Search results

Purpose – This study tracks the legal control of the problem of substance abuse.

Methodology/Approach – The chapter explores the “natural history” of the evolution of the social construction of drug use and our collective response to it. Over the past 100 years, our understanding of drug use/abuse and the system for handling drug problems have gone through a series of changes. In the past 20 years or so, provision of treatment for drug offenders within the criminal justice system has rapidly expanded. California's recently enacted Proposition 36 (Prop 36) initiates for the first time on a mass basis the court-supervised drug treatment that began a decade earlier on a much smaller scale with the original drug courts. This chapter compares the Prop 36 program for diverting nonviolent drug offenders into court-supervised treatment with the original drug courts.

Findings – The research shows how court-supervised drug treatment has evolved from a personalized care program in the original drug courts to a mass processing operation under Prop 36. The research finds that the social problem solution of offering treatment to more drug defendants created its own unanticipated consequences and problems, including significant standardization in the operations of the court and a dilution of many useful features that defined the early drug courts.

Practical implications – “Farming out” drug defendants to probation and treatment makes case-processing and treatment potentially less effective therapeutically. The chapter raises questions about how social control can extend its domain without “breaking the bank” and what the consequences are for how social problems are handled.

Purpose – Since the mid-20th century, drug addiction in America has increasingly been redefined as a disease and diagnosed as a widespread yet treatable disorder. The idiosyncrasies of addiction as a disease, however, have tended to block the journey of the addict from stigmatized moral failure to therapeutic reprieve. Centering in on the process of the “court-led diagnosis” of addiction, this qualitative case study uses ethnography and interviewing at a county drug court and one of its “partner” therapeutic communities to examine the process in detail, from the first negotiations between treatment and court personnel over the eligibility of the client, to the gradual inculcation of an addict identity by means of intensive cognitive education and behavioral modification.

Methodology/approach – Qualitative: ethnography and interviews.

Findings – We demonstrate that a shift from moral judgment to therapeutic sympathy is particularly unlikely for the fast-growing mass of criminal offenders whose diagnosis is spearheaded by the state in the form of the therapeutic jurisprudence of the drug court. For this group, the emphasis on the need for comprehensive resocialization and the close cooperation between the intimacies of therapeutic “rehab” and the strong arm of criminal justice “backup” not only maintains, but intensifies, moral tutelage, and stigmatization.

Social implications – The convergence of drug treatment and criminal justice tends to produce yet another stigmatizing biologization of poverty and race, lending scientific validity to new forms of criminalizing and medicalizing social hardship.

Peter French has worked as a police officer and chief inspector for over 30 years. His experience in dealing with drug‐related crimes and a recent visit to the States has convinced him that the UK needs more, not less, criminal justice interventions. Drug Courts, he argues, increase treatment retention and offer greater flexibility to help people stay the course. Though they work for the US, with up to 75% success rates, will they work for the UK? Find out why Peter French thinks they will, with bells on.

Purpose – The purpose of this study is to examine how staff contributes to the operations of an adult drug court and, more critically, how staff produces client failure. Previous drug court researchers often attribute outcomes to the characteristics or the behaviors of the clients or to the program design, not to the actions of the staff.

Methodology – This study is based on extensive field research in three drug courts over a 4-year period. We observed both public and less public drug court events from the court event to staff meetings.

Findings – The key finding is that staff produces program failures. Within the policies and procedures of their programs, using their professional belief systems, and in interaction with a range of others to manage the demands of their position, staff produces the outcomes.

Limitations – As with other ethnographies, the generalizability of the exact processes may be limited. The core finding that the staff actively creates outcome decisions is a fundamental process that we believe occurs in any drug court or, more widely, problem-solving courts.

Implications – The practical implications of this research are in the illustrations of how staff matter, which we hope will spur others into examinations of staff actions.

Originality – Previous research ignores staff or treats them as mere extension program policies. The in-depth examination of staff behavior provides a unique and valuable examination of how much is lost by ignoring the staff judgments, perceptions, and actions.

Drug Treatment Courts (DTCs) offer a form of alternative sentencing for people who have been convicted of a crime related to drug or alcohol abuse. The work of rehabilitation in DTCs is client-centered, meaning that it takes into account all of the client’s needs that affect their life in regards to completion of the program and rehabilitation. DTCs employ teams of people made up of judges, lawyers, educators, clinicians, and community supervisors. There are specific ways that librarians might become involved with DTCs regarding both literacy and, more specifically, health literacy. Existing programs could be adapted to solve common health literacy problems of participants, and librarians could also forge relationships with DTCs. Training for librarians should include education about the health and literacy problems faced by this population so they can successfully connect DTC participants with people and information that will contribute to their success completing the program and building healthier lives. This chapter looks to established best practices within DTCs and to some current related programs within public libraries to find grounds for expanding services to this population.

The purpose of this research is to considers the degree to which drug courts (DCs) in New South Wales (NSW) adhere to the ten key components (TKCs), which were developed by the National Association of Drug Court Professionals, as a model practice for implementing DCs.

This study relied upon semi-structured interviews conducted with 21 professionals who work in the DC field from NSW. The sample represented various stakeholders responsible for the delivery of drug court programs (DCPs) in NSW. A qualitative analysis was conducted, this analysis uncovered practices adopted by the DC that go beyond those that were standardised in the closed-ended questions but nevertheless fell within the TKCs. The qualitative analyses added weight to the results determined by the descriptive statistics.

The results confirm that DCs in NSW adhere to the TKCs that describe successful DCPs internationally. In spite of this, several key components accomplished higher adherence rates than others. What can be said is that over 60% of the component’s benchmarks achieved the 80% target determined by the writer.

The key components that have lower adherence rates are anticipated and must not be interpreted as undesirable results. DCs are encouraged to modify their programme characteristics to ensure further adherence to the specified benchmarks. To this extent, high regard is given to the practices adopted and identified through the qualitative data analysis.

The recommendations made to DCs in NSW are consistent with implementing model DCPs as defined by the National Association of Drug Court Professionals in 1997.

The TKCs are fundamentally standards for implementation and open an opportunity for discussion and are open for opportunity and examination. In theory and practice, each DC may interpret and implement the TKCs differently. In this regard, there is value in gaining an appreciation of pw DCs are interpreting the TKCs and applying them. It is business as usual at DCs; however, this research has demonstrated that there is no lack of innovation when it comes to DC in NSW implementing the TKCs.

One of the greatest challenges for drug regulation is valid, comprehensive surveillance of drugs after they reach the pharmaceutical market. The purpose of this paper is to propose a new method of individual and aggregate-level postmarket surveillance using data previously (and continuously) collected by drug courts, which are in operation in nearly every geographic corner of the USA.

To determine the feasibility of such an undertaking, data were obtained from an urban, southern county drug court. Intake data included all participants from September 2012 to November 2013. The final sample included 532 drug court participants.

Intake data were found to include various demographic variables, measures of drug use, and various sociological/criminological variables such as familial and social support, church attendance, and other pertinent variables for studying drug use and crime trends generally.

By using intake data from drug courts in a manner similar to Uniform Crime Report or National Incident-Based Reporting System, this could add greatly to the understanding of crime and drug use.

The authors purport that a data management system of drug court intake data could provide a cost-efficient and generalizable representation of drug use of those within the criminal justice system.

Many efforts have been employed in an attempt to better ascertain where high rates of drug use occur. By using drug courts as more than just a system of treatment, postmarketing surveillance could be improved.

Problem solving courts are a result of the therapeutic jurisprudence movement. Drug treatment courts (DTCs), for instance, aim to divert substance using offenders away from the criminal justice system (CJS) to (drug) treatment services. DTCs are associated with reduced criminal offending and substance use. Psychosocial outcomes of DTCs, such as employment, health and family relations, received only little attention. The paper aims to discuss these issues.

This paper focuses on the outcomes regarding substance use and psychosocial variables of a Belgian DTC situated in the Ghent region, which were investigated by a naturalistic evaluation study with a pre- post-design using judicial files.

The results show that Ghent DTC clients were diverted to drug treatment and financial counselling services. Next the Ghent DTC produced beneficial outcomes regarding employment. Contrary to criminal offending (De Keulenaer and Thomaes, 2013), substance use was not significantly reduced in the Ghent DTC sample. Yet more compliance with opioid maintenance treatment was observed. Information on more client centred outcomes such as health and social relations was lacking, precluding a full outcome measurement of psychosocial variables.

Future DTC studies should address more client centreed outcomes by gathering information through DTC clients and treatment services instead of solely relying on judicial data sources. In addition, DTCs should develop a clear and uniform registration system regarding these outcomes.

Since the therapeutic jurisprudence movement continues to expand, discussion regarding the roles and tasks of the CJS as well as treatment and counselling services is vital. Each actor should maintain its own role and task, regarding monitoring and substantive work, to insure a “problem solving approach” that is in line with the recovery philosophy.

Recent political commentary in the USA has suggested that there is great potential for current criminal justice practices designed for drug-involved offenders to be significantly overhauled in the near future. It is imperative to plan for these changes by assessing how well current programs serve drug-involved criminal justice populations. The paper aims to discuss these issues.

This critical assessment begins with an overview of the most recent research on the prevalence and impact that substance use disorders have within the criminal justice system. Although the evidence demonstrates that relying on incarceration as a crime control method for drug-involved offenders has many shortcomings, there are innovative new programs being adopted across the country. Two of these promising programs are discussed, as well as the potential results that could be realized from integrating medication assisted treatment into appropriate criminal justice programs designed for drug-involved offenders.

Incarceration is a failed practice for attending to the underlying reasons why many drug-involved offenders become involved in criminal activities. There are encouraging new programs emerging in different parts of the USA, but the inclusion of supplemental treatment options could further promote positive outcomes.

The impending expansion of criminal justice programs for drug-involved offenders must consider how innovative new programs can be fused with supplemental treatment options to achieve the best results.