DOCSLIB.ORG

Drug Court: a Therapeutic Alternative to Incarceration

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Drug Court: a Therapeutic Alternative to Incarceration The Review: A Journal of Undergraduate Student Research Volume 5 Article 6 2002 Drug Court: A Therapeutic Alternative to Incarceration Brian Lagenfeld St. John Fisher College, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://fisherpub.sjfc.edu/ur Part of the Social and Behavioral Sciences Commons How has open access to Fisher Digital Publications benefited ou?y Recommended Citation Lagenfeld, Brian. "Drug Court: A Therapeutic Alternative to Incarceration." The Review: A Journal of Undergraduate Student Research 5 (2002): 33-56. Web. [date of access]. <https://fisherpub.sjfc.edu/ur/ vol5/iss1/6>. This document is posted at https://fisherpub.sjfc.edu/ur/vol5/iss1/6 and is brought to you for free and open access by Fisher Digital Publications at St. John Fisher College. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Drug Court: A Therapeutic Alternative to Incarceration Abstract In lieu of an abstract, below is the essay's first paragraph. In the United States, there is a significant drug problem affecting millions directly and countless others indirectly. Drug use and drug-related crime have been on the rise for decades. The government has attempted numerous programs and policies, even declaring a "war on drugs." None of these programs have been effective, as evident in the fact that drug use has continued to rise. Drug use and drug-related crime have caused a number of problems for the United States. The most detrimental are the loss of life and deterioration of the very fundamentals that make up our society. This deterioration includes rising crime rates, the breakup of neighborhoods, and dysfunction in families. Other problems include the overcrowding of prisons, rising health costs, and ineffective government policies such as wasting money on unsuccessful programs. This article is available in The Review: A Journal of Undergraduate Student Research: https://fisherpub.sjfc.edu/ur/ vol5/iss1/6 Lagenfeld: Drug Court e Drug Court: A Therapeutic Alternative to Incarceration by Brian Langenfeld e "Evet)' ten minutes, the United States to infer whether a particular sentence or government spends $365,000 in the war on program is effective in deterring crime. dmgs. "(Morrell, I) Over the past two decades, while sentences have been getting more rigid, In the United States, there is a significant there has been a movement taking an drug problem affecting millions directly and alternative approach to incarceration and nd countless others indirectly. Drug use and harsher sentences. Known as therapeutic drug-related crime have been on the rise for jurisprudence, this theory focuses on solving decades. The government has attempted the root of the problem: the offender's numerous programs and policies, even addiction. By curing the underlying declaring a "war on drugs." None of these problem, the individual will be punished for and programs have been effective, as evident in their crime, be cured of hi s or her addiction, the fact that drug use has continued to rise. and reintegrate and become a contributing Drug use and drug-related crime have member of society. The most successful of caused a number of problems for the United these therapeutic jurisprudence alternatives 14). States. The most detrimental are the loss of is drug treatment court. Drug court is a :em life and deterioration of the very program in which offenders charged with a fundamentals that make up our society. This non-violent, drug-related crime must meet y, deterioration includes rising crime rates, the certain requirements such as staying drug­ breakup of neighborhoods, and dysfunction free for a year, receiving a high school in families. Other problems include the diploma or GED, and being employed. By overcrowding of prisons, ri sing health costs, meeting these requirements, the offender and ineffective government policies such as avoids jail time. The purpose of drug courts wasting money on unsuccessful programs. is to attempt to cure the offender's addiction, Until recently, the government's thereby avoiding higher incarceration rates response to the drug problem has been to and preventing future crime. increase the sentences of individuals This study will focus on therapeutic convicted of a drug-related crime. One such jurisprudence as a framework and drug court example is the Rockefeller Drug Laws in as the most successful alternative program New York State. Other examples include within it. The study will include a mandatory minimums and extended discussion of the drug problem, its history, maximum sentences. According to the and the alternatives to solving the problem. statistics, harsher sentences have not been To illustrate the benefits and success, a case effective in deterring drug-related crime. study of the Rochester Drug Court will be One of the most significant measurements to undertaken to show the success of the drug determine the success of reducing crime is court movement. recidivism, or the rate at which an individual commits a crime after prior conviction. By examining the recidivism rate, it is possible 33 Published by Fisher Digital Publications, 2002 1 The Review: A Journal of Undergraduate Student Research, Vol. 5 [2002], Art. 6 Part I: Literature Review and Theoretical More than four-fifths of these violations are Considerations for possession. (U.S. DOJ Enforcement The issue of drugs in the criminal 200 I, l ). This arrest total does not include justice system and alternatives to the number of individuals arrested for other incarceration have been found in the crimes while under the influence of drugs or criminal justice literature since the early committing crimes to sustain their habit (Sec I 980's. The literature focuses on a number Figure I, Figure 2, and Table 1). of topics, among them the increase in drug use and arrest, the ineffectiveness of harsher sentences, and alternatives to incarceration. Drug abuse violation arrests, 1980-99 One of the primary arguments in the Millions literature is the success and viability of alternatives to incarceration, which will be 1.5 discussed later on. The drug problem in the United 1.0 States is well documented and has been plaguing this nation (or years. According to 0.5 one survey, 10.8% o[Americans have used Imagine That: 0.0 The Gender of War Rhetoric and 1980 1985 1990 1995 1999 Conceptual Complications an illegal drug in the past year, and 72 million Americans over Figure I the age of twelve have used illegal drugs at some point in their lives (Simmons 2). A 1997 survey of state and federal inmates Number of arrests, by type of drug law reports that 51 % (over 570,000 inmates) violations, 1982.a9 reported using drugs or alcohol while 1,500,000 committing their offense. Additionally, 75% of all prisoners abused drugs or alcohol 1,000,000 prior to their conviction (Grangetto 4). Between 1980 and 1998, the number of arrests nationally increased from 10,441,000 500,000 to 14,528,300, a jump of over 40% (Belenko 2). During this time, the number of arrests for drug-related crimes (sale, distribution, 0 1982 1986 1990 1994 1998 and possession) increased by 168% from 580,900 to l ,559,100 in 2000 (Belenko 2). From 1980 to 1996, the number of Figure 2 incarcerated drug offenders increased by 1,500% (Grangetto 4). According to the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports, there were Source for Figures I and 2: FBI, Uniform Crime 1,532,200 state and local arrests in 1999 for Reports, Crime in the United States annually. drug abuse violations (unlawful possession, sale, use, growing, manufacturing, and making narcotic drugs, and dangerous non­ narcotic drugs) in the United States in 1999. 34 https://fisherpub.sjfc.edu/ur/vol5/iss1/6 2 Lagenfeld: Drug Court s are Table I ment Estimated totals of top 7 arrest offenses. United The Cost of Drug Use :lude States. 1999 The cost of drug abuse to society is other staggering. It is estimated that the economic Tvpe of Arrest Number of Arrests gs or cost of drug abuse is over $ I I 0 bi 11 ion each (Sec year (Simmons I). Part of this expense is Total Arrests 14,031 ,100 Drug Abuse Violations 1,532,200 seen in increased health care costs, unsafe Dnving Under the Influence 1,5 11 ,300 neighborhoods, and an overburdened Simple Assaults l ,294,400 criminal justice system (Simmons I). Larceny/theft 1,189,400 Additionally, drug abuse has a dramatic Drunkenness 656,100 Disorderly Conduct 633,100 effect on the ultimate cost, human life. Liquor laws 657,900 There are over 9,300 deaths each year among individuals who use drugs (Simmons Source: FBI, Unifom1 Crime Reports, Crime in the 1. The cost can also be seen specifically Uniled Slales Annually within the criminal justice system. According to one scholar, "The drug Often the person arrested is under the problem places a tremendous burden on the influence of drugs upon apprehension, system including the overcrowding of resulting in an additional problem. The correctional facilities, resources the police 19 National Institute of Justice reports that the and prosecutors have to dedicate, and the percentage of men testing positive for drugs struggle of the courts to meet their caseload" at the time of their arrest range from 57% to (Feinblatt 1). The amount the federal 82%, while the percentage of women ranged government spends on drug control has from 35% to 83% ("Development in Law" increased from $1.5 billion in 198 1 to $18 llW 2). The statistics indicate the depth of the billion in 2000 (Curtin 2). It is also problem. estimated that drug users spend more than Many drug arrests involve crimes that $ 150 billion a year purchasing drugs (Curtin are non-violent. Many non-violent 2). Table two below illustrates the Federal offenders become a long term recurring drug control budget.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Supporting the Drug Court Process: What You Need to Know For
    U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Assistance Supporting the Drug Court Process:What You Need To Know for Effective Decisionmaking MONOGRAPHand Program Evaluation F EBRUARY 2003 SEARCH, The National Consortium for Justice Information and Statistics U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs 810 Seventh Street NW. Washington, DC 20531 John Ashcroft Attorney General Deborah J. Daniels Assistant Attorney General Richard R. Nedelkoff Director, Bureau of Justice Assistance Office of Justice Programs Home Page www.ojp.usdoj.gov Bureau of Justice Assistance Home Page www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA NCJ 197259 This document was prepared by SEARCH,The National Consortium for Justice Information and Statistics, under the Drug Court Training and Technical Assistance Program, under grant number 98–MU–VX–K017, awarded by the Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. The opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. The Bureau of Justice Assistance is a component of the Office of Justice Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the National Institute of Justice, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, and the Office for Victims of Crime. Notice n November 2002, the Bureau of Justice Assistance I Bureau of Justice 810 Seventh Street NW. Assistance (BJA) Washington, DC 20531 assumed responsibility Telephone: (202) 616–5001 for administering the Drug Court Grant Fax: (202) 514–6452 Program and the Drug Court Training and E-mail: [email protected] Technical Assistance Program.
    [Show full text]
  • 2008 Idaho Felony Drug Court Outcome Evaluation Report
    An Examination of Idaho’s Felony Drug Courts: Findings and Recommendations FINAL REPORT Shelley Johnson Listwan, Ph.D. Institute for the Study and Prevention of Violence Department of Justice Studies Kent State University James Borowiak, M.A. Department of Justice Studies Kent State University & Edward J. Latessa, Ph.D. Center for Criminal Justice Research Division of Criminal Justice University of Cincinnati August 2008 ______________________________________________ This report was supported through a grant from the Idaho Supreme Court & the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (CFDA 93.243). Views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of either funding agency. Table of Contents Acknowledgements………………………………………………………………………………3 List of Exhibits…………………………………………………………………………………...4 Section I. Overview………………...………………………………………………………10 Section II. Organizational Issues & Needs ………………………………………………..14 Methodology…………………………………………………………………….14 Sample…………………………………………………………………………...14 Court Descriptions……………………………………………………………...16 Results…………………………………………………………………………...23 Summary………………………………………………………………………...39 Section III. Statewide Outcome Evaluation Results……………………………………….41 Methodology…………………………………………………………………….41 Sample…………………………………………………………………………...41 Measures………………………………………………………………………...45 Analysis………………………………………………………………………….47 Results…………………………………………………………………………...47 Summary………………………………………………………………………..74 Section IV. GRPA Data Summary………………………………………………………….77 Methodology…………………………………………………………………….78
    [Show full text]
  • Western Judicial Circuit Felony Drug Court
    Western Judicial Circuit Felony Drug Court (Athens-Clarke and Oconee Counties) PARTICIPANT HANDBOOK This handbook belongs to: 325 E. Washington Street, Suite 210 Athens, Georgia 30601 (706) 208-7078 (706) 613-3179 (fax) Table of Contents Welcome 3 Overview 4-5 Confidentiality 5 Treatment 5 Program Phases 6-10 Commencement 11 Program Rules 12-14 Program Fees 15 The Drug Court Team 15 Staffings 15 Court Appearances 16 Incentives 17 Sanctions and Treatment Responses 17 Termination 18 Drug/Chemical Testing 19 Prohibited Drugs/Permitted Medications 20-27 Travel/Leave Requests 27 Compliance & Home Visits/Job Checks, Searches 28 Search Requirements 28 Commencement Ceremony 29 Conclusion 29 Important Phone Numbers 30 Community Resources 31 Attachment I: Random Drug Screen Policy Attachment II: Urine Abstinence Testing/Incidental Alcohol Exposure Contract (original signed copy on file with Felony Drug Court) Attachment III: Emergency On-call Telephone Policy Attachment IV: Felony Drug Court Contract 2 Welcome to the Western Judicial Circuit Felony Drug Court! This Handbook was designed to answer your questions and provide specific information about what you must do in order to successfully complete the requirements of the Western Judicial Circuit Felony Drug Court Program. As a participant, you are expected to follow the instructions found in this Handbook, as well as the instructions of the Felony Drug Court Judge, Staff, and Treatment Provider. You will also be expected to comply with the treatment plan developed for you by your Treatment Provider. This handbook is not exhaustive and there is no possible way to make it complete and detailed to answer every question or situation that arises.
    [Show full text]
  • Retrospective Evaluation of Drug Courts in Clark County (Las Vegas) and Multnomah County (Portland)
    The author(s) shown below used Federal funds provided by the U.S. Department of Justice and prepared the following final report: Document Title: From Whether to How Drug Courts Work: Retrospective Evaluation of Drug Courts in Clark County (Las Vegas) and Multnomah County (Portland) Author(s): John S. Goldkamp ; Michael D. White ; Jennifer B. Robinson Document No.: 194124 Date Received: 05/05/2002 Award Number: 98-DC-VX-K001 This report has not been published by the U.S. Department of Justice. To provide better customer service, NCJRS has made this Federally- funded 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. R CRIME AND JUSTICE RESEARCHINSTITUTE .---- PROPERTY OF National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS) Box 6000 Rockville, MD 20849-6000 From Whether to How Drug Courts Work: Retrospective Evaluation of Drug Courts in , Clark County (Las Vegas) and Multnomah County (Portland) Phase II Report,fiorn the National Evaluation of Drug Courts (I) Johi S. Goldkamp Temple University Michael D. White University of North Florida Jennifer B. Robinson University of Ottawa c Approved By: Bate: The researc scribed in this report was supported by grant #98-DC-VX-K001 from the National Institute of Justice, United States Department of Justice. The points of view expressed in the document do not represent the official positions of the National Institute of Justice, the local justice agencies in Multnomah County and Clark County, nor the Federal Government.
    [Show full text]
  • DRUG COURT REVIEW Winter 2019
    DRUG COURT REVIEW Winter 2019 Rural Treatment Court Programs EDITOR IN CHIEF Julie Marie Baldwin, American University ASSOCIATE EDITORS Leola A. Abraham, American University John M. Eassey, American University EDITORIAL SUPPORT Steve Collins, American University Zephi Francis, American University Preeti P. Menon, American University ADVISORY COMMITTEE Jon D. Berg, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration Jerry Gardner, Tribal Law and Policy Institute Peggy Fulton Hora, Justice Speakers Institute Preeti Menon, American University Carrie F. Mulford, National Institute on Drug Abuse Roger H. Peters, University of South Florida Noreen Plumage, South Dakota State Court Administrators Office Annie Schachar, Center for Court Innovation Faye S. Taxman, George Mason University Gregory D. Torain, US Department of Justice EDITORIAL OFFICE Justice Programs Office American University 4801 Massachusetts Ave NW, Suite 508 Washington, DC 20016 This publication was supported by Grant No. 2016-DC-BX-K008 awarded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance. The Bureau of Justice Assistance is a component of the Department of Justice’s Office of Justice Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the National Institute of Justice, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, the Office of Victims of Crime, and the SMART Office. Points of view or opinions in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the US Department of Justice. Drug Court Review Winter 2019 3 Introduction to the Issue on Rural 4 - 7 Treatment Court Programs John M. Eassey The Effect of Disproportionate 8 - 25 Sanctioning on Client Noncompliance Jamie C. Vaske Treatment Needs and Gender 26 - 49 Differences Among Clients Entering a Rural Drug Treatment Court with a Co-occurring Disorder Paige M.
    [Show full text]
  • Drug Court Practitioner
    Drug Court Practitioner February 2016 Fact SheetVol. XI, No. 1 Understanding and Detecting Prescription Drug Misuse and Misuse Disorders By Sandra Lapham, MD, MPH, DFASAM Senior Research Scientist, Behavioral Health Research Center of the Southwest, Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation his fact sheet is designed for court professionals. It describes prescription T drug misuse and provides information on: • The attributes of the most commonly misused and addictive prescription drugs • The extent and consequences of misuse • Side effects and toxicity • Characteristics of those who are most likely to misuse prescription drugs • Signs and symptoms of misuse • Ways to identify and treat those who may have developed a drug use disorder, including a section on medication-assisted treatment of opioid use disorder • Educational and technical assistance resources on this topic from SAMHSA and other organizations Prescription Drug Misuse drug causes (SAMHSA, 2012). This definition and the Most Commonly covers a wide range of behaviors, from using someone else’s medication to address a Misused Drugs legitimate medical need to misusing prescription The Substance Abuse and Mental Health medications to stay awake, get to sleep, calm Services Administration (SAMHSA) defines down, enhance job or athletic performance, or nonmedical prescription drug misuse as the change one’s mood. use of prescription pain relievers, tranquilizers, People who misuse prescription medications stimulants, sedatives, and other prescription may not understand that, although drugs for drugs in a way other than prescribed, such as treating pain and other medical conditions are for perceived medical need or for the feeling the generally safe when taken as prescribed, they Table 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Resource Guide for Drug Court Applicants
    U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Assistance Drug Court Discretionary Grant Program: FY 2010 Enhancing Adult Drug Court Services, Coordination, and Treatment Solicitation Requirements Resource Guide Table of Contents Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................... 1 About the Requirements Resource Guide .......................................................................................................... 1 Assistance with the Proposal .............................................................................................................................. 1 The Drug Court Movement ................................................................................................................................. 1 Partnership with Treatment ................................................................................................................................. 2 Key Components of Drug Courts........................................................................................................................ 2 General Information................................................................................................................................................... 4 Definitions........................................................................................................................................................... 4 Program Provisions ...........................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • A Theory of Civil Problem-Solving Courts
    GW Law Faculty Publications & Other Works Faculty Scholarship 2018 A Theory of Civil Problem-Solving Courts Jessica K. Steinberg George Washington University Law School, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.gwu.edu/faculty_publications Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Steinberg, Jessica, A Theory of Civil Problem-Solving Courts (2). 93 N.Y.U. L. Rev. (forthcoming 2018); GWU Law School Public Law Research Paper No. 2018-32; GWU Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2018-32. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3219306 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in GW Law Faculty Publications & Other Works by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Forthcoming, 93 NYU L. Rev. __ (2018) A THEORY OF CIVIL PROBLEM-SOLVING COURTS JESSICA K. STEINBERG* This Article is the first to develop a problem-solving theory for the civil justice system. Drug courts pioneered the problem-solving model in the 1990s to pursue therapeutic goals as an alternative to “assembly line” jail- based sentencing. This Article explores the potential for migration of the drug court framework into the two most commonly adjudicated private law cases: rental housing and consumer debt. Three structural conditions in the civil courts—systemic lack of counsel, high-volume dockets, and corporate capture of the small claims process—routinely position vulnerable classes of individuals on the losing end of litigation. In the aggregate, these conditions have rendered the civil justice system predictably ineffective in combatting recurring social issues such as substandard housing and unscrupulous debt collection.
    [Show full text]
  • Guideline for Drug Courts on Screening and Assessment
    GUIDELINE FOR DRUG COURTS ON SCREENING AND ASSESSMENT Roger H. Peters1 and Elizabeth Peyton2 Prepared for the American University, Justice Programs Office, in association with the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Drug Courts Program Office May 1998 1Associate Professor, Department of Mental Health Law and Policy, the Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health Institute, University of South Florida. 2Executive Director, National TASC — Treatment Accountability for Safer Communities. i ii Acknowledgments The authors express sincere appreciation to the following persons who volunteered their valuable time and expertise to the development of this document: Hon. William G. Meyer Jody Forman Denver Drug Court Project Charlottesville, VA Denver, CO Marc Pearce Hon. Richard S. Gebelein National Association of Drug Delaware Superior Court Court Professionals Wilmington, DE Alexandria, VA Martin O. Conoley Joseph Carloni Santa Barbara County Probation Pathway Treatment Services Santa Barbara, CA Pensacola, FL Ed Brekke Valerie Moore Los Angeles Superior Court IN ACT, Inc. Los Angeles, CA Portland, OR Caroline Cooper The American University Washington, DC iii iv Table of Contents FOREWORD .................................................................................................................. 1 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 3 What are the differences between screening and assessment? ................................ 3 Goals of screening
    [Show full text]
  • The Multi-Site Adult Drug Court Evaluation: Study Overview and Design, Volume 1
    The author(s) shown below used Federal funds provided by the U.S. Department of Justice and prepared the following final report: Document Title: The Multi-Site Adult Drug Court Evaluation: Study Overview and Design, Volume 1 Author: Shelli B. Rossman, John K. Roman, Janine M. Zweig, Christine H. Lindquist, Michael Rempel, Janeen Buck Willison, P. Mitchell Downey, Kristine Fahrney Document No.: 237109 Date Received: December 2011 Award Number: 2003-DC-BX-1001 This report has not been published by the U.S. Department of Justice. To provide better customer service, NCJRS has made this Federally- funded 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. FINAL REPORT: VOLUME Final Version The Multi-Site Adult Drug Court 1 NOVEMBER 2011 Evaluation: Study Overview and Design Shelli B. Rossman, John K. Roman, Janine M. Zweig, Michael Rempel, and Christine H. Lindquist (Editors) Volume 1 Authors: Shelli B. Rossman John K. Roman Janine M. Zweig Christine H. Lindquist Michael Rempel Janeen Buck Willison P. Mitchell Downey Kristine Fahrney URBAN INSTITUTE Justice Policy Center 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. Final Version URBAN INSTITUTE The views expressed are those of the authors, and should Justice Policy Center not be attributed to The Urban Institute, its trustees, or its 2100 M STREET, NW funders.
    [Show full text]
  • Queensland Drug and Specialist Courts Review – Final Report Page 1
    Queensland Drug and Specialist Courts Review – Final Report Page 1 THE AUTHORS Emeritus Professor Arie Freiberg AM Faculty of Law Monash University Dr Jason Payne Australian National University Dr Karen Gelb Karen Gelb Consulting Mr Anthony Morgan Australian Institute of Criminology Emeritus Professor Toni Makkai Australian National University DRUG AND SPECIALIST COURTS REVIEW TEAM Victoria Moore Director Julie Webber Principal Policy Officer Leigh Krenske Manager, Research and Evaluation Tara Linnan Project Manager Jamie-Lee Sykes Executive Support Officer Disclaimer The findings and recommendations in this paper reflect the views of the consultants engaged for the Review and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Queensland Government or current government policy. Queensland Drug and Specialist Courts Review – Final Report Page 2 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We would like to acknowledge and thank the many people who gave their time and participated in the Drug and Specialist Courts Review. The knowledge and experiences that have been shared at workshops, interviews and individual meetings that took place over the course of the Review has been invaluable. The collaboration amongst government agencies has been demonstrated through the commitment and support shown by our inter-agency project team in contributing to the Review. This collaboration has extended to our non-government partners through their participation in the Specialist Court and Court Diversion Program Working Group. We would like to thank our government and non-government partners for providing continual support and guidance throughout the Review. We would also like to acknowledge the support of those magistrates who gave so generously of their time and shared their extensive knowledge and experiences of the former Drug Court and other court programs over the course of the Review.
    [Show full text]
  • Ten Essential Elements of a Mental Health Court
    Improving Responses to People with Mental Illnesses The Essential Elements of a Mental Health Court Improving Responses to People with Mental Illnesses The Essential Elements of a Mental Health Court A report prepared by the Council of State Governments Justice Center Criminal Justice/Mental Health Consensus Project for the Bureau of Justice Assistance Office of Justice Programs U.S. Department of Justice Michael Thompson Dr. Fred Osher Denise Tomasini-Joshi This report was prepared by the Council of State Governments Justice Center, which coordinates the Criminal Justice/Mental Health Consensus Project. It was completed under cooperative agreement 2005-MU-BX-K007 awarded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. The opinions and findings in this document do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice or the members of the Council of State Governments. While every effort was made to reach consensus and represent advisory group members’ and other reviewers’ recommendations, individual opinions may differ from the statements made in the document. The Bureau of Justice Assistance reserves the right to reproduce, publish, translate, or otherwise use and to authorize others to publish and use all or any part of the copyrighted material contained in this publication. Council of State Governments Justice Center, New York 10005 © 2007 by the Council of State Governments Justice Center All rights reserved. Published 2007. Cover design by
    [Show full text]