Drug Treatment Courts/Other Problem-Solving Courts

What are Drug Treatment Courts?

The purpose of drug treatment courts is to guide offenders identified as drug-addicted away from jail and into treatment that will reduce drug dependence and improve the quality of life for them and their families. In the typical drug court program, participants are closely supervised by a judge who is supported by a team of agency representatives that operate outside of their traditional adversarial roles including addiction treatment providers, district attorneys, public defenders, law enforcement officers and parole and probation officers who work together to provide needed services to drug court participants. The first adult drug court was implemented in Florida in1989. There are now well over 1,200 adult drug courts operating in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and Guam.

There are many different types of courts that operate using a similar, problem solving model, including juvenile drug courts, mental health courts, domestic violence courts, and family treatment drug courts.

NPC Research and Drug Treatment Courts

Drug Courts 3NPC Research has research and evaluation projects more than 200 drug treatment courts located in Oregon, California, Indiana, Maryland, Michigan, New Mexico, New York, Nevada, Vermont, and Guam. These projects include process, outcome/impact and cost-benefit work in adult, juvenile and family treatment drug courts. Drug treatment courts typically involve a variety of jurisdictions and agencies and service delivery domains. The resource commitments and outcomes of drug courts span many components of community criminal justice and treatment systems. The NPC Research team of experts understands this complex world and possesses the capability to apply the research methods and analytic approaches needed to fully evaluate it. NPC provides academically rigorous research and evaluation of drug treatment court programs while maintaining a strong commitment to working collaboratively with program staff and other key stakeholders. In addition, we report our findings and present our recommendations in ways that are designed to be used in policy development, program implementation, program management, and service delivery.

Key staff:
Jennifer A. Aborn
Shannon M. Carey
Timothy Ho
Adrian J. Johnson
Kate Kissick
Brian Lee
Lisa M. Lucas
Juliette R. Mackin
Anna M. Malsch
Tamara Perkins
Marny S. Rivera
Chad Rodi
Rae Trotta
Mark S. Waller
Charlene E. Zil