CACC – California Association of Collaborative Courts
Adult Drug Court Research
- NADCP Research Update on Adult Drug Courts, click here
- Addressing Family Needs in Adult Drug Court
The research is clear that participants come to drug court with a myriad of family concerns and strengths. If it is desirable for drug court participants to take full advantage and maximize their experience, then it is crucial to be cognizant of the strengths and areas for development. If family members and children do not have the basic necessities of food, shelter and health, the ability of the drug court participant to take full advantage and be successful in drug court is limited. In response to these factors, the Family Strengths and Needs Survey was developed and piloted at several different drug court sites in Montana. During this session, attendees will learn about the Family Strengths and Needs Survey instrument and how it has aided drug court coordinators, and other members of the drug court team, to screen for the needs and identify strengths of the drug court participant’s family members and children. The panelists will engage in a discussion with attendees on lessons learned during this pilot project as well as provide a brief evaluation of the successful implementation and the increase of family focused resources. Click here to review power point presentation.
- California Drug Courts: Outcomes, Costs and Promising Practices:
An Overview of Phase II in a Statewide Study by Shannon M. Carey, Ph.D.; Michael Finigan, Ph.D.; Dave Crumpton, M.P.P. & Mark Waller, B.S.
Abstract — The rapid expansion of drug courts in California and the state’s uncertain fiscal climate highlighted the need for definitive cost information on drug court programs. This study focused on creating a research design that can be utilized for statewide and national cost-assessment of drug courts by conducting in-depth case studies of the costs and benefits in nine adult drug courts in California. A Transactional Institutional Costs Analysis (TICA) approach was used, allowing researchers to calculate costs based on every individual’s transactions within the drug court or the traditional criminal justice system. This methodology also allows the calculation of costs and benefits by agency (e.g., Public Defender’s office, court, District Attorney). Results in the nine sites showed that the majority of agencies save money in processing an offender though drug court. Overall, for these nine study sites, participation in drug court saved the state over $9 million in criminal justice and treatment costs due to lower recidivism in drug court participants. Based on the lessons learned in Phases I and II, Phase III of this study focuses on the creation of a web-based drug court cost self-evaluation tool (DC-CSET) that drug courts can use to determine their own costs and benefits. Learn more…
- San Francisco Drug Court Cost Study Fact Sheet by NPC Research
The following statistics are part of a multi-site evaluation of the costs and benefits of California’s drug courts. This fact sheet is a component of Phase III, statewide launch phase, of a research effort to develop a statewide methodology for assessing the benefits and costs of drug courts in the State of California. The aim of this effort is to produce a validated methodology to conduct inexpensive cost-benefit studies on an ongoing basis of drug courts throughout the state. As a part of this effort, a web-based tool was created – the Drug Court Cost Self-Evaluation Tool (DC-CSET) – which drug courts statewide can use to help determine their own costs and benefits. To view this Fact Sheet, click here… For more information on this study and other drug court studies go to NPC Research and to the California Administrative Office of the Courts.
- NIJ’s Multi-site Adult Drug Court Evaluation – – – Description of the Evaluation
This five-year longitudinal process, impact and cost evaluation of adult treatment drug court programs employed a hierarchical model and sampled nearly 1,800 drug court and non-drug-court probationers from 29 rural, suburban and urban jurisdictions across the United States. The sample includes 23 drug courts and six comparison groups in eight states: Florida, Georgia, Illinois, New York, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, South Carolina and Washington. Read the full report.
The California Association of Collaborative Courts (CACC) makes every effort to provide accurate information at this website; however, inaccuracies and outdated information may be found here on occasion. External sites are responsible for their own content; CACC accepts no responsibility for information found at other sites to which we are linked.