U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.

NCJRS Virtual Library

The Virtual Library houses over 235,000 criminal justice resources, including all known OJP works.
Click here to search the NCJRS Virtual Library

Process Evaluation of the Shelby County Drug Court

NCJ Number
196706
Author(s)
W. Richard Janikowski JD; Frank M. Afflitto Ph.D.; D. L. Morrozoff M.A.; Mamie G. Terrell M.A.
Date Published
June 2000
Length
78 pages
Annotation
This report presents findings from a process evaluation of the Shelby County, Tennessee Drug Court with preliminary data indicating that the program has a significant positive impact in a number of areas.
Abstract
In 1997, Shelby County, Tennessee developed and implemented a drug court as an alternative to incarceration for individuals voluntarily entering and completing a prescribed treatment program. It identifies offenders with substance abuse problems, induces them into participating in treatment, and monitors their compliance with the treatment programs with regular court appearances and random drug testing. Researchers from the Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice at the University of Memphis were contracted to conduct a process evaluation of the Drug Court. The report discussed and reviewed the development of drug courts, the Shelby County Drug Court, characteristics of Drug Court participants and graduates, the impact of the Drug Court, and findings and recommendations. Major findings in the process evaluation were offered in the following areas: (1) targeted population; (2) diversion of first-time offenders; (3) participants served by the Drug Court; (4) recidivism of program graduates and participants; (5) screening and assessment; (6) case management; and (7) treatment services. Overall, the preliminary data suggest that the Shelby County, Tennessee Drug Court is having a significant positive impact in the above areas. Recommendations presented as a result of the evaluation included: (1) improving recruitment of women with a history of drug abuse and prostitution charges; (2) improving felony prosecutorial referral; (3) orientation and training for prosecutors and defense counsel; (4) formalizing sanctioning guidelines; (5) increased staffing at pretrial services for more intensive case management; and (6) employment counseling.