Justice.
- iv - 

Suzanne L. Wenzel, Douglas Longshore, Susan Turner, and M. Susan 

Ridgely (2001). "Drug Courts: A Bridge between Criminal Justice and 

Health Services," Journal of Criminal Justice, Vol. 29, No. 3, pp. 241- 

254. 

Susan Turner, Peter W. Greenwood, Terry Fain, and Elizabeth 

Deschenes (1999). "Perceptions of Drug Court: How Offenders View Ease 

of Program Completion, Strengths and Weaknesses, and the Impact on their 

Lives," National Drug Court Institute Review, Vol I1 (11, pp. 61-86. 

Elizabeth Piper Deschenes, Susan Turner, Peter W. Greenwood, and 

James Chiesa (1996). An Experimental Evaluation of Drug Testing and 

Treatment Interventions for Probationers in Maricopa County, Arizona, 

DRU-1387-NIJ. 

Elizabeth Piper Deschenes, Susan Turner, and Peter W. Greenwood 

(1995). "Drug Court or Probation?: An Experimental Evaluation of 

Maricopa County's Drug Court", The Justice System Journal, 18 (11, pp. 

55-74. 

Elizabeth Piper Deschenes and Peter W. Greenwood (1994). 

"Maricopa County's Drug Court: An Innovative Program for First-time 

Drug Offenders on Probation", The Justice System Journal, 17 (1). pp. 

99-116. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has

not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the

author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of

Justice.
-vCONTENTS 

Preface ............................................................. iii 

Tables .............................................................. vii 

Summary .............................................................. ix 

Background ., .................................................... ix 

Study Methodology ............................................... x 

Study Findings ................................................. xi 

Program Implementation ....................................... xi 

Conceptual Framework ....................................... xii 

"Evaluability" of the 14 Drug Court Programs .............. xiii 

Taking Drug Court Research A Step Further ................. xiii 

Acknowledgments .................................................... xvii 

I . Introduction ...................................................... 1 

Drug Court Movement .............................................. 1 

I1 . Drug Courts and Their Effectiveness .............................. 3 

What Is a Drug Court? ........................................... 3 

Drug Court Effectiveness ........................................ 8 

I11 . The 14 Participating Sites ..................................... 10 

Participate in a National Evaluation ...................... 11 

IV . Study Methodology ............................................... 14 

Requirements by Sftes to Collect Process Information and 

V . Drug Court Program Implementation ................................ 16 

Program Model and General Characteristics ....................... 16 

Client Screening and Eligibility Characteristics ............... 20 

Drug Court Team ................................................ 25 

Treatment Provision and Other Services ......................... 32 

Behavioral Demands on Drug Court Participants .................. 36 

Funding/Expenditures for Drug Court Programs ................... 40 

Linkage and Collaboration ...................................... 41 

Rehabilitation vs . Surveillance ................................ 42 

Changes Drug Courts Have Experienced ........................... 43 

VI . A Conceptual Framework .......................................... 45 

Leverage ....................................................... 48 

Leverage Indicators ......................................... 49 

Population Severity ............................................ 49 

Population Severity Indicators .............................. 50 

Intensity ...................................................... 51 

Intensity Indicators ........................................ 51 

Predictability ................................................. 52 

Predictability Indicators ................................... 53 

Rehabilitation emphasis ........................................ 54 

Rehabilitative Indicators ................................... 55 

Ranking the 14 Programs on the Five Dimensions ................. 55 

Leverage .................................................... 56 

.. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has

not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the

author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of

Justice.
. vi . 

Population Severity .......................................... 57 

Program Intensity ........................................... 57 

Predictability ............................................... 58 

Rehabilitation Emphasis ..................................... 59 

VI1 . Program Evaluability ........................................... 61 

Assessing Evaluability of the 14 Drug Courts ................... 61 

DCPO Guidelines For Drug Court Programs ...................... 66 

Possible Research Designs ................................... 67 

VIII . Summary and Conclusions ....................................... 69 

Program Implementation .......................................... 69 

Conceptual Framework ........................................... 70 

"Evaluability" of the 14 Drug Court Programs ................... 71 

Taking Drug Court Research a Step Further ...................... 72 ... , 

Appendix 

Site Visit Protocol ............................................. 74 

References ........................................................... 83 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has

not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the

author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of

Justice.
. vii . 

TABLES 

3.1 . The 14 Drug Courts Studied ..................................... 10 

5.1 - Program Model and General Program Characteristics .............. 18 

5.2 - Client Screening and Eligibility Characteristics ............... 22 

5.3 - Drug Court Team ................................................ 26 

5.4 - Treatment and Other Services ................................... 33 

5.5 - Behavioral Demands on Drug Court Participants .................. 37 

('6.1 - Conceptual Framework ........................................... 47 

6.2 - Typology of 14 Participating Drug Court Programs ............... 60 

7.1 - Drug Court Evaluability Questions .............................. 62 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has

not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the

author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of

Justice.
- ix - 

SUMMARY 

BACKGROUND 

Drug courts have become one of the fastest growing criminal 

justice innovations aimed at crlme reduction. The first drug courts 

were established in the late 1980s. As of June 2000. over 500 courts 

had become operational (Belenko 2000). Judicial interest is 

"particularly strong because drug courts place much of the case 

management control back into the hands of judges--a function that has 

eroded over the years. Drug courts also hold promise as a means to 

reduce drug use and related criminal behavior of drug-involved 

defendants by delivering drug treatment and close judicial monitoring.2 

The Drug Courts Program Office (DCPO) provides funding to drug 

courts for planning, implementation, and enhancement of local drug 

courts. In 1995 and 1996, 14 programs received DCPO implementation 

grant funding. These sites were asked to cooperate with a national 

evaluation funded by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ). This 

report presents findings on 

program implementation of the drug courts 

a conceptual framework of the 14 drug courts funded by DCPO 

program evaluability for participating jurisdictions3 

Early drug courts focused on expediting case calendars. We do 

not consider these here. 

Additionally, the project was to propose a Phase I1 evaluation 

plan for each of the 14 sites. Our determination was that most sites 

could support only limited process and outcomes studies, and that an 

alternate methodology be employed. Details of this approach can be 

obtained from the authors. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has

not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the

author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of

Justice.
-xSTUDY METHODOLOGY 

Site visits were conducted at each of the selected 14 

jurisdictions that received DCPO funding in 1995 and 1996. Site 

visitors were requested to: 

conduct interviews with the drug court coordinator, drug 

court judge, probation, defense and district attorneys, and 

major substance abuse providers 

attend drug court hearings and status reports (and staffing 

meeting if possible) 

visit major substance abuse treatment program(s1 and obtain 

a list of all service providers 

examine case file record keeping 

obtain copies of assessment/eligibility paper forms, 

progress reports, etc., for drug court participants 

obtain layout for computer MIS files that contain background 

and program process data 

obtain information on routine criminal justice record 

keeping (arrests, court processing, probation files) 

obtain copies of existing process/outcome evaluations 

completed by the site 

Based on information gathered from these activities, site visitors 

completed for each site a "Drug Court Evaluation Site Visit Protocol.' 

This protocol was developed in order to capture similar information 

across all 14 sites. A series of individual questions in major domains 

relating to program model; general program characteristics; client flow, 

eligibility, and characteristics; staffing; environment/context; funding 

and costs; pro-iision of treatment and other services; reinforcements, 

punishments, rewards, and sanctions; intensity; rehabilitative versus 

surveillance philosophy; monitoring and supervision; linkage and 

collaboration; administrative leadership and cooperation; program 

implementation; implementation barriers; and "evaluability" were 

completed for each program. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has

not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the

author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of

Justice.
- xi - 

STUDY FINDINGS 

Program Implementation 

Our analysis of program implementation--the types of models 

implemented, eligibility requirements, court and treatment requirements, 

and program implementation difficulties--reads surprising like findings 

from the surveys conducted by American University and National TASC. 

These 14 programs are in many ways typical of drug court programs across 

the county. I 

To a large degree, the 14 programs meet many of the key components 

of effective drug court programs. Drug courts integrate alcohol and 

other drug treatment services with justice system case processing; they 

use a non-adversarial approach; prosecution and defense counsel promote 

public safety while protecting due process rights of participants; 

eligible offenders are identified early; drug courts provide access to a 

continuum of alcohol, drug, and other treatment related services; 

abstinence is monitored by frequent testing; a coordinated strategy 

governs drug court responses to participants' compliance; and ongoing 

judicial interaction with each participant is maintained. It appeared 

that the most difficult component to meet was the monitoring and 

evaluation for the achievement of program goals and effectiveness. In 

the 14 sites we examined, this clearly was not implemented to the degree 

of other key elements. 

However, even with the other nine key elements, the 14 sites 

experienced success in varying degrees. Access to a continuum of 

alcohol and drug services and other related rehabilitative services was 

often difficult, reflecting funding issues, as well as close 

coordination and information flow issues between treatment providers and 

other drug court staff. Although drug courts may specify protocols and 

graduated sanctions for non-compliance, in some instances a more 

individually tailored response is used. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has

not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the

author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of

Justice.
- xii - 

Conceptual Framework 

Our framework was developed to define structure and process in 

ways that are measurable and amenable to hypothesis testing. The 

framework has five\dimensions: leverage, population severity, intensity, 

predictability, and rehabilitation emphasis. The first two dimensions 

are structural characteristics of drug court. Leverage refers to the 

nature of consequences faced by incoming participants if they later fail 

to meet program requirements and are discharged from drug court. 

Population severity refers to characteristics of offenders deemed 

eligible to enter drug court. The other three dimensions are process 

characteristics. They describe what happens to participants as they 

proceed through the drug court program. Intensity refers to 

requirements for participating in and completing drug court.' These 

always include urine testing, court appearances, and drug abuse 

treatment. Predictability reflects the degree to which participants 

know how the court will respond if they are compliant or noncompliant. 

Courts with less variability in responses to each positive test are more 

predictable; participants are more likely to know what will probably 

happen to them if they test positive once, twice, and so on. The final 

dimension in our framework is the emphasis placed on rehabilitation as 

against other court functions, including case processing and punishment. 

Other things being equal, we would expect more positive drug court 

outcomes for drug courts that rank high on indicators of intensity, 

predictability, rehabilitation, and leverage. The effect of population 

severity on outcomes most likely depends upon other dimensions of the 

framework; thus we made no simple hypotheses for this component. We 

provide examples of these dimensions using the 14 drug courts. Our 

asses smen 

to gather 

dimension 

be useful 

of the courts is tentative, however, since we were not able 

the data we suggest is needed to fully document each 

However.our analysis shows variation across sites that might 

for future analyses of program outcomes. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has

not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the

author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of

Justice.
- xiii - , 

"Evaluability" of the 14 Drug Court Programs 

Our analysis of the "evaluability" of each of the 14 sites was 

based upon information gathered from site visits made to each program by 

study staff that included program documents and manuals; interviews with 

Drug Court staff, judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, and, treatment 

providers; examination of paper and computerized records; and 

observation of drug court proceedings. In general, we found that the 

strongest design for most sites, given their current data collection 

,activities, would be quasi-experimental and limited to administrative 

data, and would require a fair amount of on-site abstraction. Many 

sites did not routinely collect the data items recommended by the DCPO. 

The greatest stumbling blocks to traditional evaluation were the 

lack of integrated management information system and adequate comparison 

groups. In addition, self-reported information on offender and system 

actor perceptions, necessary for understanding the "black box" of drug 

court treatment, were not'collected by sites. 

Taking Drug Court Research A Step Further 

Drug court research is at a crossroads. Available information to 

date suggests that programs deliver more intensive services with 

positive outcomes for recidivism and drug use, at least in the short 

term. However, many of these results come from weak evaluation designs. 

Conducting additional weak evaluations may add little to our knowledge. 

Recently, researchers and observers in the field have been calling for 

more sophisticated research into testing the theory behind how drug 

courts achieve their results (Harrell 1999), evaluating the treatment 

component using principals of effective intervention (Johnson, Hubbard, 

and Latessa 2000). untangling the drug court "package" to determine 

which components make a difference (Belenko 2000, Marlowe and Festinger 

2000; Goldkamp, White, and Robinson 2000), and conducting cost-benefit 

analyses in a rigorous manner (California Judicial Council 2000). For 

example, the National Institute on Drug Abuse has recently funded a set 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has

not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the

author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of

Justice.
- xiv - 

of program evaluations to answer questions about specific components of 

drug court programs. Projects currently underway include a clinical 

trial of Multi Systemic Therapy for juveniles, the use of vouchers in 

drug courts, and a randomized design that varies the nature of judicial 

hearings in five jurisdictions. Johnson, Hubbard, and Latessa (2000) 

argue that many treatment programs utilized by drug court programs may 

\ 

not be delivering the best treatment to clients. They suggest more 

attention be paid to the type and quality of treatment services, 

including the application of the principles of effective intervention. I 

Central to any future evaluations, however, is the development at 

each site of a management information system (MIS) that captures the 

required background, process, and outcome measures important to all 

research designs. Our study of the 14 drug court programs revealed that 

many did not have an MIS in place, despite the availability of several 

(e.g., Jacksonville and Buffalo Drug Court MIS, Washington/Baltimore 

High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA) Treatment Tracking System). 

It may be that the availabie systems do not provide full-service drug 

court management information capability (Mahoney et al. 19981, or the 

difficulties involved in establishing systems (e.g., costs, coordinating 

agencies) may be too great for many jurisdictions, particularly smaller 

ones. 

In addition to providing useful information on process and outcome 

measures, comprehensive MISS have implications for the timeliness of 

client information-sharing and thus for clients' access to services. 

Linkages can be more readily made, and referrals more prompt and 

appropriate, if the drug court's MIS includes data on a full array of 

client needs and if the assessment tools are suitably rigorous. 

The importance of drug court evaluation cannot be overstated. The 

drug court model has been adopted in a variety of other areas, including 

mental health, domestic violence, and DUI sentencing. It is imperative 

that we gain a better understanding of overall impact, theoretical 

underpinnings, and key components if the drug court model is to be 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has

not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the

author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of

Justice.
-xv- , 

widely disseminated as a successful approach for treating a variety of 

criminal behaviors and associated illnesses. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has

not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the

author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of

Justice.
- xvii - 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

We wish to thank the drug court judges and program staff in the 14 

jurisdictions we studied: Atlanta, Birmingham, Brooklyn, Chicago, 

Kankakee, Omaha, Riverside, Roanoke, Sacramento, San Juan, Santa 

Barbara, Spokane,'Tampa, and Tuscaloosa. Without their cooperation and 

assistance, we would not have been able to gather key information for 

the current project. We would also like to thank our grant monitor at 

the National Institute of Justice, Janice Munsterman, for her support 

throughout this project. The Drug Courts Program Office provided funds 

for the evaluation, through the National Institute of Justice; we wish 

to thank both agencies for supporting research on the implementation and 

effectivenesk of drug courts nationwide. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has

not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the

author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of

Justice.
-1- 

I. INTRODUCTION 

DRUG COURT MOVEMENT 

Drug courts have become one of the fastest growing criminal , 

justice innovatiohs aimed at crime reduction. The first drug courts 

were established in the late 1980s. As of June 2000, over 500 courts 

had become operational (Belenko 2000). Judicial interest is 

particularly strong because drug courts place much of the case 

management control back into the hands of judges--a function that has 

eroded over the years. Drug courts also hold promise as a means to 

reduce drug use and related criminal behavior of drug-involved ' 

defendants by delivering drug treatment and close judicial monitoring.4 

Title V of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 

1994 authorized awards of federal grants for drug courts. Since 1995, 

with funding from the Office of Justice Programs (OJP), awards have 

been granted for implementation of new and enhancement of existing drug 

courts, as well as for planning grants. Under this initiative, drug 

courts have been developed at the local level in accordance with OJP 

requirements, including early and continuing judicial supervision; 

mandatory periodic drug testing; substance abuse treatment and other 

rehabilitative services; integrated administration of services and 

sanctions; the exclusion of violent offenders from participation; and 

the possibility of prosecution, confinement, or incarceration for 

noncompliance or lack of satisfactory progress. (American University, 

http://www.american.edu/iustice, 2000a), 

Early drug courts focused on expediting case calendars. We do 

not consider these here. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has

not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the

author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of

Justice.
-2- 

The Drug Courts Program Office (DCPO) provides funding to drug 

courts for planning, implementation, and enhancement of local drug 

courts. In 1995 and 1996, 14 programs received DCPO implementation 

grant funding. These sites were asked to cooperate with a national 

evaluation funded by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ)., This 

report presents findings on 

program implementation of the drug courts 

a conceptual framework of the 14 drug courts funded by DCPO 

program evaluability for participating jurisdictions5 

In Chapter I1 we discuss the drug court model and briefly review 

the literature on the implementation and effectiveness of drug courts. 

In Chapter I11 we discuss the 14 participating sites and their 

requirements under their DCPO grants. Chapter IV presents the study 

methodology. Chapter V cqntains the analysis of program 

implementation. In Chapter VI we present the framework for drug courts 

that we developed; in Chapter VI1 we discuss the evaluability of the 14 

programs. Chapter VI11 presents the summary and conclusions. 

Additionally, the project was to propose a Phase I1 evaluation 

plan for each of the 14 sites. Our determination was that most sites 

could support only limited process and outcomes studies, and that an 

alternate methodology be employed. Details of this approach can be 

obtained from the authors. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has

not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the

author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of

Justice.
-3- 

11. DRUG COURTS AND THEIR EFFECTIVENESS 

WHAT IS A DRUG COURT? 

Drug courts emerged in 1989 as a distinctly different way of 

dealing with drug offenders. In contrast to a more traditional punitive 

court processing, drug courts use active and intensive judicial 

supervision coupled with drug treatment and sanctions in a more 

,therapeutic environment (see Goldkamp 1994, 1999, 2000; Hora, Schma, and 

Rosenthal 1999). In exchange for successful completion of a drug court 

program, offenders are rewarded--with dismissed charges, or reductions 

in sentence--as determined by the drug court program. 

Effective drug court programs are based qn an understanding of the 

physiological, psychological, and behavioral realities of drug abuse and 

are implemented with those realities in mind. This results in a much 

less adversarial approach’than in traditional courts. Emphasis is on 

immediate intervention; coordinated, comprehensive supervision; longterm treatment and aftercare; and progressive sanctions and incentive 

programs (Inciardi et al. 1996). An effort is made to keep even noncompliant offenders in the program, using both encouragement and 

graduated sanctions. Through the combination of drug treatment and 

sanctions, drug courts hold promise as an effective mechanism to break 

the cycle of substance abuse and crime. 

No specific set of characteristics defines a drug court program. 

However, compared with traditional dockets, drug courts offenders appear 

more frequently in front of judges; are required to enter into an 

intensive outpatient program that usually entails at least three 

sessions per week with a treatment professional; undergo frequent. 

random urinalysis; undergo sanctions for failure to comply with program 

requirements; and are encourage to become drug free, develop vocational 

and other skills to promote reentry into the community (American 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has

not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the

author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of

Justice.
-4- 

a -4. 

University, htt~:/iwww.american.edu!iustice/nacofct.htm, September 22, 

2000). 

In an effort to provide guidance for drug court development and 

operation, the Drug Courts Program Office (DCPO), in collaboration with 

drug court experts and practitioners, has developed a set of key 

components that are seen as a flexible framework and also lay the 

foundation for evaluation research (Drug Courts Program Office 1997)6. 

These components include: 

Drug courts integrate alcohol and other drug treatment 

services with justice system case processing. 

Using a non-adversarial approach, prosecution and defense 

counsel promote public safety while protecting participants' 

due process rights. 

Eligible participants are identified early and promptly 

placed in the drug court program. 

Drug courts provide access to a continuum of alcohol, drug, 

and other related treatment and rehabilitation services. 

Abstinence is monitored by frequent alcohol and drug 

testing. 

A coordinated strategy governs drug court responses to 

participants' compliance. 

Ongoing judicial interaction with each drug court 

participant is essential. 

The discussion and development of key elements of drug courts has 

been ongoing for some time. Goldkamp (1994) outlines nine core elements 

that developed out of the First National Drug Court Conference in 

December 1993. They include: judicial leadership and central judicial 

role; collaboration beyond the norm with criminal justice agencies, 

courts, treatrrznt agencies, and community organizations; inclusion of 

effective education and cross training for criminal justice and 

treatment agencies and staff; a custom-designed treatment program for 

targeted offenders; a treatment court that addresses a specifically 

defined target population; an integrated management information system; 

identification of stable funding sources; overall detailed 

implementation plan for the drug court program for all involved parties, 

roles, and timetable; and an evaluation strategy, designed at the 

outset, that defines outcomes of interest, information needed, and 

timetable for analyses and reporting (Goldkamp 1994, p- iii). 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has

not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the

author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of

Justice.
, *",( 

-5- 

Monitoring and evaluation measure the achievement of program 

goals and gauge effectiveness. 

Continuing interdisciplinary education promotes effective 

drug court planning, implementation, and operations. 

Forging partnerships among drug courts, public agencies, and 

community-based organizations generates local support and 

enhances drug court 'program effectiveness (Drug Courts 

Program Office 1997). 

How do drug courts actually operate? Surveys on drug courts and 

their characteristics have been ongoing by the American University aver 

the past several years. Recent national survey data on drug court 

programs published by American University summarizes characteristics 

and implementation experiences of 93 courts in early 1997 (American 

University 1997). The survey results reveal that even though drug 

court programs define their own offender eligibility criteria, most 

courts exclude violent offenders, those who have violated parole, and 

those with out-of-county residence.7 Programs differ as to the extent 

of the offender's prior record. Over half of the surveyed programs in 

1997 allowed offenders with any number of prior offenses, provided they 

met other eligibility criteria. Although programs accept offenders 

with varying degrees of substance use problems, almost 90 percent 

target offenders with severe use. Approximately 40 percent of programs 

have modified their eligibility criteria over time, many to relax 

criminal history and offense requirements; others have tightened 

criteria to reduce the number eligible (Cooper 1997). 

Most of the programs require weekly or bi-weekly contact with the 

judge during the early phases of the program. Defense attorneys and 

Programs funded by DCPO specifically exclude violent offenders. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has

not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the

author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of

Justice.
-6- 

prosecutors often attend status hearings. Most programs require at 

least three contacts a week (often more) with the treatment provider, 

along with at least weekly urinalysis testing, for the early phases of 

the program. A system of graduated sanctions, such as short-term 

incarceration and use of alternatives including electronic monitoring, 

is used to respond to positive drug tests or failures to attend 

treatment. Sixty percent of surveyed drug courts order incarceration 

for up to three days as a judicial response to relapse and/or noncompliance, although 80 percent also increase the frequency and/or 

I,. , 

intensity of treatment services. Although most courts do not terminate 

an offender simply for arrest on a new drug charge, many will terminate 

cases with arrests for drug trafficking. To graduate from the program, 

offenders are required to complete treatment (in almost 70 percent of 

programs, treatment durat4on was at least one year) and, in some 

jurisdictions, must remain drug free for a specified period of time. 

The most frequently cited reason for unsuccessful termination from 

programs (outside of new arrests) is repeated positive urine tests, 

chronic failure to attend treatment, and repeated failure to attend 

court hearings (Cooper 1997). 

Drug courts have different experiences in their implementation, 

and many have had to overcome initial hurdles in their establishment. 

Many jurisdictions report a lack of adequate funding for drug court 

programs (over one-third receive local funding; one-third, Byrne 

funding; one-quarter, federal funds). Some courts mention difficulties 

identifying clients and making referrals to treatment. Others report 

problems with the availability and quality of treatment services (about 

one-quarter report managed care limitations on the nature an2 extent of 

treatment services available) and difficulties in coordinating 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has

not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the

author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of

Justice.
treatment and other agencies. The high number of bench warrants served 

also causes difficulties for several courts (Cooper 1995, 1997). 

A recent survey conducted by National TASC, in cooperation with 

the Drug Courts Program Office and the Center for Substance Abuse 

Treatment, surveyed over 250 drug court programs in late 1999. The 

survey focused on'the types of services available to drug court clients 

and the ways in which clients are processed into these services (TASC 

2000). The majority of programs reported that they include adjudicated 

offenders, either exclusively or in addition to lower-level offenders I 

diverted from prosecution. Adult drug court participants include felony 

and misdemeanor offenders, offenders with drug charges, drug-related 

offenses, and probation violations. Consistent with the American 

University findings mentioned above, most exclude violent offenders from 

their target offense groups. 

Most drug courts were fairly small. Twenty-,seven percent have 

fewer than 50 participants in their programs, 42 percent have between 

50 and 150 participants, and 31 percent have more than 150 

participants. Drug courts try to provide a range of services for 

offenders and monitor these with drug and alcohol testing and 

sanctions/interventions designed to promote compliance. Most drug 

courts require participants to remain in treatment for a year, with 

treatment generally consisting of group and individual counseling. 

TASC found that overall, drug court programs structure and deliver 

treatment in line with established principles. However, several issues 

remain. Assessment and screening may not be performed by appropriate 

staff using accepted clinical tools; management information systems are 

often not comprehensive or tied into larger justice or treatment data 

systems; and many rely on relatively informal relationships with the 

providers they use, making them vulnerable to changes in financing and 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has

not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the

author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of

Justice.
-8- 

policies that occur in the mainstream treatment and mental health 

environment (TASC 2000, p. 4). 

DRUG COURT EFFECTIYNESS 

The impact of drug courts on the criminal justice system has been 

varied. Some coufts report a reduction in judicial dockets, probation 

caseloads, and jail bed days; savings in police overtime; and general 

savings in system costs. Many report reductions in offender drug use 

during program participation. The most comprehensive reviews of the 

findings from drug court evaluations have been conducted by Belenko 

(1998, 1999). 

updated review of almost 60 evaluations of 48 different courts, a 

In his initial review of 29 drug court evaluations and 

number of findings have emerged: 

Drug courts arg treating more complex 'offenders than 

previously known. Offenders have more serious criminal 

histories, previous exposure to treatment without success, 

and complex physical and mental health needs. 

Drug court participants' drug use while in programs remains 

low compared to similar offenders not in drug court. 

Drug court participants' retention and graduation rates 

remain high compared with other outpatient treatment 

programs. 

For those drug court participants who eventually graduate, 

re-arrest rates are low during the drug court program. 

Drug court participants experience lower post program 

recidivism rates than comparison groups. 

Drug court programs generate cost savings primarily to law 

enforcement, probation and jail (Belenko 1999, p.2). 

Despite the growing evidence on the implementation and 

effectiveness of drug courts, drug court research continues to have its 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has

not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the

author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of

Justice.
-9- 

limitations. Process evaluations dominate the field, partly due to the 

DCPO requirement that funded sites complete a process evaluation of 

their programs. Methodological problems limit many outcome studies. 

Weak or non-existent comparison groups, short follow-up periods, and 

limited outcome measures focused on available of ficially-recorded 

recidivism outcomes and urinalysis tests (as opposed to psycho-social 

measures of family reintegration, job skills attainment, actual drug 

use, etc.) are typical. Beyond methodological problems, however, are 

more theoretical concerns about the "theory" behind drug courts and our 

understanding of the "black box" of treatment (see Harrell 1999; Taxman \ 

1999). Research needs to delve deeper into understanding key 

conceptual ingredients necessary for drug court success (Belenko 2000). 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has

not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the

author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of

Justice.
*.# m.,, 

- 10 - 

111. THE 14 PARTICIPATING SITES 

Fourteen drug courts in ten states and territories received 

implementation funding from the Drug Courts Program Office (DCPO) in 

1995 and 1996. These programs are the focus of the current study. The 

participating drug programs are listed in Table 3.1 below. 

Table 3.1 

The 14 Drug Courts Studied 

Region State Award Year 

Birmingham A1 abama 1996 

Tuscaloosa A1 abama 1995 

Sa cramen t o California 1995 

Santa Barbara California 1995 

Riverside California 1996 

Tampa F1 or ida 1996 

At 1 anta Georgia 1996 

Chicago Illinois 1995 

Kankakee I11 inois 1996 

Omaha Nebraska 1996 

Brooklyn New York 1995 

San Juan Puerto Rico 1996 

Roanoke Virginia 1996 

Spokane Washington 1996 

DCPO provided implementation grants to these jurisdictions for 

drug courts that operate a specially designed court calendar or docket 

for the purposes of: 

reducing recidivism and substance abuse among non-violent 

adult and juvenile substance abusing offenders 

increasing the likelihood of their successful rehabilitation 

through early, continuous, and judicially supervised 

treatment; mandatory periodic drug testing; the use of 

graduated sanctions; and other rehabilitation services (NIJ 

1998) 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has

not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the

author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of

Justice.
- 11 - 

a 

Requirements by Sites to Collect Process Information and Participate in 

a National Evaluation 

Drug courts receiving funding by DCPO are required to collect 

program and process information from all drug court components, to the 

fullest extent possible. The DCPO requested that courts (ideally) 

provide : \ 

identification of the screening criteria used to determine 

eligibility and acceptance into the drug court program 

(including the type of offenses allowed) 

identification of the point in the criminal justice process 

where the program intervenes (e.g., pretrial, postconviction) 

description of the potential population eligible €or the 

drug court program (including demographic information about 

the surrounding community and the numbers and 

characteristics of clients served) 

description of intake and assessment procedures and 

screening instruments 

detailed description of the type of program established, its 

distinguishing characteristics, and services provided 

(including administrative and budgetary elements, personnel 

and their allocation to specific tasks, average length of 

participation in the drug court overall, and supervision 

provided to participants), especially type and phase of 

treatment and other interventions provided (e.g., 

therapeutic community or initial detoxification phase) 

identification of how the system responds to relapses, what 

interventions are used, and what incentives are offered for 

progress 

identification of case management and monitoring procedures 

to ensure that each defendant is closely monitored 

description of the drug court caseload's impact on the rest 

of the court system 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has

not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the

author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of

Justice.
- 12 - 

description of the discharge and referral procedures used 

when a participant completes the program (or fails to 

complete the program) 

description of the role of the judge, prosecutor, and 

defense attorney and how their roles in the drug court 

program vary from their roles in other courts in the system, 

as well as the type of coordination and cooperation required 

with other linkages in the system (e.g., pretrial services, 

probation, parole, treatment providers and other support 

service providers, and community agencies) 

description of what information will be routinely available 

to the judges and other program participants 

identification of any public policy issues that 

significantly affect the drug court program 

The following items were to be collected for drug court 

participants and, to the extent possible, non-participants 

(ineligibles, refusals, and those processed before drug court was 

created): demographic characteristics, substance abuse history and 

current levels of use, family relationships and social functioning, 

vocational status, economic status, academic achievement, mental health 

history (including history of physical or sexual abuse), medical 

history (including HIV risk behaviors), criminal justice history, 

attitudes toward treatment motivation or readiness for treatment, 

initial treatment and support service needs, program interventions 

received (including length and type), participation in treatment 

(including motivation and actual attendance records for each program 

component), date of program admission and discharge, status at 

completion of drug court program (e.g., successful), criminal justice 

status at discharge (e.g., probation), service needs at discharge from 

program (e.g., job placement), and discharge referrals initiated by the 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has

not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the

author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of

Justice.
'- 13 - 

drug court (Drug Courts Program Office 1996, p. 29-31). To gather this 

information, participating sites were encouraged to design, implement, 

and maintain an automated data collection system. 

In addition to the information mentioned above, the DCPO 

solicitation stressed that the drug court programs should anticipate 

providing the following types of information,for an impact evaluation: 

substance abuse treatment and support services completion rates; 

counselor ratings of the extent of participant attendance, engagement 

in treatment program components, and improvement over time in life 

skills acquisition, psychological and emotional functioning, cognitive 

t 

functioning, and educational and employment status; incident or, ' 

disciplinary reports during program involvement; participant 

,, ,I 

satisfaction with the treatment program; reports of substance abuse; 

results of urinalysis tests; probation/parole status and change in 

status; date and type of each charge, arrest, technical violation, 

conviction, and incarceration during program participation and during 

aftercare (including offense severity, differentiation between old and 

new charges, and conviction or sentence status for each arrest); 

positive social adjustment indicators (e.g., participation in team 

sports, volunteer work, improved employment status); and counselor 

ratings of the extent of participant attendance and engagement in 

aftercare components and referral services following completion of the 

drug court program (Drug Courts Program Office 1996, p. 33). 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has

not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the

author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of

Justice.
a 

- 14 - 

IV. STUDY METHODOLOGY 

The major source of information for the present study was 

collected during site visits at each of the selected 14 jurisdictions 

that received DCPO funding in 1995 and 1996. The purpose of the visits 

was to gather information related to the drug court program model and 

implementation experiences, the target population characteristics, 

jurisdictional context, drug court participant experiences and outcomes, 

and ongoing data collection efforts and evaluation. 

evaluation and site visits were introduced by a letter from Marilyn 

Roberts, Director of the Drug Courts Program Office, to each 

participating program; individual project staff then followed-up to 

arrange the visits. 

The national 

Two-person teams visited sites, generally over the 

course of 

Site 

0 

0 

0 

two days, and engaged in a series of activities. 

visitors were requested to: 

conduct interviews with the drug court coordinator, drug 

court judge, probation, defense and district attorneys, and 

major substance abuse providers 

attend drug court hearings and status reports (and staffing 

meeting if possible) 

visit major substance abuse treatment program(s1 and obtain 

a list of all service providers 

examine case file record keeping 

obtain copies of assessment/eligibility paper forms, 

progress reports, etc., for drug court participants 

obtain layout for computer MIS files that contain background 

and program process data 

obtain information on routine criminal justice record 

keeping (arrests, court processing, probation files) 

obtain copies of existing process/outcome evaluations 

completed by the site 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has

not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the

author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of

Justice.
- 15 - 

Based on information gathered from these activities, site visitors 

completed for each site a “Drug Court Evaluation Site Visit Protocol.” 

This protocol was developed in order to capture similar information 

across all 14 sites. A series of individual questions in major domains 

relating to program model; general program characteristics; client flow, 

eligibility, and characteristics; staffing; environment/context; funding 

and costs; provision of treatment and other services; reinforcements, 

punishments, rewards, and sanctions; intensity; rehabilitative versus 

surveillance philosophy; monitoring and supervision; linkage and 

collaboration; administrative leadership and cooperation; program 

implementation; implementation barriers; and “evaluability” were 

completed for each program (see copy of protocol in the Appendix). 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has

not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the

author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of

Justice.
- 16 - 

V. DRUG COURT PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION 

Each of the 14 drug courts had been operational for at least 

several years at the time of our site visits and data collection. 

During the early years of implementation, many programs had mgde changes 

to various facets of their programs, such as eligibility criteria, 

sanctioning protocol, and treatment providers. Our information is 

accurate as of the time of our site visits in summer of 1999.8 We 

discuss below program models and general characteristics, client 

characteristics, treatment provision and other services, behavioral 

demands on drug court participants, funding, linkage and collaboration, 

rehabilitation vs. surveillance, and major changes drug courts have 

experienced during their implementation. 

PROGRAM MODEL AND GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS 

The majority of the arug court programs were designed for adult 

offenders. Programs in two sites, Tampa and Chicago, were designed for 

juvenile offenders. Consistent with Key Component #3 (DCPO key elements 

1997), all prcgrams intercepted eligible offenders early in the process 

after arrest, either pre-plea or post-plea offenders. The post plea 

model was the most common. In this case, offenders pleaded guilty to 

charges and agreed to participate in the drug court, with charges being 

dismissed upon successful completion. In many cases, the models were 

not "pure" pre-plea, post-plea, or post-adjudication (probation) 

programs. In these cases, it appeared that the referral process had 

been relaxed, allowing offenders at other stages of adjudication or 

supervision access to the drug court and its services. A minority of 

sites consider offenders on probation. 

violators, referrals from probation officers, or even dispositions by 

These could be probation 

a We suspect that additional changes may have occurred since our 

site visits. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has

not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the

author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of

Justice.
- 17 - 

judges that offenders participate in drug court as a condition of their 

probation. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has

not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the

author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of

Justice.
- 18 - 

Table 5.1 f 

Program Model and General Program Characteristics 

Target 

Site Group Model Other programs Capa ci t y Stages of intervention 

Atlanta 

Birmingham 

Brooklyn 

Chicago 

Kankakee 

Omaha 

Riverside 

Roanoke 

Sacramento 

San Juan 

Adults 

Adult 

Adul t 

Juvenile 

Adult 

Adult 

Young 

Adult 

Adult 

Adult 

Adult 

Santa Barbara Adult 

Spokane Adul t 

Tampa Juven i 1 e 

Tuscaloosa Adu 1 t 

pre-plea. postplea, postadjudication 

post -plea 

post -plea 

post -plea 

post -plea 

post -plea 

post-plea, 

probat ion 

post -plea 

post -plea 

pre-plea, postplea, probat ion 

post-plea 

pre-plea 

pre-plea 

pre-plea, postno other drug 

programs; 2 

other diversion 

Breaking the 

Cycle; deferral 

program for low 

level drug 

offenders, TASC 

DTAP, TAS'C 

Drug School 

TASC 

routine 

divers ion 

low-level drug 

diversion 

day reporting 

low-level drug 

divers ion 

TASC 

low level drug 

diversion 

TASC 

arbitration; 

drug education/ 

UA 

approx 100 

380 

approx 400 

approx 90 

60 

approx 300 

75 

approx 85 

150-200 

150 

220 

50 

280 

300 

5 stages, 12-18 months 

3 phases, 12 months, monitoring 

by TASC 

3 phases, 8-18 months, 

monitoring by court-based case 

managers 

2 phases, 9-18 months, 

monitoring by TASC 

3 stages, 12-24 months 

3 phases, 12-18 months 

2 phases, 12-16 months 

4 phases, 12-18 months 

4 phases, 12-14 months 

18 months, TASC monitoring 

5 phases, 18-24 months 

5 phases, 12 months, monitoring 

by TASC 

4 phases, 9 months 

4 phases, up to 24 months 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has

not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the

author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of

Justice.
I,.,, 

- 19 - I 

Drug courts operate in complicated local contexts. Most drug 

courts operate in environments in which diversion programs or other 

programs designed for drug of fenders exist. 

programsg were operational in several sites. In some cases, these 

programs drain potential clients from the drug court program. For 

example, in California, Penal Code 1000 (PC1000) serves as a diversion 

program for low-level drug offenders. In Chicago, the "drug school" for 

juveniles targets low level first time drug offenders with small 

possession amounts. In Brooklyn, select offenders are offered a spot in 

the District Attorney sponsored DTAP program that provides intensive 

residential treatment with dismissal of charges. TASC operates for 

adult felony offenders who face six months or more of jail or prison 

time, and a three-day Treatment Readiness Program (TRP) is available for 

Long standing TASC 

female defendants sentenced on misdemeanor charges at arraignment. 

The 14 drug court programs generally handled a small number of 

drug offenders in any given jurisdiction. For six of the programs, 

capacity was 100 or less. During our site visits we requested 

information on the percentage of drug-involved offenders that might be 

eligible for drug court and the percent of those referred who actually 

ended up in the court. We did this to estimate the potential impact on 

case processing in the jurisdictions. Although many jurisdictions did 

not routinely collect this information, sites indicated a wide range of 

responses to this question. In some jurisdictions, only a small 

percentage of drug-involved offenders were eligible for the program, due 

to the screening criteria (e.g., violence). In several, up to 50 

percent were eligible. In few instances, however, did the percent of 

eligibles actually placed into drug court exceed 50 percent. Overall, 

TASC (originally Treatment Alternatives to Street Crime) serves 

as a bridge between the drug treatment community and the criminal 

justice system. TASC programs were developed in the 1970s to provide 

monitoring, brokering, and court reporting functions for drug-involved 

offenders. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has

not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the

author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of

Justice.
- 20 - 

the major reason for small percentages of drug-involved offenders 

actually participating in drug court is exclusionary criteria, discussed 

in more detail below. As a result, drug court programs, by design, do 

not cast a wide net for drug-using offenders. They often appear to fill 

a niche between programs offered to the lowest level drug offender and 

more serious offenders with histories of violence. 

Most of the 14 studied drug court programs used a staged, or 

phased, intervention model, consisting of intensive monitoring, 

treatment, and court appearances during the early months, followed by 

less intensive monitoring and treatment. The majority lasted between 12 

and 24 months. Many included a short initial period for assessment and 

final eligibility determination. The timing and length of phases pften 

was tied to the drug treatment components of the program, refllecting the 

focus on treatment and recovery of the drug court programs. 

CLIENT SCREENING AND ELIGXBILITY CHARACTERISTICS 

Table 5.2 presents major screening criteria for drug court 

offenders. Jurisdictions differed in the types of offenders eligible 

for programs, but generally required some kind of a drug charge or 

property offense that is related to or motivated by drugs. Some 

jurisdictions allowed both misdemeanors and felonies; others were for' 

felonies only. In many instances, it was the exclusionary criteria that 

shaped the nature of the drug court clients to a large degree. Table 

5.2 lists the major exclusionary criteria for the different sites, 

although in several, the list of exclusions was quite lengthy. 

Reflecting DCPO requirements, violent offenders were excluded from these 

14 drug court programs. In many instances, offenders with drug sales 

and trafficking were also excluded. Other exclusionary criteria include 

weapon possession, gang involvement, and mental illness. Cases were 

initially referred by a wide variety of criminal justice actors, 

including judges, public defenders, and arresting officers, often 

through a multiple gating screening process. However, in the great 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has

not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the

author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of

Justice.
- 21 - 

majority of jurisdictions, the district (or state's1,attorney was the 

primary referral source. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has

not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the

author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of

Justice.
- 22 - 

8 

Table 5.2 

Client Screening and Eligibility Characteristics 

Eligible Ref erra 1 Primary drug use 

Site offenses Exclusions Source Cri t eri a of offenders 

Atlanta drug crimes; 

drug-related 

property crimes 

Birmingham 

Brook 1 yn 

Chicago 

Kankakee 

Omaha 

drug possession 

felony drug 

charge 

drug possession; 

theft; property 

crimes 

drug or property 

crimes 

non-violent 

felony 

current and prior 

violent crime; dual 

diagnosis; homeless; 

unmotivated offenders 

drug sales; violent 

history; weapon in 

current arrest 

prior convictio?, or 

pending charge for 

violent felony; 

pending charges for 

violent felony or 

misdemeanor; DA 

exclusions for certain 

cases 

prior or pending 

violent offense; 

first-time arrestees 

diverted to "drug 

s c ho o 1 '' 

current violent 

charge; history of 

violence 

more than 1 prior 

felony; prior 

conviction for violent 

felony; multiple 

misdemeanors for 

violent offenses; gang 

judges ; drug marijuana; crack 

city dependency cocaine 

attorney ; 

pretrial 

defense not alcohol; crack 

attorneys specific cocaine 

apply 

arraign- addicted heroin; cocaine 

ment court 

judge 

arresting drug use or marijuana; 

officers desire for alcohol 

treat men t 

judge of drug- marijuana; 

custody dependent cocaine 

court 

county moderate or crack cocaine; 

attorney high LSI methamphetamine 

involvement 

(continued on next page) 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has

not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the

author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of

Justice.
- 23 - 

Table 5.2 (cont'd) 

Client Screening and Eligibility Characteristics 

Eligible Referral Primary drug use 

Site offenses Exclusions Source Cri t eria of offenders 

Riverside drug felonies past or current public drug abuse methamphetamine 

weapons; domestic defender 

violence; "strikes;" refers 

gang member; severe clients to 

psychiatric problems apply 

Roanoke non-violent violent current or prosecutor not alcohol; cocaine 

felony offense prior offense; drug specific 

distribution 

Sacramento drug possession; 

non-violent, 

non-serious 

property crimes; 

probat ion 

violation 

San Juan felony drug 

possession; 

aiding a drug 

sale; low-level 

non-violent drug 

related felonies 

Santa Barbara misdemeanors and 

felonies with 

drug possession, 

sales, and drugrelated theft 

misdemeanor conGict ion district 

for weapons or attorney ; 

violence; guns in past public 

3 years; serious defender 

felony conviction; 

felony conviction for 

violence or weapons; 

drug sales; possession 

for sale 

violent offenses; more judge 

than minor prior 

record 

violent offenders; district 

more than 2 felony attorney 

convictions; drug 

sales 

history or crack cocaine; 

evidence of methamphetamine 

abuse or 

addict ion 

assessed as cocaine; heroin; 

" addicted" mari j uana 

history of methamphetamine 

substance 

abuse 

(continued on next page) 

- 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has

not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the

author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of

Justice.
- 24 - 

Table 5.2 (COnt'd) 

Client Screening and Eligibility Characteristics 

Eligible Referral Primary drug use 

Site offenses Exclusions Source Cri t eri a of offenders 

Spokane drug possession; additional charges district drug abuse/ alcohol; 

drug-related pending attorney dependence marijuana 

property problem 

offenses 

Tampa non-violent prior felonies 

felony; 

misdemeanor drug 

possession; 

nonviolent drugrelated crime; 

first-time 

felony offenders 

with drug 

charges 

possession; nonviolent felony 

drug-related 

, 

Tuscaloosa non-violent drug possession of gun in 

case drug - marijuana 

managers dependency 

at --for nonjuvenile drug crime 

assessment 

center; 

state 

attorney 

district accepted by marijuana 

attorney treatment 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has

not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the

author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of

Justice.
- 25 - 

Criteria for drug dependency were less formally specified than 

offense and prior record criteria and were often evaluated later--often 

by treatment providers during the initial phases of the drug court 

program. Virtually all of these 14 drug courts required some evidence 

of addiction or drug dependency, although in Chicago, youth needed only 

to indicate a desire for treatment to satisfy the drug use criteria. 

Birmingham accepts clients involved only slightly with drugs (e.g., 

charged with false prescriptions) as an early prevention/intervention 

program to curb potential regular use or abuse. Primary drug use varied 

across the sites, often reflecting drug use trends across the country 

(Office of National Drug Control Strategy 2000). Methamphetamine was 

the primary drug in western sites, although the great majority of sites 

had offenders that use cocaine and marijuana. 

DRUG COURT TEAM 

Table 5.3 presents key factors related to the drug court team and 

hearings. One usually thinks of drug courts as separate courts with 

assigned drug court judges. In the vast majority of the sites, this was 

the case. However, in two sites, the usual model did not apply. In 

Chicago, drug court cases were actually heard in arraignment court, 

interleaved with other cases. Drug court offenders were not seen 

separately as a group. In Riverside, drug court cases were held in a 

court in which other drug cases also appear. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has

not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the

author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of

Justice.
- 26 - 

Table 5.3 

Drug Court Team 

Frequency of 

Dedi ca t ed Offender 

Site Drug Court Staffing Appearance San c t i on s Rewards 

Atlanta Yes Director weekly at after 1st reduction in 

2 Supervisors first; then positive UA, appearances before 

4 Case Managers once every 2-4 increasing jail DC; verbal praise 

MIS specialist weeks (3,5,7, 10-14), from judge 

then inpatient ~ 

p 1 ac emen t 

Birmingham Yes Supervisor weekly at 1st positive UA: reduction in 

2 Case Managers -, first; then 1 day in jail appearances before 

(if clean) 2nd: weekend DC; verbal praise 

once every 2 from judge in 

weeks, once front of other DC 

every 3 weeks observers and 

3rd: week 

participants 

Brook 1 yn Yes Assistant DA once a month graduated: court reduction in 

Legal Aid Defense Attorney appearance with supervision/treatProject Director jail after 3rd ment intensity ; 

Research Associate infraction gift of a journal - 

Deputy Project Director 

Network Clinical Director 

Case Managers 

Resource Coordinator 

Laboratory Technician 

2 TASC treatment, appear in court; 

4 Probation Officers detention as last incentives (movie 

State Attorney resort passes, t-shirts, 

Public Defender tickets to sports 

Chicago No Administrator once or twice increase UA, more not having to 

events) . 

(continued on next page) 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has

not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the

author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of

Justice.
- 27 - 

Table 5.3 (cont'd) 

Drug Court Team 

Frequency of 

Dedi ca t ed Of fender 

Site Drug Court Staffing Appearance Sanc t i on s Rewards 

Kankakee Yes Administrator every two 1st violation:-- 

State's Attorney weeks at penalty box 

Probation Officer first, then 2nd: 24-hour 

Probation Assistant once a month shock - 

Public Defender incarceration 

3rd: 3 days jail 

4th: 10 days 

5th: 3 weeks jail 

or until 

residential bed 

verbal- praise, 

handshake from DC 

judge 

certificates of 

sompletion; less 

frequent court 

appearances; 

reduced UA 

Omaha Yes Coordinator weekly at more intensive shorter time in 

Part-Time Screener first , then treatment; longer DC; reductions in 

2 Case Managers every 2-4 time in DC; UA and court 

Treatment Coordinator weeks increased UA; appearances; 

Part-Time Lab Technician increased court applause from DC 

Administrative Assistant appearance; 2-day team and audience 

Deputy County Attorney jail sentences in court 

Riverside No, DC Probation Officer once every 1st: 2 weeks jail verbal praise; 

cases Probation Assistant four weeks, 2nd: lengthy jail status 

mixed with Secretary then once or discharge improvements and 

other drug 4 Counselors every 6-8 3rd: discharge graduation 

cases Teacher weeks (note conflicting 

Part-Time District info from site) 

Attorney 

Public Defender 

Court Administrator weekly. then more treatment; of drug tests; - 

Public Defender bi-weekly, more community reduce court 

6 Probation Agents then monthly services; short appearances 

3 Treatment Staff (up to 10 days) 

Drug Court Coordinator jail sentences 

Part-Time Lab Assistant 

Roanoke Yes Administrator initially more frequent UA; reduce frequency 

(continued on next page) .. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has

not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the

author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of

Justice.
- 28 - 

Table 5.3 (cont’d) 

Drug Court Team 

Frequency of 

Dedi ca t ed Offender 

Site Drug Court Staffing Appearance Sanctions Rewards 

Sacramento Yes District Attorney initially once 1st: 3-8 hours verbal praise: 

Public Defender every two court observation incentives (stars 

Project Manager weeks next 3: 5 days in for treatment 

Office Assistant jail, then behaviors, then 

2 Deputy Probation increases to small gifts) ; 

Officers 10,15,21 days advancement to 

2 Probation Assistants jail; termination next level 

5 Treatment Counselors 

2 Nutritionists 

/Acupuncturists 

3 Case Managers every 2 weeks, generally 1st: handshake; reduced 

Prosecutor then once a warning supervision 

2 Legal Aide Attorneys month 2nd: curfew or 

San Juan Yes Court Clerk initially case-by-case; verbal praise; 

residential 

treatment. Short 

jail also used. 

Santa Barbara Yes Probation Officer initially once graduated verbal praise in 

Part-Time Supervising PO a week, then 2 sanctions on court 

Psychologist times a month case-by-case. certificates of 

Vocational Counselor Sanctions range completion of each 

4 Case Managers from overnight to phase 

2 Treatment Supervisors 30-45 days in reduced curfew 

District Attorney jail, increased 

Representative meetings , 

Public Defender (this is curfews, in- 

€or 1 of the 2 courts) custody treatment 

(continued on next page) 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has

not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the

author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of

Justice.
- 29 - 

Table 5.3 (cont'd) 

Drug Court Team 

Frequency of 

Dedi ca t ed Offender 

Site Drug Court Staffing Appea ran ce Sanctions Rewards 

Spokane Yes TASC Case Manager initially once flexible; start verbal praise in 

Treatment Counselor a week,- then with community court: sobriety 

2 Part-Time DOC Officers once a month services, medallions; 

District Attorney increased NA/AA - shorter, less 

Public Defender attendance, intrusive home 

increased case visits 

manager contacts, 

work release, 

jail time 

Tampa Yes 2 Juvenile Drug Court every two repeating a public recognition 

Specialists weeks treatment phase; and praise in 

District Attorney more UA; SHOCK court; less 

Case Manager education monitoring; attend 

Treatment Provider (intensive day court 1 e s s 

treatment) ; frequently 

detention in 

regional juvenile 

detention center 

Tuscaloosa Yes Court Administrator initially, graduated, applause from DC 

2 Case Managers once a week ranging from for progress; more 

Treatment Specialist overnight stays freedom of 

Coordinator in jail to a movement; less 

Drug Court Coordinator week, repeat a reporting; 

stage of certificate of 

treatment completion for 

each stage 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has

not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the

author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of

Justice.
- 30 - 

As shown in Table 5.3, drug courts are labor intensive. When we 

asked drug court sites to indicate the number and types of persons,who 

make up the drug court staff, most sites indicated a large drug court 

team, consisting not only of the drug court judge, but also probation 

staff, drug court administrators, case managers, public defenders, 

district attorneys, TASC staff, and sometimes treatment providers and 

other treatment brokers. These memders may not all be paid from drug 

court program funds (in many cases, time was donated in kind--we discuss 

fiscal issues later). Staff meetings before actual drug court sessions , 

often involved the drug court team meeting to review cases and suggest 

appropriate rewards and sanctions for the participant's performance. 

One of the key components of effective drug court programs,is', 

ongoing judicial interaction with each drug court participant! Regular 

status hearings should be used to monitor the participant's performance, 

with increases or decreases in the time between status hearings based on 

compliance with treatment .: Sites demonstrated a wide range of regularly 

scheduled status hearings. In seven drug courts, participants initially 

appeared weekly; in three sites, every two weeks; in three, once a 

month. In Chicago, youth appeared before the judge only once or twice 

during their entire participation in drug court; reports to the judge 

were made by other drug court program staff, without the youth being 

present, unless performance was an issue. Scheduled hearings were 

generally reduced for satisfactory performance. The actual amount of 

time a participant spends in front of the judge can be quite short. 

During site visits, visitors were able to observe drug court sessions at 

a number of the 14 sites; appearances before the judge lasted only a few 

minutes in many cases. 

One of the defining characteristics of drug courts is the 

application of appropriate rewards and sanctions for participant 

behavior. Drug courts should establish a coordinated strategy, 

including a continuum of responses, to continuing drug use and other 

non-compliant behavior. Sanctions can typically include warnings, 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has

not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the

author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of

Justice.
,.., - 31 - 

repetition of phases, increased testing, confinement in the courtroom or 

jury box, increased treatment, increasing period of jail confinement, 

and finally termination (Drug Courts Program Office 1997, pp. 24-25). 

The 14 drug court programs articulated various strategies for how they 

dealt with non-compliance. 

noncompliance was addressed. In a minority of sites, jail stays were 

used fairly early in the escalation of sanctions. Other programs 

appeared to offer increased treatment and other monitoring before jail 

terms were used. 

bo major differences appeared inahow 

Despite articulated protocols for sanctions, our discussions with 

drug court staff revealed that, in practice, the application of 

sanctions was often done on a case-by-case basis, depending on the 

characteristics of the offender and the behavior. Sanction options were 

often recommended by the case manager or probation officer and discussed 

at pre-drug court staff meetings by the drug court team. Ultimately, it 

was the judge who decided'the sanction to be applied. Although the list 

of possible sanctions might be provided to drug court participants, 

there was often no strict "graduated" protocol that was followed. 

For many drug court programs, the ultimate reward for successful 

performance is the dismissal of the offender's charges. However, during 

drug court participation, other mid-term rewards are often used. 

Encouragement and praise from the bench, ceremonies and tokens for 

accomplishment, reduced supervision and monitoring, and reduced fines 

may be used for an offender's accomplishments (Drug Courts Program 

Office 1997, p. 24). In the 14 sites, verbal praise from the judge, 

and handshakes from the judge, were often used. In several 

jurisdictions, special tokens, certificates, and incentives marked good 

performance. In all sites, some form of reduced supervision--decreased 

court appearances, monitoring, or less reporting--were used as rewards 

for positive performance. In our discussions with drug court staff, the 

application of rewards did not appear to receive the same amount of 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has

not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the

author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of

Justice.
- 32 - 

attention or scrutiny as did sanctions, perhaps because issues of 

liberty (imposed jail) or program failure were not at stake. 

TREATMENT PROVISION AND OTHER SERVICES 

A major partner in drug courts is the local treatment system. The 

treatment component of drug court programs provides much of the nonadversarial, therapeutic underpinning of the drug court model. 

Treatment providers conduct assessment and case planning, and provide 

' treatment services, as well as provision/referral to ancillary services 

such as employment, housing, education, and mental health services. In 

addition, they often serve as the gatekeeper for a participant's 

progress through the stages of the drug court program, providing 

performance feedback to the court. Table 5.4 presents major dimensions 

of treatment services in the 14 participating sites. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has

not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the

author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of

Justice.
- 33 - 

Table 5.4 

Treatment and Other Services 

Type of D&A 

Screening and Treatment Other Services Trea tmen t 

Site Asses smen t Available Avai lab1 e Availabil i ty UA Monitoring 

Atlanta NEEDS 

Birmingham TASC 

Brook 1 yn clinical 

assessment 

in t ervi ew 

Chicago 

Kankakee 

Omaha 

TASC conducts 

ASAM 

SASI, DSM- IV, 

inhouse form 

LSI and 

others 

Rivers i de ASI, 

psychosocial 

OP 

OP 

referral, housing and 

job services 

referral, housing 

OP,IP,D,M onsite supplemental 

social services, health 

screening, vocational 

and educational 

referrals 

OP, IP referral 

OP, IP,D referral 

OP. IP referral 

OP, IP, D day care, residential 

services, education; 

tx funding is 

limited 

readily available 

available, except 

for dual diagnosis 

generally 

available, except 

for female 

residential 

available, some 

wait for inpatient 

waiting lists 

available, except 

for residential 

3 X /week 

varied, random 

schedule 

prior to court 

hearing; as needed 

by tx (up to 2x/ 

week) 

weekly, on random 

basis by TASC; as 

needed by tx 

l-2x/week by case 

manager; weekly 

random by tx 

by DC staff at 

s c hedu 1 e 

appointments 

weekly random 

referral to others 

Note: OP-outpatient; IP=inpatient; D=detox; M=methadone; A=Acupuncture; TC=therapeutic community 

(continued on next page) -- 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has

not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the

author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of

Justice.
- 34 - 

f 

I; 

Table 5.4 (cont'd) 

Treatment and Other Services 

Type of D&A 

Screening and Treatment Other Services Trea tmen t 

Site Assessment Avai 1 ab1 e Avai 1 ab1 e Ava i 1 abi 1 i t y UA Monitoring 

Roanoke AS I OP,D,IP,TC referral limitation in 3x/week 

residential, 

intensive, and 

employment 

San Juan random 

Sacramento medical OP, IP,D,A referrals limitations in 3x/week random 

screen/ heath residential and 

quest ion- detox 

naire 

AS1 plus OP,IP,D,A referral available 

other 

medical, 

ical 

Santa Barbara ASI, risk/ OP,D,A referral limitations on 1X/mo in field by 

needs residential beds probation; random 

assessment weekly in tx 

assessment" ; 

tx provider, 

ASAM 

pscyhologSpokane TASC "needs OP, IP, D referral sufficient 2X week, initially 

Tampa POSIT OP, IP,D referral 1 imi ted; varies, up to 

residential, mental 3X/week 

health services, OP ~ 

Tuscaloosa clinical OP, IP referral limitations, varies, up to 

assessment especially or 3x/week 

residential beds 

Note: OP-outpatient; IP=inpatient; D=detox; M=methadone; A=Acupuncture; TC=therapeutic community 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has

not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the

author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of

Justice.
- 35 - 

Assessment is often the first task conducted for appropriate 

treatment planning. All programs conducted some kind of an assessment 

of drug court participants, although the tools varied widely. Some 

programs used well-established tools such as the ASAM (American Society 

of Addiction Medicine) or AS1 (Addiction Severity Index) that have been 

validated. Others used more locally-created instruments, which may be 

paired with standardized instruments or used'alone. It was not uncommon 

for a case manager, such as TASC, to conduct an initial assessment, 

followed by assessments conducted at the treatment provider program. The 

assessment instruments typically measured behavioral and psychosocial 

domains beyond drug and alcohol involvement, often including medical 

screening, education and employment needs, and housing and child cere 

issues. 

The most common treatment modality available to drug court 

participants at all sites was outpatient treatment. This reflects the 

fact that outpatient treatment is generally the most common in 

jurisdictions, and that offenders with severe disorders (duallydiagnosed) were often excluded by eligibility criteria. In many of the 

sites, inpatient or residential beds were available to a limited number 

of participants, and are often used when offenders did not perform well 

in outpatient programs. In a few jurisdictions, detox services were 

part of drug court treatment, as was acupuncture (used to facilitate 

treatment). 

jurisdiction for residential/inpatient slots; outpatient slots were 

generally available. 

Treatment availability appeared hampered in virtually every 

Coupled with the drug treatment needs, many offenders are in need 

of ancillary services such as housing, employment, education, and health 

care. These services were rarely performed directly by the drug court. 

In some instances. drug and alcohol treatment providers may provide 

them. More generally, offenders were referred to external community 

agencies for these services. In some cases, the drug court was able to 

pay for the services; in a great many cases, public funds (e.g., 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has

not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the

author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of

Justice.
- 36 - ,I.(., 

t 

Medicaid) were tapped or participants were asked to pay on a slidingscale €or services. 

Urinalysis monitoring is designed to provide accurate and rapid 

information about an offender's drug use. The 14 sites varied a great 

deal in their drug testing regimens, both across sites and within a 

site. Within sites, drug testing frequency was often tied to the phase 

of treatment. Earlier, more intensive phases had higher testing rates. 

The most frequent schedule was 2-3 times per week, frequent enough to 

detect ongoing drug use. Testing was conducted not only by treatment 

providers, but often by the case managers (e.g., TASC, probation 

officers). In some instances, information from UA tests in treatment 

was not shared routinely with the drug court. 

During our site visits we requested information on the involvement 

of the judge in the treatment decisions for individual clients. 

Although judges have the ultimate decision regarding an offender's 

behaviors and progress, treatment providers (and/or treatment case 

managers) have a great deal of influence in the drug court. In 

virtually every jurisdiction, treatment staff recommendations regarding 

treatment (often including phase advancement) were generally agreed to 

by the judge. 

BEHAVIORAL DEMANDS ON DRUG COURT PARTICIPANTS 

The behavioral demands placed upon drug court participants are 

displayed in Table 5.5. These were in addition to the drug court 

appearances and urinalysis requirements described earlier. Drug court 

participants had to attend drug and alcohol treatment, meet with their 

case managers and probation officers (if applicable), complete other 

service requirements, and often pay for drug court and treatment 

services. Ultimately they must complete the graduation requirements in 

order to have their cases dismissed (at least for post-plea models). 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has

not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the

author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of

Justice.
- 37 - 

Table 5.5 

Behavioral Demands on Drug Court Participants 

Graduation 

Site Treatment Case Manager Probation Other Costs Requirements 

At 1 anta 40 hrs/week weekly NA $375--treatment complete 12-18 mo 

program: attend 

UA-for 6 mo; no 

re-arrest 

- treatment, clean 

Birmingham daily NA/AA weekly 100 hrs $1500 drug complete DC 

-communi t y court; $20 each requirements, and 

service day/ jail: $5 at least 10 months 

each submitted drug free 

urine 

Brooklyn 5X /week* 1X/2 weeks NA community no direct complete treatment 

service client fees phases and 

placement progress toward 

completing "life 

goals" ; community 

service, other 

court requirement 

Chicago 3 hrs/week (done by weekly no direct fees completion of 

(outpatient) probation) treatment, testing 

clean, avoiding 

re-arres t 

Kankakee 1 group; 1 (done by l-3X/week complete $3-$23 per complete treatment 

individual probation) GED/educational group 

counseling, 2 requirements $5.50-$60 per 

NA/AA mtgs/ individual 

week session 

* contacts vary by "band" of treatment; band 5 (day treatment) used as example 

(continued on next page) 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has

not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the

author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of

Justice.
- 38 - 

Table 5.5 (cont'd) 

Behavioral Demands on Drug Court Participants 

Gradua t ion 

Site Treatment Case Manager Probation Other costs Requirements 

Omaha va r i ab 1 e once a week NA $460 DC fee; complete treatment 

treatment co- and support 

pays ; groups; 6 months 

$10 per clean UAs;6 months 

positive UA employment; 

appearances at DC; 

no new 

felony/serious 

Riverside 7.5 hrsl day; daily daily education at day $100 completion of 

5 days/week; treatment treatment, 

3 NA/AA per rema in ing 

week abstinent 

Roanoke 3X /week 3-5 times NA curfews $150 completion of 

per week treatment, no 

positive UAs for 6 

months; secure 

employment, pay 

court costs and tx 

fee 

Sacramento 11.5 hrs/week (see as needed $4 0 /month treatmentprobation) completion; no rearrest 

San Juan day monthly 2x/month working/attend- none comp 1 et e 

treatment: ing school treatment; no 

10-12 arrests 

session/week 

(continued on next page) 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has

not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the

author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of

Justice.
- 39 - 

Tabla 5.5 (cont’d) 

Behavioral Demands on Drug Court Participants 

Graduation 

Site Trea tmen t Case Manager Probation Other costs Requirements 

Santa Barbara 4 hrs/day 5 (see once a curfew, $780 for DC; treatment 

days /week ; probation) month residence checks $113 for completion; 

AA/NA 

attendance 

sessions / month month treatment; $2-3 completion; four 

week; one 

individual restitution UAs 

counseling/ 

week; 2 AA/NA 

sessions/week 

Sheriff booking abstinence, no 

fees convictions or VOP 

Spokane 3 group twice a twice a home visits co-pay for treatment 

per UA; final months clean 

comp 1 et e 

service for treatment treatment; clean 

UA for 6 months; 

remained in 

school, obtained 

GED, or employment 

week; one UA; restitution completion; no new 

family group/ arrests 

week 

Tampa 4-5 hrs/week once a month NA community sliding scaleTuscaloosa 4 groups/ weekly NA employment $1500; $5 per treatment 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has

not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the

author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of

Justice.
In Table 5.5 we have summarized the treatment requirements for the 

initial phase of treatment. Recognizing that all programs used a 

graduated dpproach, participants were not required to meet these time 

commitments during the entire course of participation in drug court. 

Some programs initially required only a few hours per week in outpatient 

treatment: others required much more extensive commitments, particularly 

if a day treatment model was used. Group and individual sessions were 

common for outpatient treatment programs, as was attendance at AA/NA 

meetings. Contact with a case manager--sometimes case management is 

performed by probation--was often weekly during the initial phases of 

the drug court participation, although in some programs it was once or 

twice a month. Again, if a day treatment model was used, contact pith 

the case manager or probation officer can be performed much more 

frequently--as often as daily. In some instances an additional 

requirement for the completion of community service was attached to the 

drug court program. Finaily, the graduation components of most programs 

were similar: successful completion of treatment, often with the 

additional requirements of testing clean for drug use and remaining 

crime free. 

+ 

Drug Court participation may not be free. As Table 5.5 shows, 

some programs required fees not only for the drug court itself, but also 

for urinalysis testing and treatment. The latter costs were often 

small--paid either by a co-payment or sliding scale, reflecting the 

routine practice of treatment programs charging clients. 

FUNDING/EXPENDITURES FOR DRUG COURT PROGRAMS 

During our site visits, we requested information on drug court 

funding and budgets. This information was gathered to help understand 

how programs were funded and to determine whether individual participant 

expense data were available for analyses of the costs of drug court 

programs. At the time of our visits, many drug court programs were 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has

not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the

author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of

Justice.
- 41 - 

coming to the end of their DCPO grants, or had moved entirely off DCPO 

to other types of funding. 

Although a few drug court programs (generally smaller capacity 

programs) were funded completely from DCPO grant funds, the vast 

majority cobbled together a funding base consisting not only of the DCPO 

grants, but also funds from other federal grants (e.g., Violent Offender 

Incarceration/Truth-in-Sentencing, law enforcement block grants, HIDTA, 

CSAT), from state and county funding, or from state court systems. Many 

relied on the collection of client fees, reimbursements from AFDC, 

general relief, medicare, and managed care. It was not uncommon for 

office space and personnel to be donated as in-kind contributions €or 

drug court operations. Generally the larger programs were the ones with 

the most diversified funding bases, as might be expected, given their 

larger operating costs. 

Although many sites were able to provide overall expenditures for 

their drug court programs,, at no site were we able to obtain 

expenditures for drug court program services at the individual level. 

For some sites, aggregate costs for urinalysis testing, counseling, case 

management, etc., were available. Rough calculations of "per offender" 

costs can be calculated by dividing aggregate costs by the numbers of 

drug court participants. 

LINKAGE AND COLLABORATION 

Linkages and collaborations are central to drug court programs 

that bring together many agencies and programs. In four of the drug 

court programs, TASC was a key component of the linkage process. In 

these programs, a long standing "bridge" between the courts and 

treatment programs had been incorporated into the drug court model. 

TASC facilitated the smooth start up of the drug court model in at least 

one site. 

Formal linkages appeared to exist primarily with substance abuse 

treatment providers. Other services were provided on a more informal 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has

not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the

author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of

Justice.
- 42 - , 4 

,e 

basis, often through referral. Communication, in the sense of getting 

information about changes in the drug court program process, appeared to 

occur informally. Communication "as needed" appeared to characterize, 

the transmission of information to involved parties. Although meetings 

provided a somewhat more formal vehicle at some sites, it is not clear 

whether communication was sufficient from the perspective of the 

treatment providers. 

information were cited as problems. In some instances, information was 

shared sparingly in an effort to protect the confidentiality of clients 

In an era where management information systems are critical to 

\ 

4 

Lack of ef f iciehcy and kegularity in sharing of 

I 

effective information sharing, few of the drug courts had sufficient 

resources in this regard. Some programs had systems that serve ontsite 

needs; others had no MIS systems. There was no evidence'of any programs 

having systems that were networked to other providers and that could 

provide relevant agencies with immediate access to client information. 

REHABILITATION VS. SURVEILLANCE 

One of the key characteristics of a treatment drug court is the 

emphasis placed on rehabilitation. This was clearly seen in our 

discussions with drug court team members across the 14 jurisdictions. 

In discussions with judges, some indicated that the role of drug court 

judge was a major change in orientation for them from the traditional 

adversarial role. At the same time, however, many drug court team 

members felt that drug courts must strike a balance between 

rehabilitation and surveillance. A "carrot" and a "stick" approach was 

seen as necessary to encourage treatment participation and law abiding 

behavior. The "stick" however, was interpreted differently across sites 

(as seen in the sanctions discussed above). Some sites mentioned a lot 

more leeway in responding to violations with sanctions, and thus 

appeared to lean more toward the rehabilitative end of the continuum. 

In a few jurisdictions, staff were concerned about the severity of 

sanctions "scaring away" volunteer drug court clients. In several 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has

not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the

author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of

Justice.
jurisdictions, not all members of the drug court team shared the same 

beliefs about the importance of rehabilitative and surveillance in their 

programs. For example, in some sites, public defenders and treatment 

representatives favored a more a=- rehabilitative focus, district 

attorneys, a more public safety role. 

4 

CHANGES DRUG COURTS HAVE EXPERIENCEb 

Most programs indicated that changes had occurred during drug 

court program implementation. 

areas: changes in drug court team composition, treatment provision, 

eligibility requirements, and low numbers of eligible offenders actually 

entering the program. In two sites, the entire drug court program was 

moved from one agency to another; in others, original tern members 

The most common changes occurred in four I 

either pulled out of the drug court or were unwilling to participate in 

the collaborative as planned. In some instances treatment services did 

not want to participate due to the perceived seriousness of the drug 

court participants. Treatment issues (lack of control over decisions 

regarding treatment completion) were so great in one site that the 

program brought the treatment "inside," provided through day treatment. 

In some programs, participant eligibility criteria were loosened (often 

to help make up for low numbers of participants); in other instances,' 

they were tightened. 

When asked about implementation hurdles and issues that need to be 

resolved, management information systems, continued funding, and 

coordination of key players were major themes. Nine of the 14 

jurisdictions mentioned the lack of an integrated management information 

system as an ongoing issue for their drug court programs. Continued 

funding for the drug court and/or treatment services was mentioned by 

eight of the programs. Nine programs indicated that establishing and 

maintaining collaborative relationships with other components of the 

justice and treatment systems was an ongoing concern. The nature of the 

collaborative issues varied. In some jurisdictions, district attorneys 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has

not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the

author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of

Justice.
- 44 - 

were seen as having too much control over the drug court process, 

especially in determining eligibility. In others, lack of community 

support had to be faced. 

players and oversight committees remained an issue. Staff turnover, 

rotating judges, and even personalities were also mentioned. 

In some, simply coordinating with drug court 

Two major themes emerged as ways to overcome these problems. Many 

drug court staff stressed the importance of a careful pre-implementation 

planning process that worked to resolve issues related to eligibility, 

treatment, sanctions, and interagency coordination. The other theme was 

the need for a lead agency to be selected that would assume primarily 

responsibility for the drug court. A strong leader, often the drug 

court judge himself/herself, was seen as key to making the drug court 

collaborative successful. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has

not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the

author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of

Justice.
- 45 - 

VI. A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK" 

The second major task for our evaluation was the development of a 

conceptual framework for drug courts. We began by reviewing existing 

drug court evaluations. Our review suggested no currently available 

unifying perspective (or, short, of that, a set of competing 

perspectives) regarding the structural and process characteristics of 

, drug courts. Limitations were found in a number of efforts. Literature 

'reviews collated and synthesized information on drug courts with 

specific questions regarding structure and process in mind. But 

structure and process are not described fully, if at all, in many drug 

court evaluations, and the information they do provide is often not 

amenable to comparison (Goldkamp 1999). An alternative to relying on 

finished evaluations is to use the raw data being compiled by the Drug 

Court Clearinghouse and Technical Assistance Project at American 

University. Although the database provides an extensive and very useful 

listing of program characteristics, it has no organizing theoretical or 

conceptual scheme. The best-known conceptualization of drug courts may 

be the "ten components" specified by the National Association of Drug 

Court Professionals (Drug Courts Program Office 1997). The components 

offer a systematic view of drug court structure and process. However, 

their purpose is prescriptive; they are a minimum set of precepts that 

any drug court should follow. They are not a framework for assessing 

alternative drug court models when each model is (or in principle could 

be) congruent with the ten components. Similarly, Goldkamp (1999) has 

specified a "uescriptive typology" based on seven dimensions of drug 

courts. As it stands, this typology cannot be straightforwardly applied 

in analyses of drug court structure and process, especially for 

hypothesis testing. 

lo A version of this chapter has appeared in Journal of Drug Issues 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has

not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the

author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of

Justice.
- 46 - 

We turn now to a drug court typology, or framework, that will 

conceptually define structure and process in ways that are measurable 

and amenable to hypothesis testing. For maximum value, such a 

perspective must have five features. First, it must be systematic; it 

must cover all relevant drug court characteristics. Second, it must be 

parsimonious. That is, while covering all relevant dimensions, it must 

also be simple enough to be manageable in analysis. Third, measures of 

each characteristic must be amenable to direct comparison across drug 

courts. Fourth, measures must reflect structure and process as actually , 

implemented--not simply as planned, intended, or drawn up in memos and 

protocols. Fifth, a conceptual perspective on drug courts should lead 

to hypotheses that are testable and relevant to policy and practice. 

For example,,are outcomes more favorable in drug courts quicx to impose 

severe consequences for noncompliance than in courts more patient with 

noncompliance? One hypothesis is that the former sort of drug court is 

more effective with serious offenders but is not more effective with 

first-time or lightweight offenders, among whom milder sanctions might 

suffice to produce compliance. As a final comment on hypotheses, we 

note that hypothesis testing is more straightforward if drug court 

characteristics are conceptualized and measured with directionality 

(from less to more or low to high). 

In the conceptual framework proposed here, we have tried to 

address, or at least to begin addressing, each of the requirements 

above. The framework has five dimensions: leverage, population 

severity, intensity, predictability, and rehabilitation emphasis (see 

Table 6.1). The first two dimensions are structural characteristics of 

drug court. Leverage refers to the nature of consequences faced by 

incoming participants if they later fail to meet program requirements 

and are discharged from drug court. Population severity refers to 

characteristics of offenders deemed eligible to enter drug court. The 

(Longshore et al. 2000) 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has

not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the

author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of

Justice.
- 47 - 

other three dimensions are process characteristics. They describe what 

happens to participants as they proceed through the drug court program. 

Table 6.1 

Conceptual Framework 

Dimensions of Drug Court 

Structure and Process Indicators (examples) 

Leverage Percent of pre-plea and post-plea participants 

Perceived aversiveness of discharge 

'population severity Severity of drug use 

Severity of criminal involvement 

(current charge and prior charges) 

Required frequency of court appearances 

Required hours of treatment 

Conformance of rewards/sanctions with protocol 

Time elapsed between noncompliance and response 

Perceived predictability 

Program intensity Required frequency of urine testing 

Predictability Consistency of rewards and sanctions 

Rehabilitation emphasis Collaborative decision-making 

$attention to multiple needs a Flexibility in procedure 

, Re-entry 

Drug court dynamics (observed) 

In developing the framework, we considered the NADCP's ten 

components (Drug Courts Program Office 1997); "think pieces" on drug 

court by Goldkamp (1999), Harrell (1999), and the Bureau of Justice 

Assistance (1993); reviews of the drug court literature (Belenko 1998, 

1999; Inciardi et al. 1996; Terry 1999; U.S. General Accounting Office 

1997); and published and unpublished evaluations of individual drug 

courts. We also drew from the literatures on criminal deterrence 

(regarding the dimension we call predictability) and therapeutic 

jurisprudence (regarding rehabilitation emphasis). We describe the five 

dimensions and offer examples of empirical indicators for each. For 

ideas regarding empirical indicators, we consulted the database compiled 

by the Drug Court Clearinghouse and Technical Assistance Project at 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has

not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the

author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of

Justice.
- 48 - 

American University and drug court monitoring guideli,nes such as those 

from the Drug Courts Program Office (1998). 

LEVERAGE 

Leverage refers to the seriousness of consequences faced by 

participants who fail to meet program requirements and are discharged 

from drug court. Leverage depends, perhaps heavily, on the court's 

entry point--pre-plea, post-plea, or probation. In pre-plea or deferred 

' prosecution courts, entry to the program occurs before an offender is 

required to enter a plea. Upon completion of all program requirements, 

the charge is reduced or dropped. Pre-plea courts may have limited 

leverage because participants have not pleaded guilty and may have no 

sentence pending. Moreover, after pre-plea participants are discharged 

for noncompliance, the case may be too "cold" to re-open. In post-plea 

or deferred judgment courts, however, entry to the program occurs only 

after an offender pleads guilty. Upon program completion, the plea can 

be stricken and the case dismissed. But if an offender fails the 

program, his/her case moves directly to sentencing and possible 

incarceration. Thus the stakes are high, and leverage strong, in a 

post-plea drug court. Finally, in probation drug courts, participants 

have a conviction and are entering drug court in lieu of incarceration 

or other sanction. Probation drug courts may have varying degrees of 

leverage depending on the seriousness of consequences for program 

failure n relation to the seriousness of the sanction otherwise 

awaiting the participant. (It is important to distinguish the 

consequences of program discharge, i.e., what happens after offenders 

fail drug court, from the consequences they face during participation in 

drug court. We refer to the former as leverage. The latter is 

addressed below.) 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has

not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the

author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of

Justice.
- 49 - 

Leverage Indicators 

The simplest and most objective indicator of leverage is the 

percentage of participants who come to the drug court at the pre- or 

post-plea entry point. The percentage is of course 100 percent in 

courts with only one or the other entry point, but many courts accept a 

mix of pre- and post-plea cases. The subjective aspect of leverage, 

i.e., participants' perception of it, may also be important, especially 

for courts accepting cases on probation. What do participants believe 

is likely to happen if they are discharged for program failure, and what 

is the perceived aversiveness of those consequences? We therefore 

propose both objective and subjective indicators of leverage. 

Our hypothesis is that, other characteristics being equal, 

outcomes will be more favorable when drug courts have greater leverage 

over participants. However, courts may be designed for greater leverage 

when the eligible population includes more serious offenders (Drug 

Strategies 1997). Thus, fhe leverage hypothesis may need to be tested 

within categories of participants. How does the drug court's degree of 

leverage affect outcomes among lightweight offenders, and, separately, 

how does it affect outcomes among serious offenders? 

POPULATION SEVERITY 

This dimension is based on a distinction between drug courts 

targeting a hardcore population of addicted and persistent offenders 

(one extreme) and drug courts dealing with lightweight offenders, whose 

offense history is short and nonviolent and whose drug use is 

"recreational" (the other extreme). The latter may be routed to drug 

court not so much because they need intensive treatment/supervision but 

because the local criminal justice system views the drug court as a 

welcome new resource for processing cases. This possibility is perhaps 

most apparent when the target population is first-time or lightweight 

offenders, system resources are stretched thin. and prosecutors are 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has

not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the

author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of

Justice.
- 50 - 8 

using the drug court essentially as a way to move cases through the 

system. Of course many drug court populations fall between the high- to 

low-severity extremes (Center for Substance Abuse Treatment 1996; 

Harrell 1999; U.S. General Accounting Office 1997). 

population Severity Indicators 

For indicators, we rely on severity of drug use and criminal 

involvement. Drug use severity can be assessed as the percentage of 

' drug court cases that meet (or are likely to meet) clinical criteria for 

drug abuse or dependence. This percentage can be found in records of 

formal screening/diagnostic assessments employed by the drug court 

and/or inferred from proxy variables such as participants' prior 

experience in drug abuse treatment. Criminal severity can be assessed 

on the basis of seriousness of current and past offenses. For example, 

we can calculate the ratio of felonies to misdemeanors among current 

charges faced by participants on the caseload and the same ratio in 

their criminal records. (Current charges and officially recorded 

charges may not accurately reflect the seriousness of acts committed by 

an individual participant, but they do provide an accurate overall 

population severity measure, useful for comparison purposes.) We can 

also calculate the ratio of cases charged only with drug possession to 

cases charged with non-drug offenses. For some drug courts, the 

felony/misdemeanor distinction will not be relevant. For others, 

notably those that accept offenders with violent criminal histories, 

neither the felony/misdemeanor distinction nor the drug/non-drug 

distinction will suffice to capture the full range of population 

severity. It will be necessary to consider relative severity within the 

class of felony offenses. 

The influence of population severity on outcomes may depend on 

other dimensions in the framework. For example, as suggested above, 

outcomes for a more severe population may be favorable in courts that 

have strong leverage over participants but less favorable in courts 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has

not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the

author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of

Justice.
- 51 - 

where leverage is weaker. In addition, outcomes for a more severe 

population may be better when program requirements are intensive enough 

(see below) to have an impact on hardcore offenders. We therefore offer 

no hypothesis for a main effect of population severity. We hypothesize 

that its effects are contingent on other factors. 

INTENSITY 

This dimension refers to requirements for participating in and 

' completing drug court. These always include urine testing, court 11, , 

appearances, and drug abuse treatment (Harrell 1999). Other obligations 

may be imposed as well, such as employment, suitable housing, completion 

of a G.E.D., and payment of fines or restitution. It is important to 

note that intensity does not refer to requirements actually met by the 

participant. That is affected by self-selection. Neither does 

intensity refer to what happens to the noncompliant participant. That 

too is affected by self-sqlection in a sense; additional requirements 

are triggered by actions of the participant. Instead, we mean to focus 

cleanly on a dimension of drug court itself: what participants 

understand to be the minimum requirements for program completion. 

Intensity Indicators 

Indicators of intensity include the required frequency of urine 

testing and court appearances, required hours of treatment and other 

required services. and fine and restitution amounts. Additional 

indicators, such as an employment requirement, can be handled simply as 

yes/no. Programs vary in duration (typically 12 to 18 months, sometimes 

longer) and are often broken into phases--more intensive at first and 

less intensive for compliant participants near program completion. It 

may therefore be important to measure intensity on a per-month or perphase basis and to take overall duration into account as well. For 

intensity data, it may be misleading to rely solely on written or 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has

not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the

author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of

Justice.
- 52 - 

standard protocols. These may not reflect the requirements to which 

many or most participants are actually held. 

Our hypothesis is that drug courts with more intensive 

requirements will show more favorable outcomes. However, along with a 

main effect of intensity, there may be contingent effects. A high 

degree of intensity may be required for success with a more severe 

population, for example, whereas low or modeiate intensity may suffice 

for less severe offenders. 

6 

PREDICTABILITY 

This dimension reflects the degree to which participants know how 

the court will respond if they are compliant or noncompliant (Harrell 

1999). Goldkamp's (1999) concept of client accountability is, similar, 

but he was referring to the kinds of responses used by a drug court to 

reward good performance and discourage poor performance. We refer to 

the predictability of the:e responses. 

deterrence shows that sanctions are more effective if more certain and 

more swift (Blumstein et al. 1978; Nagin 1998). Behavioral research 

says the same thing. It also suggests that sanctions are more effective 

when people believe they have the opportunity to behave as desired and 

thus avoid the sanction. Absent this perception, the participant's ' 

response may be "learned helplessness" (Seligman 1975). Marlowe and 

Kirby (1999) have developed a number of insights from behavioral 

research specifically with respect to drug courts. They argue, for 

example, that the court's expectations should be clear, that actions 

taken by the court should be consistent with expectations, and that 

delivery of sanctions should be "regular and immediate" (see also Drug 

Courts Program Office 1998; National Drug Court Institute 1999). 

The literature on criminal 

The range and frequency of rewards for good behavior may vary 

among drug courts, and the rate at which sanctions become more punitive 

(as in a "graduated sanctions" strategy) may be slow or fast; those 

aspects of drug court are captured in the dimension we call 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has

not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the

author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of

Justice.
- 53 - 

rehabilitation emphasis (see below). The ultimate sanction, for program 

failure, may or may not be dire; that is captured in leverage. 

predictability has to do with whether participants know what the court's 

expectations are, believe their behavior will be detected by the court, 

and know with high probability how the court will respond to their 

behavior. 

Predictability Indicators 

Indicators of predictability may be drawn from court records. For 

instance, the court's various responses 4e.g.. counsel, warning, or a 

brief jail sentence) to the first positive urinalysis test can be 

tabulated for all cases with at least one positive test, its respobses 

to the second positive test can be tabulated for all cases with at least 

two positive tests, and so on. Courts with less variability in its 

responses to each positive test are more predictable; participants are 

more likely to know what yill probably happen to'them if they test 

positive once, twice, and so on. Additional indicators of 

predictability are the percentage of all positive tests that triggered 

some sort of response and, more broadly, the percentage of participants 

for whom the recorded series of responses (both rewards and punishments) 

conforms to the stipulated protocol. At the participant level of 

analysis, one indicator of predictability is whether responses to 

multiple positive drug tests steadily increase in severity. Regarding 

the swiftness of response, one can measure the time elapsed between drug 

use and detection, the time elapsed between detection and response, the 

time elapsed between other noncompliance (e.g., failure to appear in 

court) and response (e.g., contact with case manager or arrest). 

Of course it is also possible to assess predictability by asking 

participants, at the outset of their enrollment in drug court and 

periodically thereafter, to report their views on how likely the various 

rewards and punishments are and how swiftly they will occur. 

Participants' perceptions of procedural fairness--whether the court 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has

not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the

author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of

Justice.
- 54 - 

"plays favorites" or is easily manipulated--may also be relevant 

(Harrell 1999; Tyler 1994, 1988). The court's rulings conform to 

expectations laid out in advance and are consistent across similar 

cases, participants are likely to view the court as predictable. The 

obvious advantage of participant surveys is that they provide,direct 

evidence of predictability as perceived. 

Our hypothesis is that drug court outcomes are more favorable when 

rewards and sanctions are more predictable. 

REHABILITATION EMPHASIS 

The final dimension in our framework is the emphasis placed on 

rehabilitation as against other court functions, including case 

processing and punishment. This dimension takes on particular 

significance in light of legal philosophies known as restorative justice 

(Braithwaite 1999; Kurki 1999) and therapeutic jurisprudence (Wexler and 

Winick 1991). in which cri;minal justice is viewed more as a therapeutic 

tool and less as a formalistic and essentially punitive one. To a 

greater or lesser degree, most drug courts reflect these philosophies 

(Hora et al. 1999). 

Consider the distinction between expedited drug case management 

courts and drug treatment courts. The former employ innovative 

procedural rules tailored to drug-using offenders. The latter focus on 

offenders' needs for drug abuse treatment and other services. 

Procedures are less formal in drug treatment courts, where prosecutors 

and defense attorneys are collaborative or at least less adversarial. 

It is likely that, compared to expedited drug case management courts, 

drug treatment courts place more emphasis on rehabilitation (Hora et al. 

1999). However, it is also likely that the emphasis on rehabilitation 

varies considerably even within the range of courts that call themselves 

or operate as drug treatment courts. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has

not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the

author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of

Justice.
I- 55 - 

Rehabilitative Indicators 

Indicators of rehabilitation emphasis may include the degree to 

which all actors (especially defense attorneys and treatment providers) 

are involved in deciding how to handle cases, both in review sessions 

and, more visibly, in court; degree to which time and other resources 

are devoted to multiple needs of participants; degree to which the judge 

and other actors take a therapeutic as distinct from legalistic view of 

their roles; number of positive drug tests typically allowed before the 

court imposes an intermediate sanction (e.g., brief jail stay) or I 

discharges the participant; whether participants who fail the program 

are later allowed to re-enter, the stringency of re-entry criteria, and 

the ratio of re-entry offenders to the total offender population. ' 

Satel's (1998) observational indicators of drug court dyflamid's also seem 

on point. These include, for example, the extent to which judges speak 

directly to participants, make eye contact with participants, and listen 

to what participants have;to say; the amount of time spent by the judge 

with each participant; proximity of participants to the bench; and 

instances of physical contact between judge and participants. 

\ 

Our hypothesis is that outcomes are more favorable when drug 

courts place more emphasis on rehabilitation. 

RANKING THE 14 PROGRAMS ON THE FIVE DIMENSIONS 

Ideally, one would record our proposed measures for each site and 

array the programs according to each dimension. As we have indicated 

previously, the information available from the different sites was often 

incomplete, particularly on an individual level. We present here a very 

preliminary ranking of sites on these dimensions. Our rankings are 

based on information gathered during interviews with program staff, and 

on reviews of written documentation and protocols. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has

not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the

author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of

Justice.
Leverage 

As noted above, leverage refers to the nature of the consequences 

faced by participants if they later fail the program. On this 

dimension, programs that are pre-plea have less leverage than those that 

are post-plea. Of the 14 programs, 8 are post-plea only programs--we 

considered these ;IS having high 1everage.l' In some sites, offenders 

faced prison terms as an alternative to drug'court. In Roanoke, for 

example, offenders faced prison terms of six months to three years as an 

alternative to participation in drug courtl. Four courts are considered 

"moderate." These moderate programs are the ones that have mixed case 

types--a combination of pre-plea, post-plea, and/or probation cases. We 

considered two programs--those that targeted pre-plea offenders on'ly--as 

having "minimum" leverage. 

, 

The rankings are relative within the context of the 14 courts 

studied. If we consider the set of drug court programs as a whole, and 

compare them with other sgntencing alternatives, a slightly different 

picture emerges. All drug courts studied exclude violent offenders. 

Many exclude offenders with drug trafficking or drug dealing charges, or 

with weapons involvement. In addition, many jurisdictions have 

diversion programs available for offenders with less serious offenses, 

drug problems, or prior records, than offenders served by drug courts. 

Thus, as a whole, drug court participants are not the most likely to 

face prison sentences (although in some sites they do face prison 

terms), nor are they the most likely to have their cases dismissed. 

Overall, leverage appears to be moderate for drug court as a sentencing 

option. 

We were unable to assess offenders' perceptions of the 

consequences they faced if discharged, so we do not consider that 

indicator here. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has

not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the

author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of

Justice.
- 57 - , 

population Severity 

As indicated earlier, severity is based on a distinction between 

drug courts that target a hardcore population of addicted and persistent 

offenders (one extreme), as opposed to those that target offenders whose 

offense history and drug use are light. In our framework, we propose 

several measures of drug use and criminal involvement. Unfortunately, 

we were not able to obtain actual data on these measures for the drug 

courts studied. We based our initial impressions of offense history on 

eligibility criteria and exclusionary factors; drug usage level was 

based on the court‘s criteria for drug use (see Table 5.2). In many 

instances, offenders with serious prior records were excluded from 

consideration. In other sites, offenders with current misdemeanor 

charges were eligible. In virtually all sites, offenders had to 

demonstrate some degree of drug dependency or abuse. In Birmingham, 

however, offenders with very minor drug involvement were eligible; in 

Chicago, youth could be ascepted into drug court if they expressed a 

desire for drug treatment. Dually-diagnosed offenders were often 

excluded, removing this difficult-to-treat population from eligibility. 

Based on the information available, most of the drug courts were 

tentatively rated “moderate” on the population severity dimension. 

Chicago and Tampa were rated “minimum,“ based partially on the fact that 

they were juvenile programs. 

Program Intensity 

Program intensity refers to requirements for participating in and 

completing drug court. Urine testing, court appearances, drug abuse 

treatment requirement, employment, and payment of fines and/or 

restitution are all indicators of intensity. Earlier we noted that it 

is the requirements to which offenders are held--not the actual 

completion (which may be less than the required intensity)--that defines 

intensity. We acknowledge that the officially stated prctocols that we 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has

not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the

author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of

Justice.
- 58 - I 

utilized may not accurately reflect the requirements to which many or 

most participants are held. 

Using'the frequency of drug court appearances (see Table 5.3), 

stages of intervention (see Table 5.1). urinalysis testing (see Table 

5.4). and the behavioral demands of drug court participants (see Table 

5.5), we tentatively ranked the 14 programs on program intensity. Five 

programs were rated "high," eight weie rated '"moderate," and one was 

rated minimum. The minimum ranking was the Chicago drug court, due to 

very infrequent court appearances before the judge (once or twice) and 

the relatively light behavioral demands placed upon participants. 

Atlanta, Brooklyn, Riverside, Roanoke, and Santa Barbara were rated 

"high" in program intensity, reflecting in large degree the treatmpnt 

demands placed on offenders, which varied a great deal more across the 

14 sites than did stated urinalysis testing protocols, length of drug 

court programs, or the frequency of appearances before the drug court. 

Predictability 

Predictability reflects the degree to which the participants know 

how the court will respond if they are compliant or non-compliant. As 

described earlier, measures of predictability include how the court 

responds to dirty urinalysis tests in terms of the consistency and speed 

of responses. It is also possible to assess predictability by asking 

offenders their experiences with rewards and punishments used in the 

drug court. 

Similar to our rankings on other dimensions, information available 

to us on indicators of predictability was limited. Our preliminary 

assessment of program predictability was based on responses to items in 

our site visit protocol that addressed reinforcements, punishments, and 

sanctions. Sites that indicated they had written protocols €or their 

sanctions, those that indicated they used graduated sanctions, and those 

that indicated consistent application of sanctions were considered to 

rank "high" on this dimension. Sites that indicated they had no written 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has

not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the

author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of

Justice.
- 59 - I 

sanctions and those in which sanctions varied widely were considered to 

be less predictable. Our preliminary rankings considered six sites as 

"minimum, 'I five as "moderate, 'I and three as "high. I' In several 

instances, sanctions in place during early program implementation were 

considered inadequate; subsequent program modifications increased the 

severity and certqinty of the sanctions. 

requires a difficult balance in drug courts. ' The courts do not want the 

sanctions to be so onerous that offenders refuse to participate, nor do 

they want them so rigid that discretion €or an individual offender's 

situation cannot be accommodated within the therapeutic environment. 

Application of sanctions 

I 

Rehabilitation Emphasis 

Our final dimension is the emphasis placed on rehabislitation, as 

against other court functions, including case processing, and 

punishment. Our framework considers a number of factors, including how 

the drug court team works ,together, responses to dirty urinalysis tests, 

and interactions between the participant and drug court judge. 

Unfortunately, we were unable to gather these types of measures. For 

our preliminary ratings, we utilized information gathered from our site 

visit protocol on questions regarding the extent to which key actors 

felt their programs emphasized rehabilitation vs. surveillance. 

Almost by definition, drug courts are more than minimally 

rehabilitative; our rankings reflect this. Programs that stated that 

they considered themselves strongly rehabilitative were ranked as 

"high." Those programs that considered themselves a mixture of "the 

carrot and the stick" were classified as "moderate." Four programs were 

classified as "high," 10 as "moderate." In many of the programs, the 

degree of rehabilitative focus varied by role. Not unexpectedly, the 

district or state's attorney was often the team member most interested 

in public safety issues--and the least "rehabilitative" in focus. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has

not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the

author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of

Justice.
- 60 - 

In summary, we ranked the participating sites in a preliminary 

fashion based on information available. Table 6.2 presents the 

rankings. We ranked pure "post-plea'' programs as having the highest 

leverage; programs that were mixed were ranked as moderate. Population 

severity was generally considered moderate, given that violent offenders 

and those with severe mental health issues were excluded. Intensity was 

determined based on the length and intensity'of treatment, urinalysis 

requirements, and appearances before the court (generally using the 

first phase of treatment). Predictability, was ranked minimum for a 

number of courts based on observations that sanctions were often not 

applied consistently and were made often on a case-by-cases basis. 

Finally, rehabilitation focus was determined based on comments and', 

discussions made during our site visits on the extent to whiclh court 

members saw their court as surveillance- vs. rehabilitation-oriented. 

\ 

\ 

I 

Table 6.2 

Typology of 14 Participating Drug Court Programs 

Popul a ti on Predict - Rehabil i - 

Site Leverage Severity Intensity ability tation 

At 1 ant a moderate moderate high moderate moderate 

Birmingham high moderate moderate moderate moderate 

Brook 1 yn high moderate high moderate high 

Chicago high minimum minimum moderate high 

Kankakee high mod era t e moderate moderate moderate 

Omaha high moderate moderate minimum high 

Riverside moderate moderate high high moderate 

Roanoke high moderate high minimum moderate 

Sacramento high moderate moderate high high 

San Juan moderate moderate moderate minimum moderate 

Santa Barbara high moderate high minimum moderate 

Spokane minimum moderate moderate minimum moderate 

Tampa minimum minimum moderate minimum moderate 

Tuscaloosa moderate moderate moderate high moderate 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has

not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the

author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of

Justice.
- 61 - 

VII. PROGRAM EVALUABILITY 

ASSESSING EVALUABILITY OF THE 14 DRUG COURTS 

The third research task for our evaluation was to assess the 

"evaluability" of each of the 14 courts €or an outcome evaluation. 

Evaluability would then help researchers design the strongest possible study 

design for each program in a second phase of research. 

Our analysis of the evaluability of each of the 14 sites was based upon 

inf'ormation gathered from site visits made to each program by study staff, 

including program documents and manuals; interviews with Drug Court staff, 

judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, and treatment providers; examination 

of paper and computerized records; and observation of drug court proceedings. 

In general we found that the strongest design for most sites, given their 

current data collection activities, would be quasi-experimental and limited to 

administrative data, and would require a fair amount of on-site abstraction. a Table 7.1 summarizes key infdrmation relevant for program evaluability. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has

not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the

author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of

Justice.
- 62 - 

Table 7.1 

Drug Court Evaluability Questions 

Statistics on 

Current Compl et i ons/ Services Completion DCPO 

Site Evaluation Outcomes Being Used Terminations MIS System Received Rates El emen t s 

Attendance at 

treatment Yes 

Number of graduates ~ 

At Ian t a None UA results Yes (marginal) Yes Yes Most - 

In 6-month follow-up on 

Process/ Graduation from 

Birmingham progress treatment Yes Yes Yes No Some 

Brook 1 yn Impact treatment ?e s Yes Yes Yes Yes 

Number of clients 

Number of grads 

Chicago None Recidivism rates Yes None No No No 

Kankakee Process no recidivism Yes (marginal) Yes Yes Most 

Omaha Process Recidivism Yes Yes No No Yes 

Outcomes/ Grads: drug-free and Yes 

Out comes / 

Graduation 

GED Yes 

Riverside Outcomes Abstinence Yes (marginal) Unknown Yes Unknown 

Roanoke Process months Yes No No No No 

Sac ramen t o Process Graduation rate Yes (marginal) No No 

No positive UA for 6 

Yes 

Unknown 

: None, but 

Graduaticn from implementSan Juan Process treatment Yes ing one No No No 

(continued on next page) 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has

not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the

author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of

Justice.
- 63 - 

Table 7.1 (cont’d) 

Drug Court Evaluability Questions 

Statistics on 

Current Completions/ Services Completion DCPO 

Site Evaluation Outcomes Being Used Terminations MIS System Received Rates Elements 

Graduation 

Recidivism at 12 Yes 

Santa Barbara Outcomes months Yes (marginal ) No No Some 

Spokane Outcomes Avoided sentences Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 

Process/ Recidivism 

None, but 

Gross process implementNo re-arrest on new 

charge 

Tampa Process Case flow Yes ing one No No Some 

Tuscaloosa None Program completion Yes None No No Some 

(continued on next page) 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has

not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the

author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of

Justice.
- 64 - 

Table 7.1 (cont'd) 

Drug Court Evaluability Questions 

Random When Is DC 

Assignment Best Comparison Data for 

Possible ? Groups Comparison Group End? of Site Visit 

Scheduled to DC Clients at Time 

Site 

Atlanta No None N/A Unclear 106 

Birmingham circumstance sentencing program Unknown Unclear 380 

Depends on Drug-deferred 

Offenders in other 

Brook 1 yn 

Drug School people When DCPO 

People who are not Data from nearby funding ends: 

Brook 1 yn No prosecution zones CJS data Unclear 497 

Chicago No eligible police districts 9/99 77 

When DCPO 

funding ends: 

Kankakee No TASC TASC data 12/31/99 60 (capacity) 

Probat ion DCPO funding 

First offenders on CJ records through 

PClOOO 

Probat ion 

DRC 

Probat ion 

except for no IOP with more DRC 

Yes, if same PClOOO 

Omaha Uncertain probat ion ineligible cases 5/31/2000 300 

Rivers i de No Prison diversion Probation Unclear 53 

Probably, IOP 

Roanoke treatment intense services Probat ion Unclear 85 

Sacramento out come Probation Probation Unclear - 150 

San Juan No comparison Treatment data OJP 9/30/99 150 

Historical CJ system 

f 

(continued on next page) 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has

not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the

author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of

Justice.
- 65 - 

Table 7.1 (cont'd) 

Drug Court Evaluability Questions 

Random When Is DC 

Assignment Best Comparison Data for 

Yes, under Probation DC 

certain 

No, too few Recidivism data CTED Award ~ 

Scheduled to DC Clients at Time 

Site Possible? Groups Comparison Group End? of S i t e V i s i t 

PClOOO 87 (South) 

Santa Barbara circumstances Short wait list Unknown Unclear 121 (North) 

Spokane cases " opt -0u t s " costs 6/30/2000 103 

Qualified group who 

chooses not to 

Burglary (clients 

similar to DC) 

Tampa Unclear enter DC Re-&idivism data Unclear 160 (capacity) 

Tuscaloosa Yes Diversion programs Unknown Unclear 300 (capacity) 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has

not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the

author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of

Justice.
- 66 - 

DCPO Guidelines For Drug Court Programs 

Ideally, each drug court would have been able to meet the 

requirements of process and outcome collection specified in the DCPO 

“Program Guidelines and Application Information.” These include the 

collection of information on drug court participants (and to the fullest 

possible extent, non-participants), including demographic 

characteristics; substance abuse history; vocational and educational 

status; mental health history; criminal justice history; treatment 

needs, etc.; measures of program implementation and process, including 

program intervention received, participation in treatment, motivation, 

and actual attendance records for each program component; status at 

completion of drug court; service needs at discharge from program; etc. 

Programs were strongly urged to design, implement, and maintain an 

automated database for recording these variables. 

In addition, programs were alerted to the requirements of a 

national evaluation. Drug court programs were instructed to anticipate 

providing the following additional information for a national evaluator: 

substance abuse treatment and support services completion rates, 

counselor ratings of extent of participant attendance and engagement in 

treatment, program components and improvement over time in life skills 

acquisition, psychological and emotional functioning, educational and 

employment status, participant satisfaction with the treatment program, 

reports of substance abuse, results of urinalysis, date and nature of 

violations and arrests, positive social adjustment, and engagement in 

aftercare components and referrals services following completion of the 

drug court program 

Our site visits and analyses revealed that none of the 14 programs 

had gathered the full range of measures specified by DCPO into a single 

database for both the drug court and a comparison group of offenders. 

This is not to say that sites were uninterested in gathering information 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has

not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the

author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of

Justice.
- 67 - 

or in evaluation or their drug courts. On the contrary, all were keenly 

interested in determining whether or not their programs were effective. 

However, it appeared that a great deal of staff time was devoted to the 

day-to-day operations, coordination among agencies, provision of 

services, etc., leaving little time for staff to develop database 

systems and record a vast array of measures for participants. 

Looking across programs, we found that in several sites, no local 

evaluation of the program had been conducted. In half the sites, no MIS 

recorded the required data elements; records were maintained only on 

paper. Nonetheless, our discussions with local drug court staff and 

other criminal justice actors identified potential comparison groups 

that might be used for quasi-experimental designs in most of the sites; 

a few might be able to participate in randomized experiments. The 

possibility of random assignment appears infrequent due to two major 

considerations. Unless programs obtain additional funding, many may not 

be in operation (thus we qnnot conduct a prospective study). In 

addition, many programs are able to handle all available clients, 

providing little incentive for sites to "deny" the drug court (and 

assign the person to a control group) to any eligible offender. 

Possible Research Designs 

In terms of classic process and outcomes studies, most sites could 

offer the following types of data using quasi-experimental evaluation 

designs - 

Background characteristics. Often computerized, sometimes paper 

and pencil screening and/or treatment files, could provide these 

characteristics for drug court participants; generally, less complete 

paper and pencil data would be available for comparison groups. 

Process data. Urinalysis results are generally available and 

often computerized (particularly if TASC was part of the team); services 

received have been computerized in about half the sites. In many sites, 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has

not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the

author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of

Justice.
- 68 - 

detailed information about treatment participation and activities would 

need to be gathered from individual treatment program files--not , 

necessarily kept by the drug court itself. 

For process measures, virtually all information currently 

available is official record; no data on participants' self-reported 

satisfaction, peryeptions, or other behaviors are available; information 

on counselor perceptions is also not availabie. 

reported process variables would need to be collected by the national 

evaluator--they are not being collected by the sites. These measures 

are necessary for testing theoretical hypotheses about why the drug 

courts may be effective. Without them, we cannot tell why the drug 

court did or did not produce the effects it desired. 

In general selfOutcome,data. All sites are able to report the termination status 

of drug court participants, although this was not automated at all 

sites. The most frequently used outcomes are officially-recorded 

recidivism, gathered from,criminal history databases or probation files. 

Remaining drug free, as measured by negative urine tests, is another 

commonly used outcome measure. Referral to and completion of programs 

after drug court termination are not available. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has

not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the

author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of

Justice.
- 69 - , 

VIII. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 

The Drug Courts Program Office (DCPO) provides funding to drug 

courts for planning, implementation, and enhancement of local drug 

courts. In 1995 and 1996, 14 programs received DCPO implementation, 

grant funding. These sites were asked to cooperate with a national 

evaluation funded by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ). This 

report presents fi'ndings on 

program implementation of the drug courts 

a conceptual framework of the 14 drug courts funded by DCPO 

program evaluability for participating jurisdictions12 I, 

4 

We summarize the findings of each of the major tasks, then discuss 

evaluation issues within a broader context. 

PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION ' 

Our analysis of program implementation--the types of models 

implemented, eligibility requirements, court and treatment requirements, 

and program implementation difficulties--reads surprising like findings 

from the surveys conducted by American University and National TASC. 

These 14 programs are in many ways typical of drug court programs across 

the county. 

To a large degree, the 14 programs meet many of the key components 

of effective drug court programs. Drug courts integrate alcohol and 

other drug treatment services with justice system case processing; they 

use a non-adversarial approach; prosecution and defense counsel promote 

public safety while protecting due process rights of participants; 

l2 Additionally, the project was to propose a Phase I1 evaluation 

plan for each of the 14 sites. Our determination was that most sites 

could support only limited process and outcomes studies, and that an 

alternate methodology be employed. Details of this approach can be 

obtained from the authors. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has

not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the

author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of

Justice.
- 70 - 

eligible offenders are identified early; drug courts provide access to a 

continuum of alcohol, drug, and other treatment related services; 

abstinence is monitored by frequent testing; a coordinated strategy 

governs drug court responses to participants' compliance; and ongoing 

judicial interaction with each participant is maintained. 

that the most difficult component to meet was the monitoring and 

evaluation for the achievement of program goals and effectiveness. In 

the 14 sites we examined, this clearly was not implemented to the degree 

of other key elements. 

It,appeared 

However, even with the other nine key elements, the 14 sites 

experienced success in varying degrees. Access to a continuum of 

alcohol and drug services and other related rehabilitative services was 

often difficult, reflecting funding issues, as well as close 

coordination and information flow issues between treatment providers and 

other drug court staff. Although drug courts may specify protocols and 

graduated sanctions for nqn-compliance, in some instances a more 

individually tailored response is used. 

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK 

Our framework was developed to define structure and pr.ocess in 

ways that are measurable and amenable to hypothesis testing. The 

framework has five dimensions: leverage, population severity, intensity, 

predictability, and rehabilitation emphasis. The first two dimensions 

are structural characteristics of drug court. Leverage refers to the 

nature of consequences faced by incoming participants if they later fail 

to meet program requirements and are discharged from drug court. 

Population severity refers to characteristics of offenders deemed 

eligible to enter drug court. The other three dimensions are process 

characteristics. They describe what happens to participants as they 

proceed through the drug court program. Intensity refers to 

requirements for participating in and completing drug court. These 

always include urine testing, court appearances, and drug abuse 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has

not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the

author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of

Justice.
'- 71 - 

treatment. Predictability reflects the degree to which participants 

know how the court will respond if they are compliant or noncompliant. 

Courts with' less variability in responses to each positive test are more 

predictable; participants are more likely to know what will probably 

happen to them if they test positive once, twice, and so on. The final 

dimension in our framework is the emphasis placed on rehabilitation as 

against other court functions, including case' processing and punishment. 

Other things being equal, we would expect more positive drug court 

outcomes for drug courts that rank high on'indicators of intensity, I 

predictability, rehabilitation, and leverage. The effect of population 

severity on outcomes most likely depends upon other dimensions of the 

framework; thus we made no simple hypotheses for this component., 

provide examples of these dimensions using the 14 drug caurts'! Our 

assessment of the dimensions is tentative, however, since we were not 

able to gather the data we suggest is needed to fully document each 

dimension. Our analysis 3hows variation across sites that might be 

useful for future analyses of program outcomes. 

We 

"EVALUABILITY" OF THE 14 DRUG COURT PROGRAMS 

Our analysis of the "evaluability" of each of the 14 sites was 

based upon information gathered from site visits made to each program by 

study staff that included program documents and manuals; interviews with 

Drug Court staff, judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, and treatment 

providers; examination of paper and computerized records; and 

observation of drug court proceedings. In general, we found that the 

strongest design for most sites, given their current data collection 

activities, would be quasi-experimental and limited to administrative 

data, and would require a fair amount of on-site abstraction. Many 

sites did not routinely collect the data items recommended by the DCPO. 

The greatest stumbling blocks to traditional evaluation were the 

lack of integrated management information system and adeqiate comparison 

groups. In addition, self-reported information on offender and system 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has

not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the

author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of

Justice.
'- 72 - 

actor perceptions, necessary for understanding the "black box" of drug 

court treatment, were not collected by sites. 

TAKING DRUG COURT RESEARCH A STEP FURTHER 

Drug court research is at a crossroads. Available information to 

date suggests that programs deliver more intensive services with 

positive outcomes for recidivism and' drug use', at least in the short 

term. However, many of these results come from weak evaluation designs. 

Conducting additional weak evaluafions may,add little to our knowledge. 

Recently, researchers and observers in the field have been calling for 

more sophisticated research into testing the theory behind how drug 

courts achieve their results (Harrell 19991, evaluating the treatment 

component using principals of effective intervention (Johnson, Hubbard, 

and Latessa 2000), untangling the drug court "package" to determine 

which components make a difference (Belenko 2000, Marlowe and Festinger 

2000; Goldkamp, White, and- Robinson 2000), and conducting cost-benefit 

analyses in a rigorous manner (California Judicial Council 2000). For 

example, the National Institute on Drug Abuse has recently funded a set 

of program evaluations to answer questions about specific components of 

drug court programs. Projects currently underway include a clinical 

trial of Multi Systemic Therapy for juveniles, the use of vouchers in 

drug courts, and a randomized design that varies the nature of judicial 

hearings in five jurisdictions. Johnson, Hubbard, and Latessa (2000) 

argue that many treatment programs utilized by drug court programs may 

not be delivering the best treatment to clients. They suggest more 

attention be paid to the type and quality of treatment services, 

including the dpplication of the principles of effective intervention. 

Central to any future evaluations, however, is the development at 

! 

I 

each site of a management information system (MIS) that capture the 

required background, process, and outcome measures important to all 

research designs. Our study of the 14 drug court programs revealed that 

many did not have an MIS in place, despite the availability of several 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has

not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the

author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of

Justice.
- 73 - 

(e.g., Jacksonville and Buffalo Drug Court MIS, Washington/Baltimore 

High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA) Treatment Tracking System). 

It may be that the available systems do not provide full-service drug 

court management information capability (Mahoney et al. 19981, or the 

difficulties involved in establishing systems (e.g., costs, coordinating 

agencies) may be too great for many jurisdictions, particularly smaller 

ones. 

In addition to providing useful information on process and outcome 

measures, comprehensive MISS have implications for the timeliness of 

client information-sharing and thus for clients' access to services. 

Linkages can be more readily made, and referrals more prompt and 

appropriate, if the drug court's MIS includes data on a full array of 

client needs and if the assessment tools are suitably rigorous. 

The importance of drug court evaluation cannot be overstated. The 

drug court model has been adopted in a variety of other areas, including 

mental health, domestic vijolence, and DUI sentencing. It is imperative 

that we gain a better understanding of overall impact, theoretical 

underpinnings, and key components if the drug court model is to be 

widely disseminated as a successful approach for treating a variety of 

criminal behaviors and associated illnesses. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has

not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the

author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of

Justice.
- 74 - 

APPENDIX 

SITE VISIT PROTOCOL 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has

not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the

author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of

Justice.
DRUG COURT EVALUATION 

SITE VISIT PROTOCOL 

NAME OF PROGRAM: START DATE 

Note: The Protocol is not intended as a strict structured interview, and you are not required 

to ask each question verbatim. Likewise, the check marks on the Protocol indicating the 

prospective respondents to each question are suggestions rather than mandates. 

Proeram model 

1. At what point(s) in the criminal justice process does the drug 

court obtain its clients? 

General Program Characteristics 

2. How does this program compare (in terms of clients targeted, 

services offered) with other programs the jurisdiction offers for drugoffending clients (i.e., What is business as usual?, TASC?) 

3. What are the stages or phases of intervention? (How long do they 

last?) 

4. Are protocols formalized? (If yes, can we get a copy?) 

5. Who is called to appear in a drug court session (new admits, 

progress reporters, failures), and what is the order of appearance? 

6. Is there a plan or set of guidelines for internal monitoring of drug 

court program quality? (Probe: Are performance indicators 

monitored?) 

Client eligibility, flow, and characteristics 

7. What are the eligibility requirements (and exclusion criteria) for 

participation? How were these criteria decided upon? 

8. By whom are offenders referred to the drug court? 

~~ ~ ~~~~ 

9. How are the offenders screened for eligibility (e.g., What tools 

are used? Who performs the screening?) 

Drug Court Evaluation Site Visit Protocol - rebised 5/21/99 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has

not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the

author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of

Justice.
a 

e 

, 

e 

-2- 

10. What percentage of drug-involved offenders in this jurisdiction 

are eligible for the drug court? 

11. What percentage of drug-involved offenders referred to this drug 

court end up in the program? 

12. How many participants can the program handle at one time? 

(What is the capacity of the program?) 

13. What is the average length of time a participant spends in the drug 

court program? 

14. What are the characteristics of the drug court's participants? (e.g., 

What are the drugs most commonly used by offenders entering the 

drug court program?, What are the primary drugs of abuse?) 

Items recommended by DCPO to collect: 

Demographic characteristics 

AOD history and current use 

AOD treatment history 

Family relationships and social functioning 

Vocational status 

Economic status 

Academic achievement 

Mental health history (including physical and sexual abuse) 

Medical history (including HIV risk behaviors) 

CJ history (crime type, prior record) 

Attitudes toward treatment, motivation/readiness 

Initial treatment and support service needs 

Program interventions received 

Participation in treatment (e.g., attendance) 

Program admission and discharge date 

DC program completion status (e.g., successful) (outcome) 

CJ status at discharge (e.g., probation) (outcome) 

Service needs at discharge 

Discharge referrals initiated by DC 

15. How many different people (and in what positions) make up the 

staff that operate the drug court? 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has

not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the

author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of

Justice.
-3- 

Environmentlcontext 

16. Are there any policies or laws that affect availability of offenders 

for diversion through drug courts? 

17. Has the drug court program been affected by local treatment or 

services capacity, local treatment quality, community support for 

treatment, local detention capacity, the mix of defendants (current 

charges, criminal and drug-use histones), or local drug use 

epidemiology? I 

18. For this fiscal year, what are the different sources of funding for 

the operation of the drug court (not including treatment and other 

services), and what proportion of the total funding comes frdm each 

source? (Try to obtain budget document). 

__ ~ ~__ 

Funding and costs 

19. What are the funding sources for the substance abuse treatment 

and other services the client receives while in the drug court (e.g., 

third party payment systems, reliance on grants, philanthropists, 

nontraditional partners, entitlement and insurance income)? 

(Probe: Be sure to ask about volunteers, in-kind contributions, 

etc.) 

20. Are enough funds available to purchase necessary treatment and 

other services? What short falls, if any, exist? 

21. What are the disaggregated costs of drug testing, supervision, 

detention, treatment, and other services? Can you give me a budget 

that shows how you break out costs in your reports? Are per client 

costs available? 

Provision of treatment and other services 

22. What screening and assessment tools are used to determine the 

seventy of drug or alcohol problems and treatment placement? Who 

performs the assessment? 

23. For what other service needs are offenders screened or assessed 

(e.g., infectious diseases, illness, literacy, victimization history, 

education)? What tools are used? Who performs the screening and 

assessment ? 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has

not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the

author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of

Justice.
-4- 8 

24. What is the type of substance abuse treatment that is offered? 

(Probe: Find out what treatment consists of (e.g., What are the 

types of providers? How many hours per day/ days per week are 

spent in treatment? Is the treatment approach different than 

usual? What are the credentials of the people on staff?) 

25. How is a case handled from the time a client enters the drug court 

program to the time he/she leaves or is discharged? With whom does 

the responsibility for the client lie? 

26. What are the data that the judge uses to review a client’s 

progress? 

Reinforcements/Punishments / RewarddSanctions 

27. What are the rewards, and do they vary by action? 

28. What are the sanctions, and do they vary by action? 

29. Who decides when and which sanctions and rewards are used? 

30. What are the time lags between violation or noncompliance and 

detection and consequence? 

31. How are the expectations for the offender communicated to 

hirdher? 

32. Are graduated sanctions implemented consistently over time and 

across offenders, or is there a great deal of consideration given to the 

individual circumstances of the noncompliance event? How 

specifically does your program define graduated sanctions? 

33. What is the magnitude of the behavioral demands placed on 

offenders (e.g., How many hours per week are required to perform 

court requirements? How much does it cost the offender financially, 

etc.?)? 

34. How realistic/attainable are the behavioral requirements placed on 

court participants (i.e., Do they require behaviors that are within the 

offenders current behavioral repertoire, or do they really require the 

offender to stretch to meet program expectations)? 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has

not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the

author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of

Justice.
-5- I 

In tensity 

35. On average, how many times during the program does a 

successful client have contact with: 

- Judge - 

- Treatment providers 

- Other service providers 

- Probation 

Other officers of the court 

36. On average, how many times during the program does a 

unsuccessful client have contact with: 

Other officers of the court 

- Judge - 

- Treatment providers 

- Other service providers 

- Probation 

. ~~ 

Philosophy: rehabilitation vs. surveillance 

37. What is the program's philosophy about the rehabilitation vs. 

surveillance function of a drug court? (Obtain both perspectives: 

What does the program think? What do site visitors think?) 

38. What proportion of offenders is placed in substance abuse 

treatment? 

39. What proportion of offenders receives social or health services 

other than substance abuse treatment, among clients who need other 

services? 

Monitoring and supervision 

40. How often are offenders tested for drugs and alcohol? What tests 

are used? On what schedule are offenders tested? Who does the 

testing? How do testing results come back to the judge? 

Linkage and collaboration 

41. What is the nature of the collaboration with pretrial services, 

probation, parole, treatment providers, other social service or health 

care providers (e.g., medical and mental health) and community 

agencies? (Are they formal, e.g., through contracts or signed 

agreements, or informal?) 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has

not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the

author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of

Justice.
-6- 

EL 

-a 

,os 

21 E$ 

JJ 

JJ 

JJ 

JJ 

JJ 

JJ 

JJ 

42. Do the drug court staff and collaborating agencies know when 

programmatic changes occur in the drug court? How are the agencies 

kept apprised? 

43. Are people and agencies involved with serving the client getting 

the information they need about the client? Is there information 

about the client they are not getting? 

44. Is the system set up in a day that serves all of the agencies well? 1 

If not, what should be changed? 

45. Is there an operational management information system, one that 

allows for rapid retrieval and exchange of infomation about clients 

among existing Criminal Justice, public, health, and qocial service 

agency systems? If not, are they in the process of developing one or 

do they have concrete plans for one? 

Administrative leadership and cooperation 

46. Do you belong to the National Association of Drug Court 

Professionals? 

~ ~____ 

47. Have you presented information about your drug court to peers or 

other audiences? Which ones? 

48. How often is your program visited? 

49. How involved is the judge in making treatment determinations, 

vs. leaving that decision up to the treatment providers? 

50. Who is responsible for coordination among agencies? 

Management of information? Case management? Monitoring of the 

program? Determining success of clients? Program reviews? 

Recommending modifications? 

51. How are decisions made about the drug court program? 

52. How receptive is the judge to the opinions and input of the 

providers and other members of the drug court staff? 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has

not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the

author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of

Justice.
k 

& 

J 

-7- 

+E 

JJ 

JJ 

JJ 

JJ 

JJ 

JJ 

JJ 

Program implementation 

53. To what extent does the program as implemented conform to the 

program model and planned procedures? How did procedures change 

over time (e.g., change in drug test procedures to cut cost or take 

advantage of new test technologies)? Why did you decide to run 

your program as you are now doing? How have things played 

out? 

Implementation Barriers ' I 

54. What aspects of the program were most difficult to implement and 

why? 

55. What bottlenecks, resource problems, program adaptation's, 

organizational characteristics, or other factors facilitated or impeded 

implementation? 

56. What issues still need to be resolved, in your opinion? 

57. Basecton your experiences, what advice would you give to other 

jurisdictions and drug courts considering implementation? 

Evalua bili ty 

58. Are there evaluations ongoing? What have they found? (Try and 

obtain copies of any evaluations.) 

59. What measures of client outcome and program effectiveness is 

the program using currently? 

60. How is success defined for an offender in this program? What is 

an effective program? 

61. Does the program keep statistics on program completions and 

tenninati ons ? 

~~ 

62. Are cost of services data and other record-of-service data 

available at the client-level and for all points of service contact in the 

program? What is the quality of these data (e.g, routinely gathered? 

complete? accurately reported and entered?) By what method are the 

data collected and recorded? 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has

not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the

author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of

Justice.
, , ,.-..,, 

3 

J 

J 

J 

J 

J 

J 

-8- 

L 

-8 

LO 

.- 

S& 

oc 

JJ 

63. What information is available for us to follow and assess a client 

(whether a “success” or “failure”) one year after discharge? 5 years 

after discharge? 

64. To what extent does the program have the staffing and resource 

infrastructure (e.g., MIS) to support additional data collection efforts? 

65. Would the program be willing to use additional or different 

instruments to screen or assess clients? 

66. Does the program understand that additional data collection 

involves some additional complexity and burden for the system? 

67. How feasible would it be to access and utilize client medical, 

clinic, and criminal justice records in this jurisdiction and locality? 

68. How willing would the program be to allow assignment of 

eligible offenders to different kinds of treatment or services within 

the program, or to judicial interventions other than the drug court 

program? 

69. Where might reasonable comparison groups be found? What is 

the size of this group? What types of data are available for this 

group? 

70. What stakeholders would need to be involved at this site during 

planning and implementation of an outcome evaluation‘? 

71. May we contact you for additional information? 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has

not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the

author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of

Justice.
REFERENCES 

American University, (2000a) ~ http://wdw.american.edu/iustice, 

September 2000. 

American University (2000b). httD://Www.american.edu/justice/ 

nacofct.htm, September 22, 2000. 

Belenko, S. (2000). "Diversion Programs: Providing Treatment-Based 

Alternatives to Incarceration tor Drug-Involved Criminal 

Offenders . " Connection, pp. 1,2,8. 

Belenko, S. (1998). "Research on Drug Courts: A Critical Review." I 

National Drug Court Institute Review, Vol. I(1), pp- 1-42. 

Belenko, S. (1999). "Research on Drug Courts: A Critical Review 1999 

Update." National Drug Court Institute Review, Vol. II(2), pp. 1- 

58. 

Blumstein, A:, Cohen, J., and Nagin, D. (Eds.) (1978). Deterrence and 

Incapacitation: Estimating the Effects of Criminal Sanctions on 

Crime Rates. Washington, D. C.: National Academy Press. 

Bosker, R. J., T. A. B. Sqijders, and H. Guldemorid (1999). PINT--Power 

in two-level designs. User's Manual. 

Braithwaite, J. (1999). "Restorative Justice: Assessing Optimistic and 

Pessimistic Accounts." In Tonry, M. (Ed.), Crime and Justice: A 

Review of Research. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 1- 

127. 

Breslow, N. E., and D. G. Clayton (1993) "Approximate Inference in 

Generalized Linear Mixed Models." Journal of the American 

Statistical Association, Vol. 88, pp. 9-25. 

Bryk, A. S.. and S. W. Raudenbush (1992). Hierarchical Linear Models: 

Applications and Data Analysis Methods. Sage. 

Bryk, A. S., S. W. Raudenbush, and R. Congdon (1996). HLM: Hierarchical 

linear and nonlinear modeling with the HLM/2L and HLM/3L programs. 

Chicago, IL: Scientific software international, Inc. 

Bureau of Justice Assistance (1993). Special Drug Courts (Program 

Brief, NCJ 144531). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 

Office of Justice Programs. 

Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (1996). "Treatment Drug Courts: 

Integrating Substance Abuse Treatment With Legal Case Processing" 

(DHHS Publication No. SMA 96-3113) - Treatment Improvement 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has

not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the

author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of

Justice.
- 84 - 

I 

Protocol (TIP) Series 23. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of 

Health and Human Services. 

Cohen, J. (1977) . Statistical Power Analysis for the'Behaviora1 

Sciences (Revised Edition). Academic. 

Cooper, c. S. (1995). "Drug Courts: An Overview of Operational 

Characteristics and Implementation Issues." Washington DC: 

American University, BJA Drug Court Resource Center. 

Cooper, C. S. (1997). "1997 Drug Court Survey Report: Executive 

Summary. 'I Washington, DC: American University, BJA Drug Court 

Resource Center. 

Deschenes, E. P., S. Turner, and P. W. Greenwood (1995). "Drug Court or 

Probation? An Experimental Evaluation of Maricopa County's Drug 

Court." The Justice System Journal, Vol. 18(1), pp. 55-73. 

Drug Courts Program Office (1996). Drug Court Grand Program Fiscal Year 

1996--Program Guidelines and Application Kit. Washington, DC: 

U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs. 

Drug Courts Program Office (1997). Defining Drug Courts: The Key 

Components. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of 

Justice Programs. 

Drug Courts Program Office (1998) . Drug Court Monitoring, Evaluation, 

and Management Information Systems (NCJ 171138). Washington, D. 

C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs. 

Drug Strategies (1997). Cutting Crime: Drug Courts in Action. 

Washington, D.C.: Drug Strategies. 

Goldkamp, J. (1994). "Justice and Treatment Innovation: The Drug Court 

Movement. A Working Paper of the First National Drug Court 

Conference, December 1993." Final Summary Report Presented to the 

National Institute of Justice. 

Goldkamp, J. (1999). "Challenges for Research and Innovation: When is 

a Drug Court Not a Drug Court?" in W. C. Terry (Ed.), The Early 

Drug Courts: Case Studies in Judicial Innovation. Thousand Oaks, 

SAGE Publications. 

Goldkamp. J. (2000). "The Drug Court Response: Issues and Implications 

€or Justice Change," Albany Law Review, Vol 63 (31, pp. 923-961. 

Goldkamp, John S., Michael White, Jennifer Robinson. (2000). "Do Drug 

Courts Work: Getting Inside the Drug Court Black Box." Paper 

presented at 2000 American Society of Criminology, San Francisco. 

Goldstein, H. (1995) . Multilevel Statistical Models (Second Edition) . Edward Arnold. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has

not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the

author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of

Justice.
- 85 - 

Harrell, A. (1999). "Understanding the Impact of Drug Courts." 

Unpublished paper. 

Hora, P. F.,, W. G. Schma, and J. T. A. Rosenthal (1999). "Therapeutic 

Jurisprudence and the Drug Treatment Court Movement: 

Revolutionizing the Criminal Justice System's Response to Drug 

Abuse and Crime in America.: Notre Dame Law Review. 74, pp. 439- 

538. 

Inciardi, J. A., p. C. McBride, and J. E. Rivers (1996). "Drug Control 

and the Courts, Drugs, Health, and Social Policy Series, Vol. 3. 

Johnson, S., D. J. Hubbard, and E. Latessa. (2000). "Drug Courts and 

Treatment: Lessons to be Learned from the 'What Works' 

Literature." Corrections Management Quarterly, Vol. 4(4), pp. 70- I 

77 - 

Kurki, L. (1999). Incorporating Restorative and Community Justice into 

American Sentencing and Corrections (NCJ 175723) . Washington,, DC: 

National Institute of Justice. 

Littell, R. C., G. A. Milliken, W. W. Stroup, and R. D. Wolfinger 

(1996). SAS System for Mixed Models. Cary, NC: SAS Institute. 

Longshore, Douglas, Susan Turner, Suzanne L Wenzel, Andrew Morral, 

Adelle Harrell, Duane McBride, Elizabeth Piper Deschenes, and 

Martin Iguchi, (2001). "Drug Courts: A Conceptual Framework," 

Journal of Drug Issues, Vol. 31, pp. 7-26. 

Mahoney, B., J. A. Carver, C. Cooper, L. Polansky, S. Weinstein, J. D. 

Wells, and T. Westfield (1998). Drug Court Monitoring, Evaluation 

and Management Information Systems. Washington, D.C., Drug Courts 

Program Office. 

Marlowe, Douglas B. and David S. Festinger. (2000). "Research on Drug 

Courts: Do the Ns Justify the Means.: Connection., pp. 5-6. 

Marlowe, D. B., and K. C. Kirby (1999). "Effective Use of Sanctions in 

Drug Courts: Lessons from Behavioral Research." National Drug 

Court Institute Review, 11, pp. 1-15. 

Moulton, B. R. (1986). "Random group effects and the precision of 

regression estimates." Journal of Econometrics, 32, pp. 385-397. 

Nagin, D. S. (1998). "Criminal Deterrence Research at the Outset of the 

Twenty-first Century." In M. Tonry (Ed.), Crime and Justice: A 

Review of Research (Vol. 23). Chicago, IL: The University of 

Chicago Press, pp. 1-42. 

National Drug Court Institute (1999). Drug Courts: A Research Agenda 

Alexandria, VA: National Drug Court Institute. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has

not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the

author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of

Justice.
Office of Justice Programs (1995). Drug Court Grant Program--Program 

Guidelines and Application Information. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Justice. 

Office of National Drug Control Strategy. (2000). Annual Report. 

Washington, D.C.: Office of National Drug Control Strategy. 

RAND Corporation (1997). Unpublished data. Santa Monica, CA: RAND 

Satel, S. (1998). "Observational Study of Courtroom Dynamics in 

Selected Drug Courts." National Drug Court Institute Review, I, 

pp. 43-72. 

Singer, J.D. (1998). "Using PROC MIXED to fit multilevel models, 

Hierarchical models, and individual growth models." Journal of I/ educational and behavioral statistics, Winter 1998, Vol. 24, pp. 

323-355. 

Snijders, T. A. B., and R. J. Bosker, (1993). "Standard errors and 

sample sizes in two-level research." Journal of Educational 

Statistics, Vol. 18, No. 3, pp. 237-260. 

TASC, (2000) . "Drug Court Treatment Survey Report. ' National TASC 

NEWS, Spring, p. 3-4. 

Taxman, F. (1999). "Unraveling 'What Works' for Offenders in Substance 

Abuse Treatment Services." National Drug Court Institute Review, 

VO~. I1 (21, Pp. 93-134. 

Terry, W. C. (Ed.) (1999). The Early Drug Courts: Case Studies in 

Judicial Innovation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 

Tyler, T. (1988). "What Is Procedural Justice--Criteria Used by 

Citizens to Assess the Fairness of Legal Procedures." Law & 

Society Review, 22, pp- 103-135. 

Tyler, T. (1994). "Psychological Models of the Justice Motive: 

Antecedents of Distributive and Procedural Justice." Journal of 

Personality and Social Psychology, 67, pp. 850-863. 

U.S. General Accounting Office (19971. Drug Courts: Overview of Growth, 

Characteristics, and Results (GAO/GGD-97-106) . Washington, D.C. : 

United States General Accounting Office. 

Wolfinger, R., and M. O'Connell (1993). "Generalized Linear Mixed 

Models: A Pseudo-likelihood Approach." Journal of Statistical 

Computation and Simulation, Vol. 48, pp. 233-243. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has

not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the

author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of

Justice.