Advertisement

Drug Courts pp 401-413 | Cite as

Record Keeping and Statistics

  • Cary N. Heck
  • Aaron Roussell

Abstract

Drug court research and evaluation has improved greatly since the advent of the first program in 1989. The initial successes were fueled by anecdotal evidence and testimonials, but the expansion and sustainability of the model depend on solid research and evaluation techniques. It is in this arena where drug courts have the most growing to do. This chapter uses the drug court logic model to describe process and outcome measurement. It also focuses on a standardized method for keeping the records important for evaluation and research purposes.

Keywords

Criminal Justice Substance Abuse Treatment Program Staff Drug Screen Drug Court 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Roman J, Townsend W, Bhati A. National Estimates of Drug Court Recidivism. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice; 2003.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Marlow DB. Drug Court Logic Model. Philadelphia: Treatment Research Institute; 1998.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cullen FT, Gilbert KE. Reaffirming Rehabilitation. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson Publishing; 1995.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Marlowe DB, Festinger DS, Lee PA. The judge is the key component of drug court. Drug Court Rev 2004;2:1–34.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Satel SL. Drug treatment: the case for coercion. Drug Court Rev 2000;1:1–43.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Skinner BF. Science and human behavior. New York: Macmillan Publishing; 1950.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Marlowe DB, Heck C, Thanner MH, Casebolt R. A national research agenda for drug courts: plotting the course for second-generation scientific inquiry. Drug Court Rev 2006;2:1–32.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Belenko S. Research on Drug Courts: A Critical Review: 2001 Update. New York: National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University; 2001.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    National Association of Drug Court Professionals. Defining Drug Courts: The Key Components. Washington, DC: Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice; 1997.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Marlowe DB, Festinger DS, Lee PA, Dugosh KL, Benasutti KM. Matching judicial supervision to clients’ risk status in drug court. Crime Delinquency 2006;52:52–76.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Marlowe DB, Kirby KC. Effective use of sanctions in drug courts: lessons from behavior research. Drug Court Rev 1999;1:1–31.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dinkins DN. Does quality-of-life policing diminish quality of life for people of color? Crisis, July 1997.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Roman J, Townsend W, Bhati A. National Estimates of Drug Court Recidivism. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice; 2003.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    One of the few exceptions is Gottfredson DC, Najaka SS, Kearley B. Effectiveness of drug treatment courts: evidence from a randomized trial. Criminol Public Policy 2003;2:171–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rempe M. Recidivism 101: evaluating the impact of your drug court. Drug Court Rev 2006;2:83–112.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Cary N. Heck
    • 1
  • Aaron Roussell
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Criminal JusticeUniversity of WyomingLaramieUSA
  2. 2.Department of SociologyUniversity of WyomingLaramieUSA

Personalised recommendations