JUSTICE SPEAKERS INSTITUTE
Following the successful series of meeting with Justice Speakers Institute in Hobart, Tasmania in October 2023 we are pleased to highlight many of resources referenced during the presentation.
The Justice Speakers Institute (JSI) are internationally recognized experts with decades of experience and mastery of over 300 subjects impacting the justice system.
JUSTICE SPEAKERS INSTITUTE RESOURCES
2. Mack Jenkins
The Drug Court Judicial Benchbook
This benchbook presents information for new and veteran Judges (and Magistrates), and provides a collective of knowledge and experience of Judges, attorneys, treatment providers, probation officers, law enforcement officers, and researchers to improve the operation of the Drug Court.
Defining Drug Courts: The Key Components
This resource highlights the intrinsic components of an effective Drug Court program, inclusive of integrating AOD (alcohol and other drug) services into case processing; utilising a non-adversarial approach; early identification of eligible clients; continuum of AOD treatment services; regular AOD testing;
a coordinated strategy to managing compliance and non-compliance; ongoing judicial interaction with clients; monitoring and evaluation of the Drug Court program; continued engagement with interdisciplinary education; and forging partnerships with community-based organisations.
The Ten Guiding Principles of DWI (Driving Whilst Disqualified) Courts
This resource highlights the important components of an effective Driving Whilst Disqualified Court program, inclusive of determining the appropriate target population in collaboration with the community; the importance of clinical assessments and structured treatment plans with alcohol-specific interventions; ongoing supervision and alcohol testing; adopting a grassroots, community-based approach for increased credibility and acceptance within the local community; judicial commitment to, and leadership within, the DWI Court; development of case management strategies; addressing transportation issues and concerns; monitoring and evaluation of the Driving Whilst Disqualified Court program; and plan and ensure a sustainable Driving Whilst Disqualified Court program.
Judicial Supervision of Drug-Abusing Offenders (Marlowe, 2011)
In recent years, Judges have been exercising steadily increasing influence over the disposition and management of drug abusers involved with the criminal justice system. This appears to have been motivated by a perception on the part of some Judges that the courts are uniquely situated to bring about optimal outcomes for these individuals. In fact, the results of experimental and survey studies provide substantial support for this perspective, but only with regard to high-risk drug offenders who have more severe antisocial predispositions or a history of not having responded to standard community-based drug abuse treatment services. This article reviews this research evidence and considers its implications for designing effective and cost-efficient policies and programs for drug-abusing criminal offenders.
Exploring the Key Components of Drug Courts: A Comparative Study of 18 Adult Drug Courts on Practices, Outcomes, and Costs
This research evaluates different Drug Court programs in the United States and their adherence to the ten key components, including outcomes on graduation rate, program investment costs, and outcome costs related to
participant criminal justice recidivism. Best practices for Judges are also discussed. The article concludes by providing a list of practices that were most effective over eighteen separate Drug Court sites/programs. Notable, if the Judge spends three minutes or more on each participant during status review hearings, recidivism is reduced by 153% and cost
savings are 36% higher compared to treatment courts that do not follow similar practices. Additionally, programs that were evaluated and led to modifications of its operations reduced recidivism by 85% and cost savings are 100% higher compared to treatment courts that do not follow similar practices.
California Drug Courts: Outcomes, Costs and Promising Practices: An Overview Of Phase II in a State-wide Study
This research evaluated the nine sites of adult Drug Court programs in California, due to the rapid expansion of such courts in the state. The results in the nine sites showed that the majority of agencies save money in processing an offender through drug court. Overall, for these nine study sites, participation in drug court saved the state over nine million dollars in criminal justice and treatment costs due to lower recidivism in drug court participants.
Impact of a Mature Drug Court Over 10 Years of Operation: Recidivism and Costs (Final Report)
This research evaluated the impact of a single Drug Court program in Portland, Oregon over a ten-year period from 1991 to 2001, by examining the total population of drug court eligible clients. During that period, approximately 11,000 cases were identified, with 6,500 participating in the Drug Court program and 4,600 cases processed outside the Drug Court model. Notably, an evaluation of the Multnomah County Drug Court program found that crime was reduced by 30% over 5 years and effects on crime were still detectable 14 years from the time of arrest. Additionally, Judges who worked longer in the Drug Court had better participant outcomes. In terms of benefits, the Drug Court participants saved more than $79 million over the ten-year period due to reduced recidivism.
Adult Drug Courts: Evidence Indicates Recidivism Reductions and Mixed Results for Other Outcomes
This research conducted a meta-analysis of adult Drug Court literature from 1997 to 2004 and selected 27 evaluations that met methodological soundness. The results found that most of the adult Drug Court programs/sites led to reductions in recidivism during the periods of time that generally corresponded to the length of the program, with lower percentages of participants rearrested/reconvicted compared to comparison groups and reduced recidivism for participants who were convicted of differing types of offences (i.e., felonies or misdemeanours). However, inclusive evidence was also found, with components, such as the behaviour of the Judge or the amount of treatment received, not significantly impacting recidivism while in the program.
Further research over extended time periods about Problem-Solving Courts in the United
States – NPC Research