Perspectives on the Drug Court Model Across Systems: A Process Evaluation

Wolfe, Ellen; Guydish, Joseph; Woods, William J.; Tajima, Barbara

doi:10.1080/02791072.2004.10400037

Cited by 12 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 4 publications

(5 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Many independent and inter-related components are involved in the operation of drug courts (Logan, Williams, Leukefeld, & Minton, 2000) and drug court processes are influenced by contextual factors as well (Longshore et al, 2001), such as level of collaboration between key stakeholder personnel (Wenzel, Turner, & Ridgeley, 2004; Wolfe, Guydish, Woods, & Tajima, 2004), their characteristics and experiences (Nored & Carlan, 2008), and levels of discretionary decision-making (Colyer, 2007). Similar issues were identified as being salient to early Proposition 36 implementation efforts (Hardy et al, 2005).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Promising practices for delivery of court-supervised substance abuse treatment: Perspectives from six high-performing California counties operating Proposition 36

Evans¹,

Anglin²,

Urada³

et al. 2011

Evaluation and Program Planning

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Operative for nearly a decade, California's voter-initiated Proposition 36 program offers many offenders community-based substance abuse treatment in lieu of likely incarceration. Research has documented program successes and plans for replication have proliferated, yet very little is known about how the Proposition 36 program works or practices for achieving optimal program outcomes. In this article, we identify policies and practices that key stakeholders perceive to be most responsible for the successful delivery of court-supervised substance abuse treatment to offenders under Proposition 36. Data was collected via focus groups conducted with 59 county stakeholders in six high-performing counties during 2009. Discussion was informed by seven empirical indicators of program performance and outcomes and was focused on identifying and describing elements contributing to success. Program success was primarily attributed to four strategies, those that: (1) fostered program engagement, monitored participant progress, and sustained cooperation among participants; (2) cultivated buy-in among key stakeholders; (3) capitalized on the role of the court and the judge; and (4) created a setting which promoted a highquality treatment system, utilization of existing resources, and broad financial and political support for the program. Goals and practices for implementing each strategy are discussed. Findings provide a "promising practices" resource for Proposition 36 program evaluation and improvement and inform the design and study of other similar types of collaborative justice treatment efforts.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Promising practices for delivery of court-supervised substance abuse treatment: Perspectives from six high-performing California counties operating Proposition 36

Evans¹,

Anglin²,

Urada³

et al. 2011

Evaluation and Program Planning

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, such committees are not active in all jurisdictions. Furthermore, Wolfe, Guydish, and Tajima (2004) noted within their study, there was confusion about the management structure of drug court. Some respondents were even unaware of monthly management meetings, which are similar in nature to Florida's drug court steering committees.…”

Section: Initial Conditionsmentioning

confidence: 92%

Understanding the Role of Cross-Sector Collaborations on the Success of Florida’s Drug Courts

Christie

2014

Criminal Justice Policy Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many have lauded the success of the Florida Adult Drug Court Model in terms of recidivism, sobriety, and court processes. Yet, none seems to focus on the crosssector collaborations. Most studies on the evaluation of drug courts underplay the role of this relationship; however, those relationships are a key component to the success of drug courts. Using Bryson, Crosby, and Stone's theoretical framework for understanding cross-sector collaborations, this work examines what factors and mechanisms are in place within the Florida Drug Court Model that give us insight into how these cross-sector partnerships are able to be successful. In addition, the framework also allows us to examine any necessary factors and mechanisms not currently present, which may further strengthen the role of these partnerships in the success of the current drug court model. Ultimately, the broader goal of this research is to shed light on the role that cross-sector collaborations play in the success of drug courts in the Florida Drug Court Model. Given the lack of emphasis afforded to these relationships in the academic literature, our understanding of the success of the drug court model may be incomplete.

show abstract

“…As a result of these changes, between the years of 1980-1997, there was a 1000 % increase in the number of drug-related offenses (Wolfe et al 2004) that were more likely to criminalize the poor and those from minority communities. The government directed more effort into arresting individuals for drug-related offenses and sentencing guidelines that judges were mandated to follow, and implemented harsher sanctions in the hopes that more jail or prison time would act as a deterrent.…”

Section: Reasons For Drug Courtsmentioning

confidence: 99%