Drug courts: Conceptual foundation, empirical findings, and policy implications

References

• Anderson JE. Public policymaking: An introduction. Houghton Mifflin, Geneva, IL 1994
   Google Scholar
• Anderson JF. What to do about ‘much ado’ about drug courts?. International Journal of Drug Policy 2001; 12: 469–475
   Google Scholar
• Andrews DA, Bonta J. The psychology of criminal conduct. Anderson, Cincinnati, OH 1998
   Google Scholar
• Anonymous. Emphasis on enforcement not the answer to the drug crisis. Narcotics Control Digest January 29, 1992; 4
   Google Scholar
• Archambeault WG, Archambeault BJ. Correctional supervisory management: Principles of organization, policy, and law. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ 1982
   Google Scholar
• Arthur L. Drug court puts new cases on hold. The Miami Herald April 15, 2007; 1B
   Google Scholar
• Bazemore G, Griffiths CT. Conferences, circles, boards, and mediations: The ‘new wave:’ of community justice decision making. Federal Probation, June 1997; 25: 25–37
   Google Scholar
• Bazemore G, Stinchcomb JB. Civic engagement and reintegration: Toward a community-focused theory and practice. Columbia Human Rights Law Review 2004; 36(1)241–286
   Google Scholar
• Belenko S. Research on drug courts: A critical review, 2001 update. National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse, Columbia University, New York June, 2001
   Google Scholar
• Belenko S, Mara-Drita I, McElroy J. Pre-arraignment drug tests in the pretrial release decision: Predicting defendant failure to appear. Crime and Delinquency 1992; 38(4)554–582
   Google Scholar
• Boldt RC. Rehabilitative punishment and the drug treatment court movement. Washington University Law Quarterly 1998; 76: 1205–1306
   Google Scholar
• Braithwaite J. Crime, shame, and reintegration. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK 1989
   Google Scholar
• Bureau of Justice Assistance. Competitive grant announcement: Adult drug court implementation grants. US Department of Justice, Washington, DC 2003
   Google Scholar
• Carney LP. Corrections: Treatment and philosophy. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ 1980
   Google Scholar
• Chen H-T. Theory-driven evaluations. Sage, Newbury Park, CA 1990
   Google Scholar
• Chiodo AL. Sentencing drug-addicted offenders and the Toronto Drug Court. Criminal Law Quarterly 2002; 45: 53–100
   Google Scholar
• Dodge M. Drug courts as an alternative treatment modality: Preface. Journal of Drug Issues 2001; 31(1)i–iii
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Drug Court Programs Office, Office of Justice Programs. Defining drug courts: The key components. US Department of Justice, Washington, DC 1997
   Google Scholar
• Drug Strategies. (1997). Cutting crime:Drug courts in action. Washington, DC: Drug Strategies. (Available at: www.drugstrategies.org)
   Google Scholar
• Fagan JA. Do criminal sanctions deter drug crimes?. Drugs and crime: Evaluating public policy initiatives, DL MacKenzie, CD Uchida. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA 1994; 89–131
   Google Scholar
• Fischer B. Doing good with a vengeance: A critical assessment of the practices, effects, and implications of drug treatment courts in North America. Criminology and Criminal Justice 2003; 3(3)227–248
   Google Scholar
• Fox A. Bridging the gap: Researchers, practitioners, and the future of drug courts. Center for Court Innovation, New York 2004
   Google Scholar
• Gerston LN. Public policy making: Process and principles. ME Sharpe, Armonk, NY 1997
   Google Scholar
• Goldkamp JS. The drug court response: Issues and implications for justice change. Albany Law Review 2000; 63: 923–961
   Google Scholar
• Goldkamp JS. The impact of drug courts. Criminology and Public Policy March, 2003; 2(2)197–205
   Google Scholar
• Goldkamp JS, White MD, Robinson JB. Do drug courts work? Getting inside the drug court black box. Journal of Drug Issues 2001; 31(1)27–72
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harer MD. Do guideline sentences for low-risk traffickers achieve their stated purpose?. Federal Sentencing Reporter 1994; 7(1)22–27
   Google Scholar
• Harrell A. Judging drug courts: Balancing the evidence. Criminology and Public Policy March, 2003; 2(2)207–212
   Google Scholar
• Hoffman MB. The rehabilitative ideal and the drug court reality. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 14(3–4)172–177, (2001, November–2002, February).
   Google Scholar
• Hora PF, Schma WG, Rosenthal J. Therapeutic jurisprudence and the drug treatment court movement: Revolutionizing the criminal justice system's response to drug abuse and crime in America. Notre Dame Law Review 1999; 74(2)439–527
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huddleston CW, Freeman-Wilson K, Boone DL. Painting the current picture: A national report card on drug courts and other problem solving court programs in the US. National Drug Court Institute, Alexandria, VA May, 2004
   Google Scholar
• Jensen E, Mosher C. Adult drug courts: Emergence, growth, outcome evaluations, and the need for a continuum of care. Idaho Law Review 2006; 42(2)443–470
   Google Scholar
• Lerner-Wren G. Broward's mental health court: An innovative approach to the mentally disabled in the criminal justice system. Community Mental Health Report 2000; 1(1)5–6, 16
   Google Scholar
• Levine JP, Musheno MC, Palumbo DJ. Criminal justice: A public policy approach. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, New York 1980
   Google Scholar
• Lindblom CE. The policy-making process. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ 1980
   Google Scholar
• Listwan SJ, Sundt JL, Holsinger AM, Latessa EJ. The effect of drug court programming on recidivism: The Cincinnati experience. Crime and Delinquency July, 2003; 49(3)389–411
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lowenkamp CT, Holsinger AM, Latessa EJ. Are drug courts effective: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Community Corrections Fall, 2005; 5–10–28
   Google Scholar
• Maes HH, Woodard CE, Muordle L, Meyer JM, Silberg JL, Hewitt JK, Rutter M, et al. Tobacco, alcohol, and drug use in 8 to 16 year-old twins: The Virginia twin study of adolescent behavioral development. Journal of Studies on Alcohol 1999; 60: 293–305
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marlowe DB, DeMatteo DS, Destinger DS. A sober assessment of drug courts. Federal Sentencing Reporter 2003; 16: 153–157
   Google Scholar
• Marlowe DB. Drug court efficacy vs. effectiveness 2004, (Available at: http://www.jointogether.org/news/yourturtn/commentary/2004/durg-court-efficacy-vs.html)
   Google Scholar
• Mauer M. Race to incarcerate. The New Press, New York 2006; 1999
   Google Scholar
• Meyer WG, Ritter AW. Drug courts work. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 14(3–4)179–185, (2001, November–2002, February).
   Google Scholar
• Miethe TD, Lu H, Reese E. Reintegrative shaming and recidivism risks in drug court: Explanations for some unexpected findings. Crime and Delinquency October, 2000; 46(4)522–541
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Association of Drug Court Professionals. (2007, March 5). Help save drug courts:Action alert. (Previously available at: http://www.jointogether.org/getinvolved/actionalerts/nadcp-help-save-drug-courts.html)
   Google Scholar
• National Association of Drug Court Professionals. (2008, January 7). Drug court grant receives a 50%, increase in funding [press release]. (Available at: http://www.nadcp.org/publicrelations/)
   Google Scholar
• Office of National Drug Control Policy. (2008). Drug Courts: Providing Treatment instead of Jail for Non-violent Offenders. Washington, DC: ONDCP. (Available at: http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/dfc/files/drug%5Fcourts.pdf)
   Google Scholar
• Perry J. Repairing communities through restorative justice. American Correctional Association, Lanham, MD 2002
   Google Scholar
• Peters RH, Murrin MR. Effectiveness of treatment-based drug courts in reducing criminal recidivism. Criminal Justice and Behavior February, 2000; 27(1)72–96
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Petersilia J. Improving corrections policy: The importance of researchers and practitioners working together. Choosing correctional options that work: Defining the demand and evaluating the supply, AT Harland. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA 1996; 223–231
   Google Scholar
• Reed D. Therapeutic jurisprudence: Looking at developments in mental health law through a caring lens. Community Mental Health Report May/June, 2001; 1(4)1–3
   Google Scholar
• Roman J, Butts JA, Rebeck AS. American drug policy and the evolution of drug treatment courts. Juvenile drug courts and teen substance abuse, J Roman, JA Butts. Urban Institute Press, Washington, DC 2004
   Google Scholar
• Roman J, Townsend W, Bhati AS. Recidivism rates for drug court graduates: Nationally based estimates (Final Report, OJP document #201299). US Department of Justice, Washington, DC July, 2003
   Google Scholar
• Saah T. The evolutionary origins and significance of drug addiction. Harm Reduction Journal June, 2005; 2(8)2–8
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Scheirer MA. Program implementation: The organizational context. Sage, Beverly Hills, CA 1981
   Google Scholar
• Schnur AC. The new penology: Fact or fiction?. Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science November/December, 1958; 49: 331–334
   Google Scholar
• Senjo S, Leip LA. Testing therapeutic jurisprudence theory: An empirical assessment of the drug court process. Western Criminology Review 2001; 3(1), (Available at: http://wcr.sonoma.edu/v3n1/senjo.html)
   Google Scholar
• Shaffer DK. Reconsidering drug court effectiveness: A meta-analytic review. Executive summary. Unpublished dissertation., University of Nevada, Las Vegas October, 2006
   Google Scholar
• Stinchcomb JB. Corrections and public policy: Where we’ve been, where we’re going. Corrections Management Quarterly 2000; 4(4)vi–viii
   Google Scholar
• Stinchcomb JB. Using logic modeling to focus evaluation efforts: Translating operational theories into practical measures. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation 2001; 33(2)47–65
   Google Scholar
• Stinchcomb JB. Corrections: Past, present, and future. American Correctional Association, Lanham, MD 2005a
   Google Scholar
• Stinchcomb JB. From optimistic policies to pessimistic outcomes: Why won’t boot camps either succeed pragmatically or succumb politically?. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation 2005b; 40(3)27–52
   Google Scholar
• Stinchcomb JB, Hippensteel D. Presentence investigation reports: A relevant justice model tool or a medical model relic?. Criminal Justice Policy Review 2001; 12(2)164–177
   Google Scholar
• Tsuang MT, Lyons MJ, Eisen SA, Goldberg J, True W, Lin N, Toomey R, Eaves L. Genetic influences on DSM-III-R drug abuse and dependence: A study of 3,372 twin pairs. Neuropsychiatric Genetics December, 1993; 67(5)473–477
   Google Scholar
• US Government Accountability Office. Drug courts: Better DOJ data collection and evaluation efforts needed to measure impact of drug court programs. US Government Accountability Office, Washington, DC 2002
   Google Scholar
• US Government Accountability Office. Adult drug courts: Evidence indicates recidivism reductions and mixed results for other outcomes. US Government Accountability Office, Washington, DC 2005
   Google Scholar
• US Government Accounting Office. Drug courts: Overview of growth, characteristics, and results. US Government Accounting Office, Washington, DC 1997
   Google Scholar
• Wallace HS. Mandatory minimums and the betrayal of sentencing reform: A legislative Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. Federal Probation September, 1993; 54(3)13–15
   Google Scholar
• Wexler DB, Winick BJ. Therapeutic jurisprudence as a new approach to mental health law, policy analysis and research. University of Miami Law Review 1991; 45: 979–1004
   Google Scholar
• Wilson DB, Mitchell O, MacKenzie DL. A systematic review of drug court effects on recidivism. Journal of Experimental Criminology November, 2006; 2(4)459–487
   Google Scholar
• Zehr H. Restorative justice. International Association of Residential and Community Alternatives Journal, March 1991; 7
   Google Scholar