Drug use has become an epidemic in our nation, filling our jails and prisons with nonviolent offenders. Studies have shown that adult drug courts are a good alternative to the prison system by being successful in reducing recidivism and long term costs. To date, however, few studies have looked specifically at the effectiveness of juvenile drug courts and their cost effectiveness. Further, the possible benefits of lower attrition rate and cost benefit are being overshadowed by the low attrition rate among juvenile drug court participants. Nearly half of all juvenile drug court participants do not complete the juvenile drug court program. Additionally, studies have shown that juvenile participants who do graduate have lower attrition rates and other benefits. Due to the benefits of juveniles who graduate from a juvenile drug court program, understanding the difference between those who graduate and those who do not can add significant understanding on how juvenile drug courts can be modified in order to help juveniles successfully graduate from the drug court program. This study will shed light on specific pre-drug court demographics and behaviors that were different among juveniles who successfully graduate and those who are unsuccessful in graduating from the juvenile drug court program. The Idaho Supreme Court, which oversees the JDC program in Idaho, collaborated in this effort by providing a statewide juvenile drug court data set, drawn from the Idaho Statewide Trial Court Automated System (ISTARS). The data set included all information that was gathered for drug court participants during the January 2004 - December 2005 period, for who had completed the program either successfully or unsuccessfully. Subsequent analysis of the data clarified the difference between groups of those who graduated and those who did not graduate, specifically that a significant difference was found between groups in the following characteristics: gender, school attendance, and in-treatment drug tests.

No description available.

Over the past three decades, the United States criminal justice system and mental health treatment providers have collaborated in ways to support more than 20.3 million individuals who are struggling with a substance use disorder (SUD), and who may also be facing drug-related offenses due to their ongoing challenges combatting addiction. Through collaborative efforts we have been fortunate to witness the establishment of adult drug treatment courts, as well as other problem-solving court processes. With more than 1,500 active adult drug treatment court programs in this country, there is a critical need to better understand the working alliance between counselors and clients who have been mandated to receive SUD treatment. Adult drug treatment court programs have been shown to have discrepant success outcomes (8% to 80%) in terms of reducing criminal recidivism; moreover, the existing literature examining the lived experiences of participants in these programs is both minimal and disheartening. This lack of empirical data is problematic for the counseling profession given that they serve as key change agents in this process. What we do know is that the process of creating treatment goal and modalities, which should be in the hands of the clients and their counselors, can be complicated by court-mandated requirements. This bi-level structure has the potential to create ruptures in the working alliance between clients and counselors providing SUD treatment to this population. Accordingly, additional research is needed to explore the client experience within the working alliance, and in so doing reveal the influences at play when working with clients who are mandated to receive SUD treatment. This qualitative study was guided by one central research question: How do clients experience the working alliance with counselors during drug court-mandated addictions treatment? Interview data from eight individuals in court-mandated SUD treatment led to the development of a constructivist grounded theory model: From compliance to alliance: A grounded theory of building rapport in mandated treatment. This model and it's components describe and define key factors when working with this population. More research is needed to understand counselors' perspectives of the working alliance with court-mandated clients. / Doctor of Philosophy / With more than 1,500 active drug court programs throughout the United States, there is a pressing need to better understand the working alliance between counselors and clients who have been mandated to receive SUD treatment. While adult drug treatment court programs have been shown to have positive outcomes in terms of reducing criminal recidivism, the existing literature examining the participants' lived experiences receiving SUD treatment is minimal and disheartening. Due to the nature of the mandated treatment relationship, the confidentiality which has historically bound and secured the therapeutic working alliance is less defined than it is in fully voluntary treatment settings. This shift in understanding what creates a healthy working alliance for mandated clients to work through presenting treatment issues is something that has yet to be explored by current research. The current study sought to explore clients' experiences of the working alliance with counselors during drug court-mandated addictions treatment. Interview data from eight individuals in court-mandated SUD treatment led to the development of a constructivist grounded theory model: From compliance to alliance: A grounded theory of building rapport in mandated treatment. This model and it's components describe and define key factors when working with this population. More research is needed to understand counselors' perspectives of the working alliance with court-mandated clients.

The purpose of this study was to examine the influence of psychosocial factors on drug court graduation among a medication assisted treatment drug court population. The extant research identifies drug courts as effective in reducing recidivism and relapse rates; however meta-analyses of the drug court literature reveal that there is little explanation as to why drug courts are effectual and especially for whom. This study examined trauma, mental health, and social support to determine predictive psychosocial factors of drug court participants while controlling for certain demographics. The analyses showed that social support was predictive, but failed to identify trauma or mental health correlates. Policy implications are discussed.

The association between drug court clients’ pro-drug and pro-recovery social context at multiple ecological levels, and phase of recovery was assessed, and gender comparisons were evaluated. Drug courts provide alternatives to incarceration for substance abusing offenders, providing treatment within clients’ social environments. The findings indicated that social context is associated with recovery, and that this relation differs by gender. Specifically, increased favorable attitudes toward drug use among social referents were associated with men being in an earlier phase of recovery and women being in a later phase of recovery. Furthermore, perceived encouragement to use drugs was associated with being in earlier phases of recovery, while positive outcome beliefs related to recovery were associated with being in later phases of recovery. Therefore, drug courts may lead to positive long-term outcomes, as social context can be addressed during the recovery process. Additionally, these courts might benefit from incorporating gender-specific components into treatment.

Background: Parental substance use puts children at risk for poor outcomes. Estimates indicate that 66% of substantiated cases of maltreatment are of parents with substance use disorders (SUD). Some parents with SUD have the opportunity to be treated through two accountability courts including Drug Courts (DC) and family treatment courts (FTC). Purpose: Little is known about the children of parents who participate in treatment through DC’s via the criminal justice system. This study examined differences in parents and their children who receive treatment through FTC’s and DC’s with the notion that DC’s could serve as an important treatment venue for improving child outcomes, which is a major focus of FTCs. Methods: The data used for these analyses are the baseline data of a quasi-experimental study involving two DC’s and two FTC’s across Georgia. The intervention included the implementation of evidence-based parenting and trauma services at one drug court and at one family treatment court, while the other courts served as controls. At each court, participants, one other caregiver, and one child were invited to participate in the project by completing an annual assessment. This included computerized surveys and a videotaped play and talking activity with each adult with the child. Measures included demographics, parenting behaviors, mental health measures, social support, and child mental health measures. All data used in the analyses were collected at baseline and thus prior to intervention. Participants were 80 DC triads and 25 FTC triads (DCP, another caregiver, and child). Results: Compared to DC, FTC clients were more likely to be female (p = p = p =.014). They also had younger children (p = .05) and were more likely to have custody of those children (p =.0015). Parents in FTCs compared to those in DC reported greater social support (p =.05) and better family functioning (p =.03). Parents in DCs reported poorer parental involvement and poorer monitoring of children than FTCs, but no differences in positive parenting (p =.13), inconsistent discipline (p =.27), or child abuse potential (total risk > 9, p =.42; total risk >12, p =.37). Regarding mental health, DC clients reported a greater number of symptoms or poor mental health than FTC. No differences were found for education level (p =.96), parent-child communication skills (p =.38), post-traumatic stress symptom severity (p =.62), or child behavior problems. Conclusion: These data show some differences between FTC participants and DC participants that can affect child outcomes. FTC parents were more involved in their children’s lives and DC parents had greater mental health problems that could interfere with parenting. Interventions are needed, especially for DC client to strengthen the parent-child relationship and improve parenting outcomes.

A significant amount of adolescents are involved in the drug court system. Within a few of the systems are mental health clinics providing more specific services to youth introduced into the courts. At the Rhode Island Family Court, juveniles are referred for full mental health evaluations in the court mental health clinic. They are then referred for other services depending on the outcome of the evaluation. The purpose of this study is to provide a descriptive analysis of the drug use of these youth referred to the mental health clinic. Because little is known about the about the affects of a substance use disorder diagnosis on incarceration and grade repetition, an analysis was done to determine if any associations were present. After accounting for mental health diagnosis and demographic variables, an association between substance use disorder and incarceration within 3 months of the mental health evaluation was found. There was no significant association between a substance use disorder diagnosis and grade repetition in school.

Women comprise one of the fastest growing populations of the criminal justice system, yet little research exists concerning the success of these women completing a coed pretrial drug court diversion program. Trauma theory was applied to inform the variables in this quantitative correlational study. The predictive nature of age, educational level, marital status, violent criminal history, and mental health problems for women were examined in relation to completion of a coed pretrial drug court diversion program. A convenience sample from secondary, archival data was obtained from a criminal justice agency in Washington, DC. The dataset included women who participated in the program between January 1, 2009 and December 31, 2014. Logistic regression models were used to predict the likelihood of whether these women completed drug court and determine which independent variables were likely to increase or decrease the probability of program completion. Results of the study failed to yield statistically significant relationships between the variables examined. However, the findings indicate possible relationships between marriage and drug court completion, and postsecondary education and drug court completion, which require additional research. Implications for positive social change are drawn for other criminal justice agencies, drug courts, and administrators for enhancing program delivery and reducing women's recidivism.

Drug offenders continue to cost citizens and governments money, while drug courts attempt to rehabilitate offenders and reduce recidivism. The Level of Service Inventory-Revised (LSI-R) is a risk assessment tool used by courts and probation offices to determine needs and risks of offenders, and often determine levels of supervision. The purpose of this quasi experimental study was to determine if there is a statistically significant association between the initial LSI-R scores of offenders entering drug courts and their successful completion of the drug court program. Therapeutic jurisprudence theory, the theoretical framework for this study, suggests that the courts and the law are therapeutic to people and that drug treatment will promote positive behavior changes for the offenders. Data for this study were acquired from a database provided by a Kansas drug court, including initial LSI-R scores, completion records, and demographics of 210 drug court participants. A one-way ANOVA was used to test the hypotheses. Significant statistical results were found, indicating that drug court success was positively associated with the LSI-R score. The study may lead to social change by providing information about participants, most likely to benefit from drug court programs, which will save governments money and make room in the programs for more successful candidates, thus producing more productive citizens in the community.

No description available.