This Article Abstract Free Full Text (Free PDF) Free Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Heck, C. Articles by Roussell, A. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                   What's this?

State Administration of Drug Courts

Exploring Issues of Authority, Funding, and Legitimacy

University of Wyoming, Laramie

Aaron Roussell

University of California-Irvine

Although drug courts are local programs, many were established using federal grant dollars from the U.S. Department of Justice. As these federal grants run their course and overall federal funding for drug courts declines, drug court programs are increasingly relying on state funding for long-term sustainability. Based on prior research and interviews with state drug court directors, this article delineates the three basic models that have emerged for funding and management of these programs at the state level. There is no one best model—each has its strengths and weaknesses. States contemplating a centralization of their drug court activity are urged to carefully consider the executive, judicial, and collaborative models in light of their respective state bureaucratic structures. Whatever decision is made, it must reflect input from the important state-level stakeholders.

Key Words: drug courts • administration • judiciary • executive branches

References

• American Bar Association. (1997). Report of the ABA commission on separation of powers and judicial independence. Washington, DC: Author.
• Archibold, R.C. (2006, March 1). A test of ethnic courts for drunken drivers. New York Times, Late Edition, Final, p. A12.
• Belenko, S. (1998). Research on drug courts: A critical review. National Drug Court Institute Review, 1(1), 1-42.
• Belenko, S. (2001). Research on drug courts: A critical review. 2001 update. New York: National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University.
• Berman, G., & Feinblatt, J. (2005). Good courts: The case for problem-solving justice. New York: The New Press.
• Conference of State Court Administrators. ( 2000, August). In support of problem-solving courts. Conference of Chief Justices Resolution 22, Conference of State Court Administrators Resolution IV. Adopted at Conference of Chief Justices, 52nd Annual Meeting.
• Conference of State Court Administrators. ( 2001, December). Position paper on e fective judicial governance and accountability. Arlington, VA: Author.
• Fox, A., & Wolfe, R.V. (2004). The future of drug courts: How states are mainstreaming the drug court model. New York: Center for Court Innovation.
• Goldkamp, J.S., White, M.D., & Robinson, J.B. (2002). An honest chance: Perspectives on drug courts. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 6, 369-372.
• Government Accountability Office. (2005). Adult drug courts: Evidence indicates recidivism reductions and mixed results for other outcomes. Report to congressional committees. Washington, DC: Author.
• Heck, C. (2006). Local drug court research: Navigating performance measures and process evaluations (Monograph Series 6). Alexandria, VA: National Drug Court Institute, National Association of Drug Court Professionals.
• Huddleston, C.W., Freeman-Wilson, K., & Boone, D. (2004). Painting the current picture: A national report card on drug courts and other problem solving courts, 1, 1. Alexandria, VA: National Drug Court Institute, National Association of Drug Court Professionals.
• Huddleston, C.W., Freeman-Wilson, K., Marlowe, D.B., & Roussell, A. (2005). Painting the current picture: A national report card on drug courts and other problem solving courts, 1, 2. Alexandria, VA: National Drug Court Institute, National Association of Drug Court Professionals.
• Marlowe, D.B. (2004, September 9). Drug court e ficacy vs. e fectiveness. Retrieved May 10, 2007, from http://www.jointogether.org/sa/news/features/reader/0,1854,574745,00.html
• Marlowe, D.B., Heck, C., Huddleston, C.W., & Casebolt, R. (2006). A national research agenda for drug courts: Plotting the course for second-generation scientific inquiry. Drug Court Review, 5(2), 1-27.
• Myers, L.G. (2004). Judicial independence in the municipal court: Preliminary observations from Missouri. Court Review, 41, 26-31.
• National Association of Drug Court Professionals. (1997, January). Defining drug courts: The key components. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Assistance, U.S. Department of Justice.
• Rehnquist, W.H., U.S. Supreme Court. (1996). Year-end report on the federal judiciary. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved April 11, 2006, from http://www.uscourts.gov/cj96.htm
• Tobin, R.W. (1996, July). Funding the state courts: Issues and approaches. Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts, State Justice Institute.
• Walker, S. (2001). Sense and nonsense about crime and drugs: A policy guide. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

CiteULike

Connotea

Del.icio.us

Digg

Reddit

Technorati

This Article Abstract Free Full Text (Free PDF) Free Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Heck, C. Articles by Roussell, A. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                   What's this?