Judges as therapists and therapists as judges: the collision of judicial and therapeutic roles in drug treatment courts

References

• Ackerman, S. J., & Hilsenrot, M. J. (2003). A review of therapist characteristics and techniques positively impacting the therapeutic alliance. Clinical Psychology Review,23, 1–33.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Allard, P., Lyons, T., & Elliott, R. (2011). Impaired judgment: Assessing the appropriateness of drug treatment courts as a response to drug use in Canada. Toronto : Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network.
   Google Scholar
• Anderson, G. L. (1989). Critical ethnography in education: Origins, current status, and new directions. Review of Educational Research,59, 249–270.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bourgon, G., & Price, S. (2007). Evaluation of the drug treatment court of Ottawa: Year one: February 2006 to February 2007. Ottawa: Corrections Research Corrections & Criminal Justice Directorate, Public Safety Canada.
   Google Scholar
• Bransford, C. L. (2006). The use of critical ethnography in managed mental health care settings. Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare,XXXIII, 173–191.
   Google Scholar
• Brown, R. (2010). Associations with substance abuse treatment completion among drug court participants. Substance Use & Misuse,45, 1874–1891.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Butzin, C. A., Saum, C. A., & Scarpitti, F. R. (2002). Factors associated with completion of a drug treatment court diversion program. Substance Use & Misuse,37, 1615–1633.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dannerbeck, A., Sundet, P., & Lloyd, K. (2002). Drug courts: Gender differences and their implications for treatment strategies. Corrections Compendium,27, 1–5.
   Google Scholar
• Dowden, C. (2007). Report for the Ottawa drug treatment court (ODTC): Correctional program assessment inventory – 2000 (CPAI-2000). Ottawa: Public Safety Canada.
   Google Scholar
• Drug Court Clearinghouse, & Technical Assistance Project.(1999). Looking at a decade of drug courts (pp. 1–15). Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, Drug Courts Program Office.
   Google Scholar
• Drug Policy Alliance. (2011). Drug courts are not the answer: Toward a health centered approach to drug use. Washington, DC: Author.
   Google Scholar
• Gerstl-Pepin, C. I. (2004). The future of post critical ethnography: A case for collective action. In G. W.Noblit, S. Y.Flores, & MEG (Eds.), Postcritical ethnography: Reinscribing critique (pp. 385–396). Blackwood, NJ: Hampton Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gliksman, L., Newton-Taylor, B., Patra, J., & Rehm, J. (2004). Toronto drug treatment court: Evaluation project final report. Toronto: Centre for Addiction and Mental Health.
   Google Scholar
• Gorkoff, K., Weinrath, M., & Appel, J.(2007). Winnipeg drug treatment court interim evaluation (pp. 1–78). Winnipeg: Prepared for Manitoba Justice, Justice Canada, Addictions Foundation of Manitoba.
   Google Scholar
• Gray, A. R., & Saum, C. A. (2005). Mental health, gender, and drug court completion. American Journal of Criminal Justice,30, 55–69. doi:10.1007/bf02885881
   Google Scholar
• Grella, C. (2008). Gender responsive drug treatment services for women: A summary of current research and recommendations for drug court programs. In C.Hardin & J. N.Kushner (Eds.), Quality improvement for drug courts: Evidence–based practices (pp. 63–74). Alexandria, VA: National Drug Court Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Gutierrez, L., & Bourgon, G. (2009). Drug treatment courts: A quantitative review of study and treatment quality. Ottawa: Public Safety Canada.
   Google Scholar
• Hickert, A. O., Boyle, S. W., & Tollefson, D. R. (2009). Factors that predict drug court completion and drop out: Findings from an evaluation of Salt Lake County’s adult felony drug court. Journal of Social Service Research,35, 149–162.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Malloch, M. S. (2000). Women, drugs and custody: The experiences of women drug users in prison. Winchester: Waterside Press.
   Google Scholar
• Miethe, T. D., Lu, H., & Reese, E. (2000). Reintegrative shaming and recidivism risks in drug court: Explanations for some unexpected findings. Crime and Delinquency,46, 522–542.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Millson, W. A., Robinson, D., Stringer, A., & Dieten, M. V. (2005). Drug treatment court of Vancouver program evaluation: Final evaluation report. Ottawa: Orbis Partners.
   Google Scholar
• Mold, A. (2004). The ‘British System’ of heroin addiction treatment and the opening of drug dependence units, 1965–1970. Social History of Medicine,17, 501–517.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nolan, J. L. (2010). Freedom, social control, and the problem-solving court movement. Sociology of Crime, Law and Deviance,15, 65–89.
   Google Scholar
• Ogborne, A. C., Braun, K., & Schmidt, G. (2001). Who works in addiction treatment services? Some results from an Ontario survey. Substance Use & Misuse,36, 1821–1837.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ostertag, S., Wright, B. R. E., Broadhead, R. S., & Altice, F. (2006). Trust and other characteristics associated with health care utilization by injection drug users. Journal of Drug Issues,36, 953–974.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ottawa Drug Treatment Court. (n.d.). Ottawa drug treatment court: Consent and waiver (pp. 1–10).Ottawa: Author.
   Google Scholar
• Quantz, R. (1992). Critical ethnography in education (with some postmodern considerations). In M.LeCompte, W.Millroy, & J.Preissle (Eds.), The handbook of qualitative research in education (pp. 447–505). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rideauwood Addiction and Family Services. (2009). Outcome evaluation of the Ottawa drug treatment court pilot project (pp. 1–34). Ottawa: Author.
   Google Scholar
• Rossman, S. B., Rempel, M., Roman, J. K., Zweig, J. M., Christine Lindquist, H., Green, M., & Farole, D. J. (2011). The multi-site adult drug court evaluation: The impact of drug courts (Vol. 4, p. 354). Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Seddon, T. (2007). Drugs and freedom. Addiction Research and Theory,15, 333–342.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sellman, D. (2009). The 10 most important things known about addiction. Addiction,105, 6–13.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stevens, A. (2007). When two dark figures collide: Evidence and discourse on drug related crime. Critical Social Policy,27, 77–99.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stevens, A., Berto, D., Heckman, W., Kerschel, V., Oeuvray, K., van Ooyen, M., & Uchtenhagen, A. (2005). Quasi-compulsory treatment of drug dependent offenders: An international literature review. Substance Use & Misuse,40, 269–283.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thomas, J. (1993). Doing critical ethnography. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Tiger, R. (2011). Drug courts and the logic of coerced treatment. Sociological Forum,26, 169–182.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• United States Government Accountability Office. (2011). Adult drug courts: Studies show courts reduce recidivism, but DOJ could enhance future performance measure revision efforts (p. 56). Washington, DC: Author.
   Google Scholar
• Wiener, R. S., Winick, B. J., Georges, L. S., & Castro, A. (2010). A testable theory of problem solving courts: Avoiding past empirical legal failures. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry,33, 417–427.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Young, I. M. (1994). Punishment, treatment, empowerment: Three approaches to policy for pregnant addicts. Feminist Studies,20, 33–57.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar