You are on page 1of 47

Volusia County Juvenile Dependency Drug Treatment Division

:
Innovation in Program Design for Strengthening Families

Robert A. Kirchner, Ph.D. Kimberly Jackson Prachniak Kenneth D. Robinson, ED.D.

Glacier Consulting, Inc.
March 2005

1

Volusia County Juvenile Dependency Drug Treatment Division (VCJDDTD): Innovation in Program Design for Strengthening Families

Prepared by: Robert A. Kirchner, Ph.D. Kimberly Jackson Prachniak Kenneth D. Robinson, Ed.D.

Glacier Consulting, Inc.
March 2005
This report is an evaluation of the Volusia County Juvenile Dependency Drug Treatment Division program. The evaluators would like to thank all of the Team members, as well as other individuals interviewed for taking time out of their busy schedules to make this evaluation a success. This report was prepared under Grant No. 2003-DC-BX-0025 received from the Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office of Justice Programs, U. S. Department of Justice, by Volusia County, Florida. The views of the authors do not represent the opinions, policies or official positions of DOJ, Volusia County or others offices and organizations included in the report.

2

Table of Contents
OVERVIEW OF THE EVALUATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY OF THE EVALUATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 4

PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 VCJDDTD PROGRAM DESIGN. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 CRITICAL DRUG COURT ELEMENTS AND STATUS OF IMPLEMENTATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

VISUAL PRESENTATIONS Volusia County Juvenile Dependency Drug Treatment Division (VCJDDTD) Framework for Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . 11 Volusia County Juvenile Dependency Drug Treatment Division (VCJDDTD) Drug Court Team and Organization. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

3

OVERVIEW OF THE EVALUATION
Volusia County contracted for an intensive evaluation to support their efforts under the Drug Court Enhancement Grand during all stages of program implementation. The independent evaluation team1 performed the first stage of the evaluation of the Volusia County Juvenile Dependency Drug Treatment Division (VCJDDTD) from July 2004 through March 2005, including intensive periods of fieldwork.. This is the first in a series of reports, and represents an implementation study of VCJDDTD, an adult drug court program located in western Washington, with principal city of Olympia.

From September 2002 to the present, the VCJDDTD attempted a series of enhancements to meet the needs of the target population and to provide additional access to treatment and other supporting activities involving outreach and coordination of services. With the first graduation on October 15, 2003, the program reached its first stage of full performance, and has continually grown in both participant numbers and program services.

Drug Court programs must include research and evaluation components before implementation begins. A standard method to perform ongoing evaluation activities is needed. Information on programs that work, and confirmation on why they work, is

1

The team was comprised of Dr. Robert A. Kirchner, Glacier Consulting, Inc., GCI Senior Research Associate, Dr. Kenneth D. Robinson, and GCI Research Associate, Kimberly Jackson Prachniak. This project was supported by a grant from the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Assistance.. The views of the authors do not represent the opinions, policies or official positions of DOJ or Volusia County, Washington.

4

needed as well. Evaluation is important to improving the effectiveness and quality of drug court programs. Integration of the program evaluation when the program is designed is the preferred approach. An evaluation systems approach to program development is needed to ensure that: (1) effectiveness and efficiency are maintained within the program and (2) progress on the program objectives is communicated to key policy makers, managers, and the public. Building evaluation into program development truly makes a drug court "whole" and ready for implementation. It is important for the evaluation to answer the questions that decision-makers have, so that the results will be readily useful.

The application of the framework and methods below creates an analytical model that must be made an ongoing part of the program management for drug courts. With information provided by program evaluations, program managers can ensure effective program performance and accountability. If program evaluation is to be a fundamental part of effective public administration, the primary responsibility for program evaluation should rest with oversight officials. To more closely integrate an evaluation with program administration, we propose that managers be assigned the primary responsibility for assuring that program evaluation demonstrates the extent to which the program is effectively administered. It is important as well to support the manager in producing an effectively administered program.

A useful definition for evaluation: Evaluation involves the systematic assessment of whether and to what extent projects or programs are implemented as intended and

5

whether they achieve their intended objectives. This entails asking questions about programs, and collecting and analyzing information to learn about program operations and to discover program results.

The incremental phases of developing a complete evaluation system that are presented here are fully explained in Assessing the Effectiveness of Criminal Justice Programs2. Assessing the effectiveness of programs for the purpose of finding out how well they have been implemented and to compare the extent to which the activities funded have achieved the program's goals is always possible, even given limited resources and funding constraints. The three incremental phases for “complete” evaluation systems include program logic analysis, process evaluation and impact/intensive evaluation.

The purpose of "program logic analysis" is to provide the basic foundation of program design, including the established linkages between objectives and program activities and consensus on performance and impact indicators. Developing a "model" of the program in the planning stage permits managers to formulate their expectations for program outcomes, which can be used later for program analysis and evaluation. Actual results are of little use, if they cannot be compared with expected results. Program logic analysis also provides needed information to conduct initial implementation studies and assessments directed by inquiries on program progress. Implementation analysis
2

This approach and definitions presented here are fully explained and demonstrated in: Kirchner, Robert A., Roger K. Przybylski and Ruth A. Cardella Assessing the Effectiveness of Criminal Justice Programs. Assessment and Evaluation Handbook Series Number 1, January 1994. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Assistance. This publication is available on the INTERNET at: www.bja.evaluationwebsite.org.

6

specifically identifies what is often forgotten -- descriptions of program activities, which are the formative basis for evaluation. Hence, the program manager can begin with evaluation as a management tool. Finally, this phase builds the foundation for both process and impact evaluations.

The purpose of the "process evaluation" is to provide evaluators with technical information that can assist it in developing and implementing similar programs. Special attention is given to identifying the lessons learned at the various sites and the guidance they can provide to other jurisdictions regarding organization and development of program activities and to the implementation of program elements which are useful in addressing particular kinds of purposes or problems. Notably, performing process evaluations establishes the foundation for more intensive impact evaluations.

The purpose of the "impact/intensive evaluation" is to provide management information needed by Federal, State or local officials and community leaders involved in policy and programming decisions which clearly confirm that specific programs and/or activities do work, or do not work. The impacts observed in the demonstration projects are distilled to provide assessment of the impact to the program strategies. Measuring the impact of activities in relation to the goals and objectives, which they seek to achieve, requires the development of “performance indicators.” An indicator is defined as an explicit measure of effects or results expected. It tells to what extent an activity has been successful in achieving, or contributing to, an objective.

7

The project contracted to by Glacier Consulting, Inc. (GCI) proposes to accomplish these five (5) goals for the Volusia County Juvenile Dependency Drug Treatment Division (VCJDDTD):

1. Assess the outcome measures of the Volusia County Family Court Drug Court Program, including but not limited to, the number of defendants who applied to the drug court program and where denied, number of VCJDDTD participants, participant demographics, number of VCJDDTD terminations, number of completions, VCJDDTD compliance, number arrests while in VCJDDTD, number of arrests after completion/ termination from VCJDDTD, number of urine drug screens and results, employment and education services achieved by clients, drug of choice and number of drug free babies born to the VCJDDTD.

2. Compare the outcome measures of the Volusia County Family Drug Court Program participants to matched groups to examine the success/failure of compliance, recidivism and improved quality of life (employment and education services).

3. Examine process evaluation measures of the Volusia County Family Drug Court Program since implementation to detect any environmental changes that would affect outcomes.

8

4. To establish a baseline for use in future outcome research studies of the Volusia County Family Drug Court Program.

5. To assess the drug court program’s compliance with goals set forth in the Bureau of Justice Assistance, Drug Court Program’s funding grant.

The diagram below presents the process used to design the evaluation purposes, tasks, results and stages.

9

Volusia County Juvenile Dependency Drug Treatment Division (VCJDDTD) Framework for Evaluation
Phase 1. Establishing the Foundation
Task 1. Task 2.

Validate program development and design, including enhancement intervention. Establish data Elements for Reporting and evaluation.
• • GCI Implementation Study VCJDDTD Policy and

Develop Management Information System to support accurate evaluation of program process and outcomes, including required comparison group information.
• • VCJDDTD Prototype System developed Future plans set

Task 3. Establish a Four (4) Tier Monitoring, Reporting and Evaluation System • Establish protocols for monitoring the activities and outcomes of the drug court. • Design Reporting criteria for program status updates, reports to Stakeholders and funding agencies. • Complete guidelines and support TCDCCP in conducting Process and Outcome Evaluations of their drug court program

Phase 2. Implementing Action Plan

Tasks 1–4
Assess effectiveness of existing Drug Court Program and identify best practices, lessons learned. Distribute evaluation results and recommended enhancements to VCJDDTD. The goal is to determine if the program’s success should lead to replication in other locations.
• • Track and report all data and evaluation findings Communicate 0ptions and recommendations for improvement

10

Scope and Methodology of the Evaluation A need exists for information on programs that work and confirmation on why they work. Drug Court Programs, and specifically new cost-effective, innovative demonstration drug courts must include research and evaluation components before implementation begins. We all work in complex political and bureaucratic environments attempting to accomplish numerous and conflicting goals, and having critical data on VCJDDTD performance is often the best offense for VCJDDTD managers. Assessment and evaluation can be important tools in improving the effectiveness and quality of the success of drug courts, if they are integrated into the plans and designs of criminal justice strategies rather than added on afterward. An evaluation systems approach to Program development is needed to ensure that: (1) effectiveness and efficiency are maintained within the Program and (2) progress on the VCJDDTD objectives is communicated to key policy makers, managers, and the public. Building evaluation into program development truly makes a drug court "whole" and ready for implementation. Evaluation activities and methods become "applied" in their use, and provide for on-going VCJDDTD improvement and - perhaps more important - opportunities for future, more intensive evaluation. "Applied" simply dictates that evaluations answer the questions of decision makers, and present results and recommendations that are readily useful to practitioners.

11

The primary analysis strategy is to examine the current operation of the program and assessing the implementation process, situational factors and VCJDDTD impact. All results and findings will also be used to compare and clarify how the evolution of the adult drug court is similar and different from national critical elements and key components. This will be accomplished by implementing a three (3) step evaluation design that consists of site visits, focus groups, surveys and data collection:

Intensive interviews with members of each member of the Drug Court Team and its participants, including documentation of the requirements and expectations of each; Interactive Focus Groups using a structured instrument addressing issues and status of implementation; and intensive, systematic review of process and outcome indicators of past performance. Collection, compilation and analysis of all available quantified data, including reviews and assessments of prior reports and case management and treatment files.

Completing the intensive, systematic review of process and outcome indicators of past performance will be facilitated through this approach. The collection, compilation and analysis of all available quantified data for the drug court depend on the cooperation from those involved in the VCJDDTD Program.

The framework used by this approach to documenting the program provides a basis for specifying its uniqueness. The evaluation formulates a program logic

12

model, including descriptions of all VCJDDTD components and the relationships between VCJDDTD components. The model establishes a baseline for the process evaluation to determine (1) if the components are being implemented as designed and expected and (2) to determine if improvements can be made to current operations. This approach should yield useful information for consideration of the Drug Court Team.

GCI is establishing an ongoing evaluation system that will allow the Court to examine the degree to which their objectives have been met and the extent to which different combinations of judicial oversight, treatment services and supervisory services have produced successful short term client outcomes (retention and discharge) or long term client outcomes (recidivism). The evaluation design will contribute this information and allow the drug court to adjust their focus and practices and improve both short term and long term client behaviors and outcomes.

GCI will derive both qualitative and quantitative data that will ensure that the drug court (1) is treating the clients it expected to, (2) client presenting problems are sufficient to warrant drug court intervention, (3) treatment plans match client presenting problems, (4) client treatment and supervision produce progress, (5) client progress forecasts successful client retention and discharge, and (6) client retention and successful discharge create positive client long term behaviors.

13

An outcome/impact evaluation shall be conducted to analyze the effectiveness of the VCJDDTD, cost-benefit effectiveness, and the achievement of VCJDDTD goals. The evaluation period shall cover the period from the initial pilot VCJDDTD begun in May 1998 if feasible based on available data, through the end of the grant period, which is approximately a 2 year time period.

The Drug Court will utilize its own MIS that is currently in use to store and record data from the VCJDDTD on a regular and timely basis. It will provide this data to the evaluator upon request. The Drug Court Team will work with GCI to revise database as required utilizing its own resources and database expert.

14

PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT
The drug court program is a relatively new program where traditional adjudication is combined with substance abuse treatment and other ancillary services that are targeted to reduce substance abuse and substance abuse related crime. Drug courts have been operating since the first successful implementation in Miami, Florida in 1989. Since that time there are now approximately 1,600 drug courts in the United States either operating or in the planning stages.3

Even with the increased expansion of drug courts in the past nine years, the amount of research and evaluations showcasing successful programs have not caught up.4 Antidotal data have shown that practitioners believe the drug court to be an overall effective measure, but the primary goals of retaining drug offenders in treatment, reducing costs of processing drug offenders thorough the court system and reduced recidivism and incarceration needs to be documented with accurate outcome data and correct methodological practices.

The VCJDDTD program began as a new initiation of the Seventh Judicial Circuit Court system in September 2002 as a separate docket sponsored by Volusia County. After receiving the Family Drug Court Implementation Grant in late 2003 from the Bureau of Justice Assistance, VCJDDTD program expanded its services and the number

3 4

American University, Drug Court Clearinghouse and Technical Assistance Project, October, 1998 Office of Justice Programs, Drug Court Programs Office. Drug Court Monitoring, Evaluation, and Management Information Systems. May, 1998

15

of clients for their program. The current participant status of the program is (as of March 1, 2005):

ACTIVE CLIENTS: • Family Units 23

• •

Adults Children

25 50

GRADUATES: • • Family Units Adults 9 9

16

Children

26

EXPLUSION/DISCHARGE

9 Family Units

NOT ADMITTED

4 Family Units

17

VCJDDTD PROGRAM DESIGN5

MISSION STATEMENT
The Volusia County Juvenile Dependency Drug Treatment Division integrates a courtThe based collaboration through timely decisions, safe and permanent placements, coordinated services, and quality treatment in an effort to protect children from the abuse and neglect those results from substance abuse. Volusia County Juvenile Dependency Drug Treatment Division (VCJDDTD) is a judicially led Program, specifically designed to facilitate the treatment and rehabilitation of Dependency Court-involved, substance-abusing, adult parents, who meet established eligibility criteria. The VCJDDTD’s intent is to work with participants who have a significant substance abuse history.

In drug court programs, it is interesting to note that some team members shed their traditional roles and adapt the manner in which they operate. Such team members keep the goals of the program in mind. As a result, Program participants that once taxed the resources of the community become assets to the community. Society becomes a safer place. VCJDDTD relies heavily upon the cooperation of stakeholders in the community. Even though the Steering Committee and the VCJDDTD Team include many entities within the community, there are others who might share goals that are common to those of the program. Additional assistance is always welcome. There is a standing invitation to all community stakeholders to join in the endeavor.

5

This section comprises a summary of program components as currently implemented, as contained in the Volusia County Juvenile Dependency Drug Treatment Division Program Manual, which comprises the policies and procedures of the program.

18

The Volusia County Juvenile Dependency Drug Treatment Division Team and other individuals involved with the program, are presented in the following the organizational diagram of the program:

19

Volusia County Juvenile Dependency Drug Treatment Division
VOLUSIA COUNTY JUVENILE DEPENDENCY COURT

VCJDDTD JUDGE Honorable James R. Clayton

PROGRAM DIRECTOR Brian Brittain Court Administration CIRCUIT DRUG COURT COORDINATOR Michael Jewell

DCF LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES Department of Children and Families

COMMUNITY BASED CARE Child Welfare District

Guardian Ad Litem Private Attorneys

TREATMENT PROVIDERS AND SELF-HELP: Outpatient Treatment Stewart-Marchman Center Serenity House of Volusia, Inc. Residential Treatment Project WARM AA/NA

20

Through collaboration, several important items have been identified, which are:

The removal and sheltering of children often makes addicts good candidates for intervention. Therefore, placement into VCJDDTD as soon after removal as possible will likely increase the chances for success.

The level of communications among VCJDDTD Team members must be unfaltering to ensure that the Judge is able to use incentives and consequences effectively.

Substance abuse often inflicts damage over several years time. Likewise, the treatment response for such a malady will likely require a long-term solution.

Substance abuse is often an external indicator of other problems that an individual faces. Isolating and treating this underlying cause may assist an addict in recovery.

Relapse and sporadic progress is to be expected, therefore progressive incentives and consequences are integral components of the VCJDDTD program.

VCJDDTD PROGRAM DESIGN – GOALS AND OBJECTIVES The program’s goals are: • To enhance communication and collaboration among the dependency court, defense attorneys, and child protective services, substance abuse treatment providers, social services and interested community stakeholders. • To design a complete case processing plan from program entry to graduation.

21

To ensure that individuals who participate in the program for sixty days will be subsequently involved with child protective services less often than nonparticipants with similar profiles.

To ensure that graduates are subsequently involved with child protective services less often than are non-graduates with similar profiles.

• • •

To facilitate quick entry into substance abuse treatment. To ensure high rates of retention in treatment among participants. To ensure that program graduates are more actively involved in the community than are non-participants with similar profiles.

To ensure full and adequate compliance with the American Society of Addictions Medicine standards.

22

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: • • Age: 18 and above. Documented history of chronic substance dependence and prior treatment failure or refusal to participate in treatment. • • Multiple children within the dependency system. Non-compliant with case plan, found in contempt of judicial orders, facing potential incarceration and/or termination of parental rights. • • Respondent is a current Volusia County resident. Reasonable likelihood of successful completion based on mental and physical capabilities, as well as psychosocial, environmental and family considerations. • • Respondent voices motivation toward re-unification. Respondent has not failed a drug court program within the last five years.

PROGRAM ELIGIBILITY AND SCREENING: • Members of the VCJDDTD Team will refer candidates who appear to meet eligibility criteria to the program’s Coordinator. • If the respondent is interested in entering the program, the Coordinator will compile screening information from substance abuse treatment, the Department of Children and Families (DCF), Community Based Care (CBC) and other service providers, if appropriate, to determine if the candidate qualifies for the program. • The Coordinator will share these findings with the Drug Court Judge to approve or not approve the candidate’s entry into the program.

23

If approved, the respondent’s attorney will meet with their client to fully explain the VCJDDTD program in order to ensure that the individual only volunteers to participate based upon complete information regarding the potential benefits and liabilities associated with participating in the program.

If the respondent meets the entrance criteria and agrees to a revised case plan that includes participation in the VCJDDTD, the Judge will modify the case plan in such a way that mandates full participation in the Program.

Eligibility Criteria Matrix: Qualifying Factors • Chronic Substance Abuse • Prior substance abuse treatment Client failure or prior refusal to Characteristics participate • Motivated toward reunification • Voluntary agreement to participate • Case Characteristics • Multiple children in dependency system Non-compliant with case plan, found in contempt, given dependency drug court as final option to incarceration

Disqualifying Factors • < 18 years old • Not a resident of Volusia County • Life threatening illness requiring intensive medical care • Persistent and Primary Axis I mental health disorder not amenable to treatment based on history • 1st time dependency referral • Prior drug court failure within past 5 years

DESIGN OF THE PHASE REQUIREMENT STRUCTURE: The phase requirement structure accommodates individualized treatment plans in such a way that participants who excel in the program will be able to complete the VCJDDTD in as few as twelve months. If the substance abuse assessment indicates that a participant is in need of

24

residential treatment, graduation from the program may take a few extra months. If an individual has been in the program for 36 months and a new candidate is unable to enter the program because the program is at capacity, the participant will be terminated from the program without graduating to make room for the new candidate. The program’s seven-phase design enables the program to interrupt a participant’s drug using crisis by requiring quick entry into substance abuse treatment and to obligate them to remain in effective treatment for a significant amount of time. The design also ensures that participants are ready to function on their own before graduating. Treatment services will be available after graduation as well. The program has seven phases because it is important for participants to earn and experience success early and often. Additionally, participants will know exactly what the program requires because orientations will be conducted at the start of every phase. The primary purpose for a nominal program fee will be to facilitate participant accountability to help them to perceive the value of there own recovery. There will be provisions to reduce or waive program fees based on ability to pay. Community service hours will also be permitted in lieu of paying cash. Finally, these fees will also offset the future costs of operating the program. Although the program will place a great deal of importance on addressing the individual needs of the participant, maintaining the integrity of the program is also necessary. This will be accomplished by establishing a minimum number of supervision contacts, treatment sessions, court appearances and random drug tests for each phase of the program.

APPROPRIATE ASSESSMENT:

25

Care Managers employed by Serenity House and Intervention Specialists (IS) employed by Stewart-Marchman Center work in conjunction with Protective Service Investigators employed by the Department of Children and Families (DCF), the State of Florida’s agent responsible to protect neglected and abused children. IS workers and Care Managers also working closely with Community Based Care (CBC) Case Managers. CBC is a local nonprofit agency with witch DCF has contracted to handle case management functions within the dependency court system. The IS will, within 5 days of referral, complete and provide the Drug Court Team with a written clinical assessment report. These evaluations will be completed by a Certified Addiction Professional (CAP), a licensed practitioner as provided for in Chapter 491, Florida Statutes, or a qualified professional overseen by a CAP or licensed practitioner, through a clinical interview process. The following types of assessment tools may be used: the Michigan Alcoholism Screening Test (MAST), the Addictions Severity Index (ASI), the Substance Abuse Subtle Screening Instrument (SASSI) or one with similar validity. Assessment information will include alcohol and drug use history, psychosocial evaluation, initial urine screen, physical health, employment history, legal history, educational status, and, where indicated, mental health assessment. Positive past treatment attempts and a strength-based treatment history will be included. The assessment will rule out problems that are beyond the scope of the program and develop an individualized treatment plan with the participant. Assessing the participant’s strengths and needs will assist in the creation of a plan that matches the needs of the client.

TREATMENT AND WRAPAROUND SERVICES: The VCJDDTD will employ the services of substance abuse treatment agencies, child

26

protective caseworkers, primary health care providers, and other community resources to provide services to targeted individuals. Treatment will provide assessments, residential and outpatient treatment, and training that emphasizes parenting and family life-skills that will meet the developmental needs of children. Treatment counselors will typically make referrals to primary health care providers, mental health services and domestic abuse counseling. Facilitating individual, group and family counseling will be a primary function of treatment. Recreational aspects of recovery, linkages with twelve-step programs, nutritional guidance, and assisting in the collection of urine samples will also be under the purview of treatment. Additional services will be arranged with other community providers that specialize in the delivery of those services (e.g., domestic violence counseling, parent training, mental health, primary health services, etc.). The primary substance abuse treatment providers that are currently active members of this planning process include Serenity House and Stewart-Marchman Center. These agencies are private, non-profit organizations. Each offers specialty residential programs that serve drug dependent, women and their children. In addition to these specialized services the three agencies cover, the entire continuum of substance abuse treatment services includes substance abuse and mental health assessments and evaluations, detoxification, intervention and outpatient treatment services for adults and juveniles, vocational and rehabilitative counseling, continuing care, and halfway houses. The providers have formally agreed to network and partner with one another to deliver an effective continuum of treatment services for the VCJDDTD. Information concerning client progress will be exchanged through the use of Consent to Release Information Forms, written reports, and verbal reports. The Volusia/Flagler Substance Abuse

27

Coordinating Counsel uses a widely accepted, shared Management Information System (MIS) provided by CMHC Systems. The providers also use a unified assessment tool and treatment protocols. Individualized client-oriented treatment plans will be developed with the participants and their families to address strengths and needs consistently and frequently. Treatment plans will include goals and related measurable behavioral objectives to be achieved by the client with their input. These plans will be reviewed on a monthly basis with the client and their primary treatment counselor. Counseling groups, individualized sessions, and family counseling will be used in treatment. Family members and significant others will be encouraged to attend court appearances (as appropriate) with the participants during all phases of their program involvement. The VCJDDTD Team members will strongly encourage family members to participate in substance abuse treatment and/or family therapy sessions, as indicated on the participant’s treatment plan. Teamwork between treatment and child welfare case managers will help to encourage family members to assist the participants in recovery.

CULTURAL COMPETENCE: Ethnic and racial characteristics, gender, religious affiliation, creed, sexual orientation, literacy, disability, color and national origin will have no bearing as to which participants will be permitted to enter the program and receive services. Gender specific groups addressing topics such as sexual behavior and its consequences and roles and responsibilities in interpersonal relationships will be components of the treatment. The ethnicity of treatment staff will be comparable with the program’s target population. The treatment curriculum will

28

include culturally diverse subject matter as well as address issues on anger management, grief and loss, communication, victimization, values clarification, enhancement of life skills, stress and coping skills, nutrition, and topics designed for participants of specific ages. Treatment will provide individual assistance to those participants who are illiterate. Treatment will also ensure that services are delivered in such a way that assists clients regardless of their sexual orientation. Continuing training and education of treatment staff will be a primary tool to ensure that participants receive effective treatment regardless of any of the before mentioned client differences (i.e. race, age, gender, etc.).

CASE MANAGEMENT AND WRAPAROUND SERVICES: Case management services will be provided by Community Based Care (CBC), the state approved, private non-profit organization that DCF has selected as the group child welfare service provider. Case management includes identifying and assessing child and family needs and evaluating, coordinating and ensuring that necessary services are provided; providing inhome services to clients; assisting and counseling individuals and families by suggesting alternatives, helping to articulate goals and providing information. Tracking participant compliance and reporting progress to the Team are inclusive of a Case Manager’s duties. They will develop strengthen relationships with traditional vocational and educational sources to enable access for participants. Case managers will refer participants to needed health and social services, child-care providers, potential employers, educational/vocational services and community service work sites. Home visits, office visits and field visits to locations such as participant work/school sites and treatment sites will be important case management tools.

29

Case Managers will be the keys to ensuring transition and continuity from residential to outpatient treatment and linkages with ancillary services. Case Managers will have the primary responsibility of collecting urine samples for drug testing purposes. The Case Manager will be able to perform these required duties because the ratio of participants to case managers will be no greater than 17:1, considerably less than the existing ratio which exceeds 23:1. CBC will provide one such Case Manager via current funding sources. The additional two Case Managers will be funded by future grant dollars.

FREQUENT JUDICIAL SUPERVISION: Pre-hearings and hearings will be held once a week. The entire Team will participate in the pre-hearings, which will take place immediately before hearings begin. Written and verbal reports will be provided to the Court. The participants will appear in Court frequently according to the Phase Requirement Structure. Other parties with information important to the progress of the participant will be invited to attend pre-hearings on an as needed basis. The roles of the Team members will be to report participant progress, recommend the application of incentives or sanctions in a non-adversarial fashion, and to advise the Court concerning alternatives. The goal is to take the course of action that is most likely to reduce the participant’s substance abuse and reflect the best interests of the children involved. Although the Court allows significant Team input, the Judge makes the final decision.

DRUG TESTING: In Volusia, Court Administration has operated its own drug testing laboratory for well over five years. The lab procedures, reliability, accuracy and cost effectiveness are well

30

documented and widely accepted. Among others, the Judiciary, Pretrial Services, and the other Drug Court Programs rely heavily on the abilities of this lab. Court Administration’s Lab will provide drug-testing services for the VCJDDTD. Procedures for maintaining a secure chain of custody, sending out for GCMS testing and true randomization systems are already in place. Test results are routinely provided within one day and can be available in minutes, if necessary. Full panel tests include up to ten assays to include dilution and adulteration testing. The lab is able to routinely test for cocaine, marijuana, alcohol, opiates, barbiturates, amphetamines and propoxyphene but, if necessary, it can test for other drugs of abuse with relative ease.

While in residential, treatment providers will have the responsibility for collecting samples. The collecting of urine samples will be observed. Once in phase 4 participants are required to provide at least three samples a week. The drug-testing laboratory will collect two urinalysis tests a week, with treatment collecting the other. The tests will be conducted via a true random number system whereby participants will not easily be able to predict when they will be asked to provide a sample.

INCENTIVES AND SANCTIONS: All Drug Court Team members will frequently encourage program participants by using honest and meaningful positive reinforcement. Incentives that will be used include verbal praise from the bench, phase advancements, certificates and tokens for achievement, a reduction in supervision requirements, and a graduation ceremony. The program will constantly look for new ways to encourage participants to succeed. Incentives will be applied

31

as soon as possible and no later than the next court hearing for achievement, progressing well, full participation, good reports, clean urine samples and heroic acts. Behavior modification often requires a large measure of encouragement and a small measure of correction. After considering input from the Team, the Judge will apply sanctions in a fair, consistent, and expedient fashion.

Application of sanctions will be increasingly severe based on the frequency and magnitude of the infraction. Sanctions may be used to address minor rule infractions, missed treatment sessions, missed case management contacts, law violations, positive urinalysis results, negative attitudes, and failure to participate in treatment. The types of sanctions that will be used are judicial warnings and admonishments, curfews, written assignments, jail confinement and community service work. Increased supervision requirements, deferral of phase advancement, and relegation back to previous phases will also be used as sanctions. An increase in the amount of participation in treatment activities may be required by the Judge, however, this will not be used for purposes of sanctioning. Factors used in determining when treatment activities should be increased will be based on treatment needs. If clinically necessary, treatment requirements can be increased by the treatment provider before being formally supported by the Court at a hearing. Additionally, hearing dates may be moved to an earlier date if necessary.

GRADUATION REQUIREMENTS: A program participant will be eligible to graduate upon approval of the Drug Court Judge, which will be based on the input of the Team. To graduate, one will be required to advance to

32

the program’s seventh phase and complete the phase requirements, including the treatment plan and case plan.

EXPULSION CRITERIA: Participants in the program may be terminated from the VCJDDTD at the discretion of the Judge, based on Team input. Dismissal from the program may occur due to continuous failure to participate in treatment, continuous failure to complete all program requirements, numerous positive urinalysis results and/or a new adjudication of child neglect. Program participants that are charged with specific criminal offenses will be terminated from the program, if probable cause is found. Such offenses include drug sales, drug trafficking, violent offenses and sexual offenses. Other charges will be considered on a case-by-case basis.

PHASE STRUCTURE
Phase 1 (Assessment, Orientation Program Fees: None and Placement) Participate in Full Program Orientation Location: Addiction Receiving Facility Complete all program-related paperwork Minimum Duration: 3 Days To Advance to Next Phase: Orientation: Participate in Program and Consecutive Clean Days: None Required Phase Orientation Complete Substance Abuse Assessment Court Appearances: Once a Week Complete Physical Examination by trained Drug tests: Once a day medical staff Support Groups: Once a day (at least) Complete Specific Treatment Treatment Groups: None Recommendation Individual Treatment Counseling: Once a Approval of Program Team day (at least) Formal Approval of the Program Judge at Face-to-Face Contact with CBC: Once Hearing during this phase Phase 2 (Residential Treatment if Needed) Location: Residential Facility Duration: Minimum of 60 Days or as Treatment Plan Update: A minimum of one time per month Family Counseling: As indicated in individualized treatment plan

33

indicated by Assessment Face-to-Face Contact with CBC: At least Orientation: Participate in Program and once every two weeks Phase Orientation Program Fees: None Court Appearances: Once a week To Advance to Next Phase: Drug tests: A minimum of one random Consecutive Clean Days: 45 (at least) test per week Submit Written Phase Advancement Support Groups: A minimum of three per Request week Approval of the Program Team Treatment Groups: A minimum of seven Formal Approval of the Program Judge at per week Hearing Individual Treatment Counseling: A minimum of one per week

Phase 3 (Continued Residential Treatment if Needed) Family Counseling: As indicated in Location: Residential Facility individualized treatment plan Duration: Minimum of 60 Days or as Face-to-Face Contact with CBC: At least indicated by Assessment once every two weeks Orientation: Participate in Program and Program Fees: None Phase Orientation To Advance to Next Phase: Court Appearances: Once per week Consecutive Clean Days: 45 (at least) Drug tests: A minimum of one random Secure Approved Half Way House or test per week Residence in Community Support Groups: A minimum of three per Submit Written Phase Advancement week Request Treatment Groups: A minimum of seven Approval of Program Team per week Formal Approval of the Program Judge at Individual Treatment Counseling: A Hearing minimum of one per week Treatment Plan Update: A minimum of one time per month

34

Phase 4 (Intensive Outpatient Treatment) Family Counseling: As indicated by Location: Half Way House Facility or individualized treatment plan Community Residence Face-to-Face Contact with CBC: At least Duration: Minimum of 60 Days or as once a week indicated by Assessment Program Fees: None Orientation: Participate in Program and To Advance to Next Phase: Phase Orientation Consecutive Clean Days: 45 (at least) Court Appearances: Once per week Submit Written Phase Advancement Drug tests: A minimum of three random Request tests per week Secure and Maintain Residence in Support Groups: One a day (at least) Community Treatment Groups: A minimum of three Approval of Drug Court Team per week Formal Approval of the Drug Court Judge Individual Treatment Counseling: one per Hearing at Week Treatment Plan Update: A minimum of one per month Phase 5 (Outpatient Treatment and Community Transition) Treatment Plan Update: A minimum of Location: Participant’s Community one per month Residence Family Counseling: A minimum of one per Duration: Minimum of 90 Days or as week indicated by Substance Abuse Face-to-Face Contact w/CBC: A minimum Assessment of one every 2 weeks Orientation: Participate in Program and Program Fees: $2 per week Phase Orientation To Advance to Next Phase: Court Appearances: Every Other Week Consecutive Clean Days: 90 (at least) Drug tests: A minimum of two random Submit Written Phase Advancement tests per week Request Support Groups: Attend at least one Approval of Program Team meeting, four days per week Formal Approval of the Program Judge at Treatment Groups: A minimum of two per Hearing week Individual Treatment Counseling: A minimum of one per month Phase 6 (Skills) Location: Participant’s Community Life Skills Training: A minimum of one per Residence week Duration: Minimum of 90 Days Family Counseling: A minimum of one per Orientation: Participate in Program and week Phase Orientation Face-to-Face Contact w/CBC: A minimum Court Appearances: Every Other Week of one every 2 weeks Drug tests: A minimum of one random Program Fees: $3 per week test per week To Advance to Next Phase: Support Groups: Attend at least one Consecutive Clean Days: 120 (at least) meeting, four days per week Submit Written Phase Advancement Treatment Groups: A minimum of one per Request

35

week Approval of Drug Court Team Individual Treatment Counseling: A Formal Approval of the Drug Court Judge minimum of one per month at Hearing Treatment Plan Update: A minimum of one per month

Phase 7 (Continuing Care) Treatment Plan Update: A minimum of Location: Participant’s Community one per month Residence Family Counseling: As indicated by Duration: Minimum of 90 Days treatment plan Orientation: Participate in Program and Face-to-Face Contact w/CBC: A minimum Phase Orientation of one every 2 weeks Court Appearances: Once per month Program Fees: $5 per week Drug tests: A minimum of one per month Graduate from the Program: To Support Groups: Attend at least one Consecutive Clean Days: (180 at least meeting per week includes Phases 5 and 6) Treatment Groups: A minimum of one per Submit Written Request to Graduate month Approval of Drug Court Team Individual Treatment Counseling: A Formal Approval of the Drug Court Judge minimum of one per month at Hearing

36

CRITICAL DRUG COURT ELEMENTS AND STATUS OF IMPLEMENTATION
Most drug courts evolve to represent the practices and culture of their local jurisdiction. Institutionalizing a drug court program should be an important goal of this new initiative to improve criminal justice system responses to dealing drug offenders. Volusia County’s Family Drug Court, the Volusia County Juvenile Dependency Drug Treatment Division (VCJDDTD), has taken on this goal and is producing a program that should be a model for other jurisdictions, as well as supporting their desire to integrate and sustain their efforts in the County. Because Family Drug Courts are uniquely different from criminal programs in the juvenile and adult arena they require research designs that differ greatly from drug court evaluations in the past. After almost two decades of implementing drug court programs, knowledge has been accumulated about lessons learned and critical components or elements that are essential for success and institutionalization. The following section, Critical Elements and Status of Implementation, is based on the development of Characteristics of the VCJDDTD program, which includes the emphasis on the current ten (10) national Key Components of Drug Courts, as well as guidance on characteristics of Family Drug Courts from prior research.6 The focus here is on VCJDDTD's condition on each to identify successful accomplishment of
6

See: Bureau of Justice Assistance (2004) Family Dependency Treatment Courts: Addressing Abuse and Neglect Cases Using the Drug Court Model. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice.

37

both programmatic and organizational objectives. Performance by VCJDDTD across the components has been impressive and constantly improving over time. Finally, GCI will perform its first intensive Process evaluation of the program in June 2005. Preliminary observations of implementation status of the VCJDDTD are presented below.

Characteristics of the Family Drug Court Program in Volusia County.
• Integrated focus on the permanency, safety, and welfare of abused and neglected children with the needs of the parents. VCJDDTD: The program was established as an adjunct to the existing Dependency Court and maintains its relationship with that court on a daily basis. Both Courts sustain objectives that meet the criteria of this component, with the Family Treatment Division providing enhancements to meet the needs of families with drug abuse problems. • Intervened early to involve parents in developmentally appropriate, comprehensive services with increased judicial supervision. VCJDDTD: Once found eligible, and entered into the program from the normal dependency docket, family case plans are revised to incorporate activities and services provided through the Family Treatment Division program. Increases in judicial supervision are determined by the VCJDDTD phase of their individual program a family is currently implementing, but in all cases reviews are more intensive and comprehensive. • Adopted a holistic approach to strengthening family function. VCJDDTD: When a “family unit” is entered into the VCJDDTD program, strategies are developed to meet the requirements to produce objectives specific to each case. Whether one or two parents or guardians are involved, and one or numerous children, individual plans are constructed to meet the needs of all involved in the family unit case file. • Used individualized case planning based on comprehensive assessment.

38

VCJDDTD: A critical step in meeting the program’s objectives for their clients is family and clinical assessments, including strength-based approaches. This process leads to the resultant “Maintain/Strengthen Case Plan.” All members of the Drug Court Team participate in the assessment process, bringing their perspectives to the process of producing plans with high potential of success. • Ensured legal rights, advocacy, and confidentiality for parents and children. VCJDDTD: The Seventh Judicial Circuit Court ensures confidentiality across its entire program, with close scrutiny directing the activities of special programs through the Circuit’s Drug Court Administrator. Individual families also receive assistance from the Guardian Ad Litem program to watch out the children’s interests in court. Legal rights have been maintained in the development of all aspects of the program. • Scheduled regular progress report staffing sessions and judicial court reviews. VCJDDTD: During this developmental phase of the program, Drug Court Team participation and input has been its greatest strength. Utilizing the program’s Management Information System, and online linkages to all team members, the progress reporting sessions are efficient and effective in preparing for status hearings. During PreHearings with the Judge, the results of the staffing process make this step in the process meaningful for all participants, focusing on important issues and how to apply incentives and sanctions. • Implemented a system of graduated sanctions and incentives. VCJDDTD: The Drug Court Team has developed the program’s initial version of sanctions and incentives. Because the Family Treatment Court is uniquely different from criminal court processes, sanctions become an issue in application. The program has been successful in applying necessary sanctions and continually reconsiderations current and other options to improve their approach. Notably, the Team’s use of incentives is creative and well received by program participants. • Operated within the mandates of the Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA) of 1997 and the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1979. VCJDDTD: The mandates of these Acts are well understood by the entire Drug Court Team, and program development has complied with all mandates.

39

• Relied on judicial leadership for both planning and implementing the court. VCJDDTD: The Seventh Judicial Circuit Court, which includes four (4) Florida Counties under its circuit, has been a statewide leader in the successful implementation of adult and juvenile drug courts programs. With the development and implementation of its first Family Drug Treatment Court, the support of both the judicial bench and court administration has been essential and consistent. The Circuit’s Drug Court Administrator ensures that each program (1) maintains an active steering committee, (2) continually updates its sustainability efforts, and (3) relies on monitoring, evaluation and reporting to manage each program. • Made a commitment to measuring program outcomes. VCJDDTD: The program is supported by a customized Microsoft ACCESS MIS system that meets their required for (1) case management; (2) progress reporting; and (3) monitoring and evaluation. The system allows constant and reliable measurement of process indicators and outcomes in easily accomplished, which meets the internal needs for program review and external demands for program impact. • Plan for program sustainability. VCJDDTD: The program has received high levels of support from the participating agencies, as well as from the community at large. Efforts are being made to enhance funding, especially for treatment services, including local and state government support. The program’s Steering Committee is its best advocate for the future. The ability of the program to report on its efforts, outcomes and community impact has gained substantial support that should sustain its future. • Strived to work as a collaborative, non-adversarial team supported by cross training. VCJDDTD: The complexity of implementing a Family Drug Court requires that many new players have to be included in the planning and activities of successful program development. Each Drug Court Team Member has to gain knowledge of numerous agencies policies and procedures, and then apply them to a court setting. The VCJDDTD program has responded to this challenge by promoting constant interaction between all team members. Consensus is not always possible, but decisions are formulated in a non-adversarial approach with all members participating.

40

REFERENCES Drug Court Guidelines and Previous Studies, Evaluation and Methodology. Bickman, L., ed. (1990) Advances in Program Theory. New Directions for Program Evaluation Series, no. 47. San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Bureau of Justice Assistance (2004) Family Dependency Treatment Courts: Addressing Abuse and Neglect Cases Using the Drug Court Model. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice. Bureau of Justice Statistics. (1992) Drugs, Crime, and the Justice System. Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. 1Byrnes, Edward C. (2000). Utah’s juvenile drug court and recidivism. In The U.S. Department of
Justice Annual Conference on Criminal Justice Research and Evaluation. (pp. 16-17). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs.

Byrnes, Edward C., and Audrey O. Hickert. (2004) Process and Outcome Evaluation Of the Third District Juvenile Drug Court In Dona Ana County, New Mexico. Annapolis, MD: Glacier Consulting, Inc. Byrnes, Edward C. and Robert A. Kirchner (2003) Implementation Evaluation of the Spokane Tribe of Indian’s Strong Heart Wellness Court Program. Annapolis, MD: Glacier Consulting, Inc. 1Byrnes, Edward C., and B.V. Parsons. (1999). Utah’s juvenile drug court and recidivism. The
National Drug Court Institute Review, 2, 109-110. Byrnes, Edward C., and Kenneth D. Robinson. 1Reasons for Optimism in Measuring Offender Change. Presented at 1The U.S. Department of Justice Annual Conference on Criminal Justice Research and Evaluation. Washington, D.C. 1July 17, 2000.

Cole, Galen E. (1999) “Advancing the Development and Application of Theory-based Evaluation in the Practice of Public Health.” American Journal of Evaluation. Vol. 20, No. 3, pp. 453-470. Cooper, Caroline, Shanie Bartlett, Michelle Shaw and Kayla Yang. (1997) 1997 Drug Court Survey Report: Participants Perspectives. Office of Justice Programs, Drug Court Clearinghouse and Technical Assistance Project. Washington D.C. Cooper Caroline, Shanie Bartlett, Michelle Shaw and Kayla Yang. (1997) 1997 Drug Court Survey Report: Treatment Provider Services and Perspectives. Office of Justice Programs, Drug Court Clearinghouse and Technical Assistance Project. Washington D.C. General Accounting Office. (1997) Drug Courts: Overview of Growth, Characteristics, and Results. United States General Accounting Office, Washington, D.C. 41

Harrell, Adele, and Barbara Smith. (1997) "Evaluation of the District of Columbia Superior Court Drug Intervention Program: Focus Group Interviews." Urban Institute, Washington, D.C. Hora, Peggy and Schma, William. (1998) "Therapeutic Jurisprudence." American Judicature Society. Vol. 82(1), July/Aug. Kirchner, Robert A. (2004) St. Johns County Adult Drug Treatment Division: Clarifying Program Design and Treatment Delivery. Annapolis, MD: Glacier Consulting, Inc. Kirchner, Robert A. (2004) Valencia County Juvenile Drug Court Program: Expanding and Improving Program Design. Annapolis, MD: Glacier Consulting, Inc. Kirchner, Robert A. (2004) Putnam Adult Drug Court Program (PADCO): Developing the Complete Program Design. Annapolis, MD: Glacier Consulting, Inc. Kirchner, Robert A. (2003) Valencia County Juvenile Drug Court (VCJDC): Initial Evaluation Visit. Annapolis, MD: Glacier Consulting, Inc. Kirchner, Robert A. (2003) Evaluating Innovation in the Seventh Judicial Circuit, Florida: Program Review of Putnam Adult Drug Court Operation. Annapolis, MD: Glacier Consulting, Inc. Kirchner, Robert A. (2003) Success and Future of the Volusia County Juvenile Delinquency Drug Court: Evaluating Innovation in the Seventh Judicial Circuit, Florida. Annapolis,, MD: Glacier Consulting, Inc. Kirchner, Robert A. (2001) “A Realistic Approach to Drug Court Evaluation,” Presented at the 7th Annual Putnam Adult Drug Court Operation Training Conference, New Orleans, LA, May 30-June 2. Kirchner, Robert A. (2000) "Program Theory and Evaluation: The Critical Linkages," Presented at the Annual Conference of the American Evaluation Association, “Evaluation 2000,” held in Waikiki, Hawaii, November 1-4, 2000. Kirchner, Robert A. (1999) “Creating and Sustaining State and Local Evaluation Capacities: Program Evaluation Tools for the New Century,” Presented at the Annual Conference of the American Evaluation Association, Evaluation ‘99 - The Territory Ahead: Foundations and Frontiers, held in Orlando, FL, November 4-7, 1999.

42

Kirchner, Robert A. (1996) Improving the Capacity to Identify Effective Criminal Justice Programs: Guidelines and Criteria for the Nomination of Effective Programs. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Kirchner, Robert A. (1995) “Making Programs Whole: Integrating Implementation with Assessment and Evaluation.” In The State of Corrections 1995. Lanham, MD: American Corrections Association. Kirchner, Robert A., Edward C. Byrnes and Kenneth D. Robinson. (2005) Thurston County Drug Court Program (TCDCP):Program Success and Expansion, 1998-2005. Annapolis, MD: Glacier Consulting, Inc. Kirchner, Robert A., and Susan Greenough (2003) St. Johns County Adult Drug Treatment Division: Community-Based Drug Court Program. Annapolis, MD: Glacier Consulting, Inc. Kirchner,Robert A., and Susan Greenough (2003) Putnam Adult Drug Court Program (PADCO): Model Program for a Small Jurisdiction. Annapolis, MD: Glacier Consulting, Inc. Kirchner, Robert A., Susan Greenough (2003) Valencia County Juvenile Drug Court Program: Evaluating Innovation in the Thirteenth Judicial District, New Mexico. Annapolis, MD: Glacier Consulting, Inc. Kirchner, Robert A., and Susan Greenough (2003) Citizen Potawatomi Nation Drug Court: Program Effectiveness and Expansion. Annapolis, MD: Glacier Consulting, Inc. Kirchner, Robert A., Susan Greenough and W. Clinton Terry III (2002) Success and Future of the Palm Beach County Drug Court: Evaluating Innovation in Florida’s Fifteenth Judicial Circuit. Annapolis, MD: Glacier Consulting, Inc. Kirchner, Robert A., and Michael Jewell. (2003) “Evaluating Juvenile Drug Courts at the Local Level,” Presented at the National Association of Drug Court Professional’s 4th Annual Juvenile and Family Drug Court Training Conference, January 9-11, 2003, Washington, D.C. Kirchner, Robert A., Joseph Myers and Janna Gourd-Gallegos. (2003) “Evaluating Native American Healing to Wellness Courts,” Presented at the National Association of Drug Court Professional’s 4th Annual Juvenile and Family Drug Court Training Conference, January 9-11, 2003, Washington, D.C. Kirchner, Robert A., and Roger K. Przybylski (2000) "Evaluation and Criminal Justice Program Theory: The Critical Linkages," Presented at the Annual Conference of the American Society of Criminology, held in San Francisco, CA, November 15-18, 2000.

43

Kirchner, Robert A., Roger K. Przybylski, and Ruth A. Cardella. (1994) Assessing the Effectiveness of Criminal Justice Programs. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Kirchner, Robert A., and Kenneth D. Robinson (2002) “Evaluating Drug Courts at the Local Level,” Presented at the National Association of Drug Court Professionals’ 8th Annual Conference, held in Washington, DC, June 13-15, 2002. Kirchner, Robert A., and Kenneth D. Robinson (2002) Citizen Potawatomi Nation Drug Court Program: Evaluating a Multi-Jurisdictional Program. Annapolis, MD: Glacier Consulting, Inc. Kirchner, Robert A., and Kenneth D. Robinson (2000) "Preventing Reincarceration of Felony Offenders: Reason for Optimism Based on Ten-Year Treatment Outcome Data," Presented at the Annual Conference of the American Society of Criminology, held in San Francisco, CA, November 15-18, 2000. Kirchner, Robert A., and Kenneth D. Robinson (2000) An Evaluation of the Volusia County, Florida Drug Court: Assessing the Effectiveness of the Treatment Component. Annapolis, MD: Glacier Consulting, Inc. Kirchner, Robert A., Kenneth D. Robinson and W. Clinton Terry III (2002) Success and Future of the Osceola County Drug Court: Evaluating Innovation in Florida’s Ninth Judicial Circuit. Annapolis, MD: Glacier Consulting, Inc.

Kirchner, Robert A., and W. Clinton Terry III (2002) Implementing An Adult Drug Court in Putnam County: Evaluating Innovation in Florida’s Seventh Judicial Circuit. Annapolis, MD: Glacier Consulting, Inc. Leukefeld, C.G., and F.R. Tims (1994) “Drug abuse treatment in prisons and jails," Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment. 10:77-84. Little, Greg, and Kenneth D. Robinson, Katherine D. Burnette, and Stephen Swan (1999) “Successful Ten-Year Outcome Data on MRT Treated Felony Offenders,” CognitiveBehavioral Treatment Review Vol. 8, No. 1. Little, G.L., and Robinson, K.D. (1994). Understanding and Treating The Antisocial Substance Abuser. Memphis: Eagle Wing Books. Little, G.L. and Robinson, K.D. (1994). Family Support, Responsibly Fulfilling A Life’s Obligation. Memphis: Eagle Wing Books. Little, G.L. and Robinson, K.D. (1994). Making Changes for Good. Memphis: Eagle Wing Books.

44

Little, G.L., Burnette, K.D., and Robinson, K.D. (1994). Effective Counseling Approaches. Memphis: Eagle Wing Books. Little, G.L., Burnette, K.D., and Robinson, K.D. (1994). Crisis Intervention. Memphis: Eagle Wing Books. Little, Greg, and Kenneth D. Robinson (1988) “Moral Reconation Therapy: a systematic, stepby-step treatment system for treatment resistant clients,” Psychological Reports 62, pp. 135151. Marlowe, Douglas B. and Kirby, Kimberly C. (1999) "Effective Use of Sanctions in Drug Courts: Lessons from Behavioral Research." National Drug Court Institute Review. Vol. 2(1) Summer. Maxfield, Michael G. (2000) Guide to Frugal Evaluation for Criminal Justice. Forthcoming. Maxfield, Michael G., and Earl Babbie (1998) Research Methods for Criminal Justice and Criminology. (Second Edition) Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. McLaughlin, John A., and Gretchen B. Jordan. (1998) “Logic models: a tool for telling your program’s performance story.” Evaluation and Program Planning. Vol. 22, pp. 65-72. Migdail, K., ed. (1995) The 1995 Behavioral Outcomes and Guidelines Sourcebook: A Progress Report and Resource Guide on Mental Health and Substance Management. New York: Faulkner & Gray. Miller, Delbert S. (Series Editor) (1997-2000) Blueprints for Violence Prevention. Boulder, CO: Institute of Behavioral Science, University of Colorado. Miller, William R. (1992) “The Effectiveness of Treatment for Substance Abuse: Reasons for Optimism,” Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment. Vol. 9, pp.93-102. Mohr, Lawrence B. (1996) Impact Analysis for Program Evaluation. 2nd. ed. Newbury, CA: Sage Publications. Mumola, Christopher. (1999) Substance Abuse and Treatment, State and Federal Prisoners, 1997. Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. National Association of Drug Court Professionals (NADCP). (1997) Defining Drug Courts: The Key Components. OJP. Washington D.C. National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges.( 2002) Adoption and Permanency Guidelines: Improving Court Practice in Child Abuse and Neglect Cases. Reno, NV.

45

National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges. (1998) Judge’s Guidebook on Adoption and Other Permanent Homes for Children. Reno, NV: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges. (1995) Resource Guidelines: Improving Court Practice in Child Abuse and Neglect Cases. Reno, NV. National Institute of Drug Abuse (1999) Principles of Drug Addiction Treatment. Washington, D.C.: NIH Publication No. 99-4180. National Institute of Drug Abuse. (1993) How Good is Your Drug Abuse Treatment Program? DHHS Publication ADM 93-3608. Rockville, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse. Office for Substance Abuse Prevention. (1992) Cultural Competence for Evaluators: A Guide for Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse Prevention Practitioners Working With Ethnic/Racial Communities. Cultural Competence Series. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office for Substance Abuse Prevention. Olson, David E., et.al. (1994) Documenting the extent and Nature of Drug and Violent Crime: Developing Jurisdiction-Specific Profiles of the Criminal Justice System. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Pawson, Ray, and Nick Tilley (1997) Realistic Evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Przybylski, Roger K. (1995) “Evaluation as an Important Tool in Criminal Justice Planning.” The Compiler. Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority. Ralph, John, and M., Christine Dwyer (1988) Making the Case: Evidence of Program Effectiveness. Washington, D.C.: Office of Educational Research and Development, U.S. Department of Education. Robinson, Kenneth D., and Michelle A. Shaw (July 2000) A Process Evaluation of the Blackfeet Tribal Drug Court. Memphis, TN: Correctional Counseling, Inc. Robinson, Kenneth D., and Michelle A. Shaw (June 2000) A Process and Output Evaluation of the Macon County, Illinois Drug Court. Memphis, TN: Correctional Counseling, Inc. Robinson, Kenneth D., and Michelle A. Shaw (April 2000) A Process Evaluation of the Poarch Creek Tribal Drug Court. Memphis, TN: Correctional Counseling, Inc. Robinson, Kenneth D., Michelle A. Shaw (1999) A Process and Output Evaluation of the Volusia County, Florida Drug Court. Memphis, TN: Correctional Counseling, Inc.

46

Robinson, Kenneth D., and Michelle A. Shaw (2000) “An Evaluation Summary of the Volusia County, Florida Drug Court,” Cognitive-Behavioral Treatment Review, Vol.9. Rogers, Patricia J., et.al., eds. (2000) " Program Theory in Evaluation: Challenges and Opportunities." New Directions for Evaluation. Number 87, San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass. Satel, Sally. (1998) "Observational Study on Courtroom Dynamics in Selected Drug Courts". The National Drug Court Institute Review. Vol. 1(1), Summer. Terry, W. Clinton III, and Robert A. Kirchner (2003) Implementing a Juvenile Re-entry Drug Court in Orange County: Evaluating Innovation in Florida’s Ninth Judicial Circuit. Annapolis, MD: Glacier Consulting, Inc. Tribal Law and Policy Institute. (1999) Healing to Wellness Courts: A Preliminary Overview of Tribal Drug Courts. Washington, D.C.: Office of Justice Programs. Weiss, Carol H. (1995) “Nothing As Practical As Good Theory: Exploring Theory-Based Evaluation for Comprehensive Community Initiatives for Children and Families.” In Connell, James P., et. al. Editors New Approaches to Evaluating Community Initiatives: Concepts, Methods, and Contexts. Washington, D.C.: The Aspen Institute. Wholey, Joseph S., et.al. (1977) If You Don’t Care Where You Get To, Then It Doesn’t Matter Which Way You Go. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute.

47