|
|
|
State
Efforts to Advance the Problem-Solving Court Approach
By Pam
Casey and Jenny
Elek
Last summer, with
funding from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the
National Center for State Courts conducted a survey of
state court administrators as part of an educational
program presented at the 2004 Annual Meeting of the
Conference of Chief Justices (CCJ)
and Conference of State Court Administrators (COSCA).
The study revealed that an impressive variety of efforts
are planned or underway across the states and
territories to advance the implementation of
problem-solving court principles and methods. Among the
innovations:
- Provide
education. Incorporate education on
problem-solving principles into new judge
orientation, regular judicial education programs, or
both. Offer specialized training or mentoring
programs for new problem-solving court judges.
Encourage new drug court judges to visit operating
drug courts.
- Facilitate
knowledge sharing. Hold regular training
and networking meetings, and state and national
conferences, to promote information sharing.
Advisory committees, task forces, state
associations, or planning and management teams can
gather and disseminate information on
implementation, improvement, and coordination of
problem-solving court programs. Use teleconferences,
listservs, and the Internet to transfer information
and best practices.
- Share
insights, lessons learned from small, rural
jurisdictions. Include representatives from
rural jurisdictions on committees, educational
programs, conferences and symposia, and Web boards
to help incorporate rural perspectives into
discussions. Some rural problem-solving courts serve
as a resource to other jurisdictions.
- Identify
potential problem-solving court cases.
Identify possible areas that could benefit from the
problem-solving approach. Local court communities
may play a large role in developing criteria for
admission into problem-solving court programs.
- Establish
demonstration courts. Several states have
nationally recognized demonstration courts that
offer facility and program tours, training, and
technical assistance to other interested
jurisdictions. Several states are planning and
implementing new models that incorporate
problem-solving approaches.
- Encourage
national networking. Participate in
national conferences and associations and work with
national organizations on education, research, and
evaluation projects.
- Work with the
state bar. Participate on committees with
members of the bar to address problem-solving court
issues/initiatives. Pool efforts with the bar to
provide education programs for lawyers.
- Encourage
problem-solving education in law schools.
Participate in symposia, classes, and other
educational programs at law schools. Help develop
curriculum for law schools and provide student
internships.
- Work with
legislative and executive branch agencies.
New laws and reforms often require collaboration
between government agencies and courts, allowing
courts an opportunity to build relationships and
address issues related to problem-solving court
efforts.
- Enhance status
of problem-solving approach within court system.
Express support in speeches and presentations at
conferences, budget hearings, state or local bar
meetings, journal articles, and newsletters. Some
states have created or amended statutes and
protocols to support problem-solving courts. Hold
events to highlight problem-solving activities.
Please let the Problem-Solving
Reporter know if your state or local
jurisdiction is engaged in activities not noted here
that your colleagues in other jurisdictions might be
interested in learning about.
|
|
|
Drug
Court Evaluations: Looking at the Trend Line
By Pam
Casey
Early
outcome evaluations of drug courts often produced very
positive results, but many were methodologically flawed.
More recent studies, incorporating more sophisticated
methodological designs, however, are continuing to show
positive results.
The Government
Accountability Office (GAO) released its latest
report on drug court evaluations in February 2005.
The GAO reviewed 117 evaluation studies conducted
between May 1997 and January 2004. Less than a quarter
of these studies met the GAO's criteria for
methodological rigor, but those that did indicated that
drug courts remain a promising intervention. The GAO's
review of 27 evaluations of 23 different drug court
programs indicated:
- Less recidivism for
both new arrests and new convictions among drug
court participants than among individuals in an
appropriate comparison group (these differences were
significant for 10 of 13 programs that examined
rearrest rates and 10 of 12 programs that examined
reconviction rates)
- Reduced recidivism for
a period of time following drug court completion
(according to most of the evaluations)
These findings echo
recent conclusions by other scholars in the field. For
example, Dr. Douglas Marlowe and his colleagues at the
Treatment Research Institute at the University of
Pennsylvania determined that "the best available
research evidence suggests that drug courts can reduce
drug use and criminal recidivism on an order of
magnitude of two to three times greater than almost any
other initiative that has been attempted with this
intransigent population" (Marlowe, DeMatteo, and
Festinger, 2003: 153).
The reports are careful to point out that the findings
do not mean that all drug courts are effective; rather,
they indicate that drug courts can be
effective. The reports also highlight that there
is still much to learn regarding what practices and
treatment dosages contribute to effective drug court
outcomes for different groups of drug court
participants.
Why does it take so long
to reach conclusions about what works? In the case of
drug courts, a good outcome study can take four to five
years to complete. Time is needed to enroll a sufficient
number of participants in the drug court, follow
participants through 12 to 18 months of treatment, and
track them for another 12 to 24 months to determine
recidivism rates. In addition, new courts should wait a
few months before beginning an evaluation to make sure
their policies and procedures have had a chance to be
tested and adjusted as necessary.
As innovations are
transferred across jurisdictions, reinvention often
occurs-in this case, across local legal and service
cultures and resources. Thus, drug courts vary on many
dimensions:
- eligibility criteria
- rewards and sanctions
- type and duration of
treatment
- level of judicial
involvement
- extent of supervision
- definitions of success
These variations also
make it difficult to generalize findings from individual
drug courts to drug courts in general. As the body of
methodologically sound evaluations continues to grow,
our next questions need to focus on whether and how
these variations lead to successful drug court outcomes.
Resources
Government Accountability
Office. Adult
Drug Courts: Evidence Indicates Recidivism Reductions
and Mixed Results for Other Outcomes (GAO-05-219).
Washington, DC: Government Accountability Office, 2005.
Marlowe, D. B. "Commentary:
Drug Court Efficacy vs. Effectiveness."
JoinTogether.org (September 2004).
Marlowe, D. B., D. S.
DeMatteo, and D. S. Festinger. "A Sober Assessment
of Drug Courts." Federal
Sentencing Reporter 16 (2003):153-157.
Roman, J. "Commentary:
Accreditation Key to Creating the Next Generation of
Drug Courts." JoinTogether.org (September
2004).
|
|
|
Statewide
Drug Court Data Collection and Evaluation Activity
By Fred
Cheesman and Dawn
Marie Rubio
The Problem-Solving Courts
Community of Practice, with the assistance of Ann
Wilson, drug court coordinator for Missouri, recently
conducted an informal survey of drug court coordinators
to learn about statewide data collection and evaluation
efforts among the states. NCSC has been helping states
to develop data collection and performance measurement
systems for drug courts ("Developing
Statewide Performance Measures for Drug Courts," Statewide
Technical Assistance Bulletin 2 [October 2004]).
Ms. Wilson used a listserv to ask fellow state-level
drug court coordinators to provide information about
such activities in their states. Responses were entirely
voluntary and cannot be assumed to be representative of
such activities in all states. Nonetheless, 11 states
reported a great deal of activity: California, Florida,
Idaho, Ohio, Louisiana, Missouri, Nevada, New Mexico,
Oklahoma, Texas, and Virginia.
Statewide Data Collection Activity
A noticeable trend involved using technology for
collecting data and measuring performance. For example,
Florida, Ohio, California, Missouri, and Louisiana
developed Web-based tools for data collection, and
Idaho, Kentucky, Missouri, and Virginia developed
statewide drug court management information systems.
- Idaho
is developing a statewide data repository for
reporting and evaluation. Through a separate
Web-based system, all drug and mental health courts
provide a monthly, standard report of numbers
screened, admitted, graduated, and otherwise
terminated, plus selected key outcome indicator
data.
- Kentucky
is enhancing the statewide drug court case
management system to collect individual, aggregate,
and statistical information.
- Missouri began
using the Treatment Court Data Collection
System, a Web-based, intranet system of
reporting, in 2004. Standardized definitions of drug
court terminology were developed as part of this
process.
- Ohio
developed a statewide, centralized, and online
collection of performance data for drug court
programs for reporting to funders.
- Virginia
developed a statewide management information system
for its drug court programs using an Access-based PC
system to collect drug court performance measurement
data.
Statewide
Evaluation Activity
Some states, such as Florida, are planning evaluations
but have yet to conduct them. Several states are
conducting statewide drug court evaluations in phases.
- Idaho, in phase 1 of its
evaluation, looked at outcomes in its first two drug
courts (2003); in phase 2, the state conducted
process evaluations of all 38 drug courts (2003).
Phase 3, to be completed in 2006, is an outcome
evaluation of all adult felony courts.
- California completed phase 1 of a
drug court cost study in 2002, and phase 2 focused
on an additional six courts and will be finished
this year. Phase 3 will include a pilot test and
rollout of an electronic self-evaluation tool for
courts to use to conduct annual cost analyses.
- Virginia completed phase 1 of a
statewide drug court evaluation in December 2004 and
included a process evaluation of adult, juvenile,
and family drug court participants and an outcome
evaluation reporting recidivism rates, retention
rates, and pre-drug-court offense chronicity and
severity. Five other drug court evaluations are
planned for 2005: (1) a quasi-experimental impact
study comparing drug court results with the outcomes
of drug offenders in matched control groups; (2) a
qualitative staff evaluation; (3) a Delphi study of
drug court treatment components; (4) a cost-benefit
study; and (5) a qualitative participant analysis.
Other evaluations could be described as one-shot or
periodic reevaluations.
- Kentucky has conducted process
evaluations of all its drug court programs and
periodically conducts multisite outcome evaluations
(previously in 2001 and 2004).
- Oklahoma conducted a process and
outcome evaluation examining data collected during
FY 2002-04.
- California completed an interim
evaluation of its drug courts (2004), which
contained elements of both process and outcome
evaluations, to be followed by a final report.
|
|
|
