Home Wiki Studies Forum Groups Blog Video Images News Chat
Go Back   Drugs Forum > VARIOUS DRUG RELATED TOPICS > The euphoric body > Drug testing discussion
Mark Forums Read
Register Tags


Drug testing discussion What can you do against drug testing & more...

Thread Tools
Old 04-05-2011, 05:04
Shanty Shanty is offline
Titanium Member
Join Date: 06-11-2009
Male from Earth
Posts: 209
Shanty is on the way upShanty is on the way upShanty is on the way upShanty is on the way up
Points: 637, Level: 3 Points: 637, Level: 3 Points: 637, Level: 3
Activity: 0.4% Activity: 0.4% Activity: 0.4%
Cannabis: Clean in 14 days?

There's all this talk of pot staying in the system for a month, maybe even two months! X gets tested quite often and has been tested within 3 weeks of the last puff and has been fine.

X found a neat little report by the Nation Drug Court Institute, that pretty much concludes that even for the heavy smoker 14 days is enough to clear the system and pass a test.

Here's a quote:
" In aggregate, using the data from the five studies
cited in this review that researchers described as chronic
marijuana users (even including data from Table 1), the
average detection window for cannabinoids in urine at the
lowest cutoff concentration of 20 ng/mL was just 14 days"

X has found this article of much comfort in troublesome times and would like to share it.

X hopes this provides solace to the worried soul.

Any input?


Volume V, Issue 1
Steven R. Belenko, Ph.D.
Judge Karen Freeman-Wilson (Ret.)
Matt Hiller, Ph.D.
Judge Peggy F. Hora
Douglas B. Marlowe, J.D., Ph.D.
Robin Kimbrough-Melton, Ph.D.
Judge William G. Meyer (Ret.)
Randy Monchick, J.D., Ph.D.
Roger H. Peters, Ph.D.
Bruce A. Goldberger, Ph.D., D.A.B.F.T.
Sarah Kerrigan, Ph.D.
Judge Karen Freeman-Wilson (Ret.)
Cary E. Heck, Ph.D. Carson L. Fox, Jr., J.D.
C. West Huddleston, III Rachel L. Casebolt
Alec Christoff, J.D. Aaron P. Roussell
Volume V, Issue 1
Judge Karen Freeman-Wilson (Ret.), Executive Director
C. West Huddleston, III, Director
4900 Seminary Road, Suite 320
Alexandria, Virginia 22311
Tel. (703) 575-9400
Fax. (703) 575-9402

iiiCopyright © 2005, National Drug Court Institute
NDCI is supported by the Office of National Drug Control Policy,
Executive Office of the President and the Bureau of Justice Assistance, U.S. Department of Justice.
This document was prepared under Cooperative Agreement Number 2003-DC-BX-K009 from the Bureau of Justice Assistance, U.S.
Department of Justice, with the support of the Office of National
Drug Control Policy, Executive Office of the President. Points of
view or opinions in this document are those of the authors and do
not necessarily represent the official position of the U.S. Department of Justice or the Executive Office of the President.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced,
stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any
means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the National Drug
Court Institute.
Printed in the United States of America.
Drug courts perform their duties without manifestation, by
word or conduct, of bias or prejudice, including, but not limited to, bias or prejudice based upon race, gender, national
origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, language, or socioeconomic status.
The Editorial Board is pleased to present the first issue of
volume five of the Drug Court Review (Volume V, 1). This
issue of Volume V examines three important areas to the drug
court field: how expungement is dealt with in drug court, the
detection window for cannabinoid testing, and further research and evaluation on drug court programs. Each of these
areas has a critical impact on drug courts throughout the
United States.
These issues, and the information we are able to uncover
about them, are important to the continued development and
evolution of the drug court model.
In this issue:
♦ David S. Festinger, Ph.D., David S. DeMatteo, J.D.,
Ph.D., Douglas B. Marlowe, J.D., Ph.D., and Patricia A.
Lee, M.S., take a look at the issue of charge expungement in drug court. Long thought to be a primary “carrot” for the inducement of drug court participation, this
article examines the extent to which: expungement is a
primary motivator for involvement; clients take advantage of their right to expungement after graduation;
courts facilitate the expungement process.
♦ Paul L. Cary, M.S. presents a careful review of relevant
marijuana elimination research to reveal a reliable cannabinoid detection window. The establishment of this
window puts to rest conventional claims that marijuana
remains detectable in urine for 30 days or longer following smoking. This widely held assumption has complicated the interpretation of testing results, likely resulted
in the delay of therapeutic intervention and judicial sanctioning, and fostered the denial of marijuana usage by
drug court participants.
v♦ This issue of the Review concludes with a “Research
Update” that synopsizes reports on three studies in the
field of drug court research and evaluation: Evaluation
of Program Completion and Rearrest Rates across four
Drug Court Programs; Evaluation of Outcomes in
Alaska’s Three Therapeutic Courts; and Process Evaluation of Maine’s Statewide Adult Drug Treatment Court
Published semi-annually, the Review’s goal is to keep the
drug court practitioner abreast of important new developments in the drug court field. Drug courts demand a great
deal of time and energy of the practitioner. There is little opportunity to read lengthy evaluations or keep up with important research in the field. Yet, the ability to marshal scientific
and research information and “argue the facts” can be critical
to a program’s success and ultimate survival.
The Review builds a bridge between law, science, and clinical
communities, providing a common tool to all. A headnote and
subject indexing system allows access to evaluation outcomes, scientific analysis, and research on drug court related
areas. Scientific jargon and legalese are interpreted for the
practitioner into common language.
Although the Review’s emphasis is on scholarship and scientific research, it also provides commentary from experts in
the drug court and related fields on important issues to drug
court practitioners.
The Drug Court Review is a project of the National Drug
Court Institute. NDCI was established under the auspices of
the National Association of Drug Court Professionals and
with the support of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, Executive Office of the President, and the Bureau of Justice Assistance, U.S. Department of Justice.
The National Drug Court Institute’s mission is to promote
education, research, and scholarship to the drug court field
and other court-based intervention programs.
Historically, education and training in the drug court field
have only been available at regional workshops and the annual national conference; analysis and scholarship were
largely limited to anecdotes and personal accounts.
That situation has changed. Evaluations exist on dozens of
drug court programs. Scholars and researchers have begun to
apply the rigors of scientific review and analysis to the drug
court model. The level of experience and expertise necessary
to support such an institution now exist.
Since its creation in December 1997, NDCI has launched a
comprehensive practitioner training series for judges, prosecutors, public defenders, court coordinators, treatment providers, and community supervision officers; developed a research division responsible for developing a scientific research agenda and publication dissemination strategy for the
field, as well as developing a series of evaluation workshops;
and published a monograph series on relevant issues to drug
court institutionalization and expansion.
I wish to thank all those who have contributed to this issue of
the Drug Court Review: to the Office of National Drug Control Policy, Executive Office of the President, and the Bureau
of Justice Assistance, U.S. Department of Justice, for the
leadership, support, and collaboration that those agencies
have offered to the National Drug Court Institute; and to Dr.
David S. Festinger, Dr. David S. DeMatteo, Dr. Douglas B.
Marlowe, Patricia A. Lee, Paul Cary, Dr. Donald F. Anspach,
Andrew S. Ferguson, Vincent Collom, and the Alaska Judicial Council for their contributions as authors.
Judge Karen Freeman-Wilson (Ret.)
Executive Director
National Drug Court Institute
Expungement of Arrest Records in Drug Court:
Do Clients Know What They’re Missing?
David S. Festinger, Ph.D., David S. DeMatteo,
J.D., Ph.D., Douglas B. Marlowe, J.D., Ph.D.,
and Patricia A. Lee, M.S. .................................................. ..... 1
The Marijuana Detection Window: Determining
the Length of Time Cannabinoids Will Remain
Detectable in Urine Following Smoking:
A Critical Review of Relevant Research and
Cannabinoid Detection Guidance for Drug Courts
Paul Cary, M.S .................................................. ................... 23
Research Update: Reports on Recent Drug
Court Research
Compilation....................................... ................................... 59
Subject Index .................................................. .................... 89
Headnote Index............................................. .................... 107
xixiiDrug Court Review, Vol. V, 1 1
By David S. Festinger, Ph.D.,
David S. DeMatteo, J.D., Ph.D.,
Douglas B. Marlowe, J.D., Ph.D., and
Patricia A. Lee, M.S.
Treatment Research Institute,
University of Pennsylvania
Expungement of arrest records is believed to be an
important element of pre-plea drug courts. The opportunity
for record expungement may be an incentive for some drug
offenders to enter drug court and receive treatment, may
reduce the stigma and collateral consequences of having an
arrest record, and may extend the effects of drug court
beyond graduation, when clients are no longer under the
court’s jurisdiction. Some data, however, indicate that many
drug court graduates never apply for record expungement.
This may be a result of not clearly understanding the concept
of expungement, not understanding the requirements for
obtaining expungement, or not recognizing the potential
value of record expungement.
To examine these issues, we surveyed clients (N =
191) from three misdemeanor and three felony drug courts
about their understanding of the expungement process.
Findings revealed that (1) nearly one-half of these
individuals could not define the term “expungement” or
confused it with having their charges dropped, (2) virtually
none of the offenders could correctly identify all of the
requirements to obtain expungement beyond completing the
drug court program, and (3) few were able to identify more
than one potential benefit of expungement. These findings
suggest the need for enhanced educational strategies to
ensure that drug court graduates who meet the requirements
for record expungement ultimately obtain these important
benefits. 2 Expungement in Drug Court
This research was supported by grants #R01-DA-
13096, #R01-DA-14566, and #R01-DA-16730 from the
National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), with supplemental
funding from the Center for Substance Abuse Treatment
(CSAT). The views expressed are those of the authors and do
not reflect the views of NIDA or CSAT. Portions of these
data were presented at the 2004 Annual Conference of the
American Psychology-Law Society, Scottsdale, AZ.
We gratefully acknowledge the on-going
collaboration of the New Castle County Court of Common
Pleas, Kent County Superior Court, Sussex County Superior
Court, and Philadelphia Treatment Court. We also thank
Kathleen Benasutti, Gloria Fox, Nicole K. Mastro, and
Kristin Sines for their assistance with project management
and data collection.
David S. Festinger, Ph.D., is a senior scientist in the
Section on Law and Ethics Research at Treatment Research
Institute (TRI), and an Adjunct Assistant Professor of
Psychiatry at the University of Pennsylvania School of
Medicine. His research focuses on evaluating the clinical
and ethical impacts of coercive interventions for substanceabusing criminal offenders.
David S. DeMatteo, J.D., Ph.D., is a Research
Scientist in the Section on Law and Ethics at TRI. He is a
licensed clinical psychologist in Pennsylvania, and an
Adjunct Lecturer in Law at Villanova University School of
Law. His research focuses on evaluating the effectiveness of
judicially based treatment programs for substance-abusing
Douglas B. Marlowe, J.D., Ph.D. is the Director of
Law & Ethics Research at the Treatment Research Institute,
and an Adjunct Associate Professor of Psychiatry at the
University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine. His
research focuses on examining the role of coercion in drug Drug Court Review, Vol. V, 1 3
abuse treatment, the effects of drug courts and other
diversion programs for drug abusing offenders, and
behavioral treatments for drug abusers and offenders.
Patricia A. Lee, M.S., is the research coordinator for
the Section on Law and Ethics at TRI. She is primarily
responsible for managing all aspects of participant
recruitment, data collection, data management, and data
analyses for research studies focusing on drug courts and
other criminal justice programs for substance-abusing
criminal offenders.
Direct all correspondence to David S. Festinger, Ph.D.,
Treatment Research Institute at the University of
Pennsylvania, 600 Public Ledger Bldg., 150 S. Independence
Mall West, Philadelphia, PA 19106-3475. (215) 399-0980
x126; (215) 399-0987 (fax); dfestinger@tresearch.org. 4 Expungement in Drug Court
[1] There are three ways in
which drug court clients
and society can benefit
from expungement: it can
be an incentive to induce
an offender into treatment;
it can assist the offender in
avoiding stigma; and it
may be an effective means
to keep graduates involved
in recovery post-program.
[2] The sample of drug
court clients was drawn
from three misdemeanor
courts and three felony
courts in Delaware and
Pennsylvania. Participants
were given a 5-minute
survey testing their
knowledge of
[3] Although many
participants entered drug
court in order to have their
charges expunged, only
slightly more than half
could correctly define it,
and almost none could
explain the process.
[4] If the process of
expungement could be
improved by automated
filing of petitions and
continuing education
about the process and
benefits of expungement,
it could be leveraged to
increase aftercare participation. Drug Court Review, Vol. V, 1 5
n many pre-plea or diversionary drug courts, offenders
who satisfactorily complete the program may have their
criminal charges dropped. Further, they may be eligible
to apply for record expungement after remaining arrest-free
for an additional waiting period (typically anywhere from 6
months to 3 years, depending on the jurisdiction) and meeting
other obligations, such as filing a petition and paying a filing
fee (Eastman, 2002). Expungement is generally defined as
the permanent extraction of all records on file within a court,
correctional facility, or law enforcement agency related to a
person’s detection, apprehension, arrest, detention, trial or
disposition of an offense within the criminal justice system
(Eastman, 2002). Although record expungement may not
necessarily lead to a literal erasure of the arrest record from
all databases, under most circumstances it will legally allow
an individual to say, truthfully, on such documents as
employment applications or housing applications that the
arrest never happened.
[1] There are at least three potential ways in which
record expungement may be beneficial to the offender and to
society. First, record expungement may serve as an incentive
for some individuals to enter drug court and receive treatment
and case management services. However, the relative
attractiveness of this opportunity to offenders remains
unclear. It is possible, for example, that some defendants
may be more highly motivated to enter drug court by the
short-term opportunities of avoiding sentencing, having their
criminal charges dropped, or retaining their driver’s license.
Nevertheless, one might assume that the opportunity for
record expungement still plays a further role in some
individuals’ decisions to enter drug court.
Second, the opportunity for record expungement may be seen
as a way to avoid the stigma and collateral consequences of
having a criminal arrest record. The existence of an arrest6 Expungement in Drug Court
record may create roadblocks for offenders who are trying to
rebuild their lives, support themselves and their families, and
become productive members of society (Wexler, Melnick, &
Chaple, 2005). Even if the criminal charges were dropped,
having been arrested for a drug crime can still have
devastating consequences for one’s reputation and
employability (Boyd, 2002; Demleitner, 2002). For example,
in many jurisdictions, a record of a past criminal arrest can
still be considered for purposes of increasing the sentence in a
future criminal case, even if the prior charge was dropped in a
diversion program (e.g., McMillan v. Pennsylvania, 1986;
United States v. Kammerdiener, 1981). In addition,
depending on the state, it may be permissible to discriminate
against a job applicant based solely on an arrest record if the
arrest is relevant to the job functions; for example, drug use
may be job-related for bus drivers or childcare workers (e.g.,
Eastman, 2002). Moreover, even when it is not permissible
or legal for a potential employer or landlord to refuse an
applicant on the sole ground that the applicant has an arrest
record (but no conviction), this is rarely acknowledged as the
reason for denying the application. If legal action is taken,
the burden of proof will ordinarily be on the applicant to
prove that the arrest was the primary reason for the denial.
Few individuals have the time, know-how, or resources to
challenge such a denial in court. Clearly, then, it is in
offenders’ best interest to have their arrest records expunged.
This can go far in reducing the stigma associated with having
a criminal record for a drug offense and may improve a drug
court graduate’s chances of obtaining gainful employment,
housing opportunities, student loans and grants, as well as
government subsidies such as food stamps and temporary
assistance to needy families (TANF) (e.g., Alexander &
Walz, 1974; Demleitner, 2002).
Third, the opportunity for record expungement may
work as an effective means for extending the positive effects
of drug court following completion of the program. At the
moment an offender graduates from a pre-plea drug court, the Drug Court Review, Vol. V, 1 7
court ordinarily loses legal jurisdiction over the case. The
criminal charges are dropped, and the court’s authority to
order aftercare services as a condition of pre-trial monitoring
or pre-sentencing release may be terminated. This leaves the
criminal justice system with little leverage over graduates to
coerce or entice them to continue in aftercare treatment.
However, it is possible that the opportunity for record
expungement could provide sufficient leverage to ensure
graduates’ continued involvement in aftercare and
maintenance of sobriety (e.g., Marlowe, Elwork, Festinger, &
McLellan, 2003). The opportunity to have one’s arrest record
expunged after an additional waiting period may act as a
second “carrot” to incentivize graduates to remain abstinent
from drugs and crime-free even after they are no longer under
the jurisdiction of the court.
Despite the seemingly significant benefits of record
expungement, our research in one state indicated that few
drug court graduates actually applied for it. Out of 1,302
eligible drug court clients who completed a misdemeanor
drug court program in Wilmington, Delaware between
December 1998 and March 2004, only 78 (6%) filed petitions
for expungement of their arrests. Given that less than 15% of
the graduates were re-arrested during the 6-month waiting
period between graduation and eligibility for expungement,
this means that roughly 80% of graduates who were
otherwise eligible for record expungement did not apply.
There are several possible explanations for this.
One explanation is that drug court graduates may not
fully understand the meaning of expungement, or may
confuse it with nolle prosse (i.e., prosecutorial decision not to
prosecute further). Although many drug courts provide all
clients with a thorough explanation of expungement, we do
not know how well the clients comprehend this information,
or whether they remember it 1 to 2 years later when it
becomes relevant to them. In fact, research suggests that
individuals who use illicit substances may have particular 8 Expungement in Drug Court
problems with comprehending and retaining important
information, both because of factors unique to substance
abusers and because of the wide range of conditions that are
co-morbid to substance abuse (McCrady & Bux, 1999).
Acute drug intoxication or withdrawal may impair attention,
cognition, or retention of important information (Munro,
Saxton, & Butters, 2000; Saxon, Munro, Butters, Schramke,
& McNeil, 2000; Tapert & Brown, 2000; Victor, Adams, &
Collins, 1989). Limited educational opportunities, chronic
brain changes resulting from long-term drug or alcohol use,
prior head trauma, poor nutrition, and co-morbid health
problems (e.g., AIDS-related dementia) are common in
individuals with substance abuse or dependence diagnoses,
and may reduce concentration and limit understanding. In
addition, information regarding the opportunity for record
expungement is typically presented to defendants shortly
following their arrest, when they are deciding whether or not
to enter the drug court program. This is likely to be a very
stressful time for many individuals, which may further limit
their ability to understand and retain important information.
It is also possible that many drug court graduates may
not have the resources or wherewithal to obtain record
expungement. Record expungement often requires at least a
minimal understanding of the legal system and the petitioning
process (Eastman, 2002). For instance, in jurisdictions in
which the expungement process is not automatic, the
individual must ordinarily file a petition with the court, which
may require the assistance of an attorney. If the arrest record
contains factual errors or was not properly updated, the
applicant might need to appeal an erroneous denial, which
might also require the assistance of an attorney, additional
filing fees, and court appearances.
It is also possible that drug court clients may not fully
appreciate the potential benefits of having their arrest records
expunged. Although courts typically describe the potential
benefits at admission to drug court (e.g., employment Drug Court Review, Vol. V, 1 9
opportunities, licensing applications, professional
certifications), it is possible that clients may not fully
anticipate the value of expungement until they are actually
faced with a specific need for it. For example, drug court
clients may not appreciate that having their arrest record
expunged will allow them to honestly report to potential
employers, loan officials, and various social service agencies
that they have not been arrested for a drug-related offense,
until they are actually sitting in an office and are directly
faced with this issue.
Finally, some drug court graduates may not apply for
record expungement because they may simply not be
interested in the opportunity. For some individuals, the
benefits of expungement, even if fully understood, may not
be perceived as important enough to motivate them to pursue
it. This may be particularly true for individuals with prior
criminal arrests or convictions. These individuals may feel
that they have nothing to gain from having their current arrest
record expunged, because, in the end, they will still have a
criminal record.
The purpose of the present study was to determine
what proportion of clients in a sample of six drug court
programs (1) understood the meaning of the term
“expungement,” (2) knew the requirements for obtaining
expungement, and (3) appreciated the potential benefits of
having their arrest record expunged.
[2] The sample was drawn from three misdemeanor
courts and three felony courts located in rural, urban, and
suburban counties within the State of Delaware, and in the
urban city of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (see Table 1). All
three of the misdemeanor programs are in Delaware, and are
situated in the urban city of Wilmington, the suburban State
Capital of Dover, and the rural farming community of 10 Expungement in Drug Court
Georgetown. Two of the three felony courts are also in Dover
and Georgetown, Delaware, with the third located in
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Table 1. Drug Court Characteristics
Location N Setting Charge
waiting period
60 Urban Misdemeanor 14 weeks
6 months postgraduation
Dover, DE 9 Suburban Misdemeanor 14 weeks
3 years postgraduation
14 Rural Misdemeanor 14 weeks
3 years postgraduation
Dover, DE 40 Suburban Felony 6 months
3 years postgraduation
7 Rural Felony 6 months
3 years postgraduation
61 Urban Felony 1 year
1 year postgraduation
Eligible charges for the three misdemeanor drug
court programs include possession or consumption of
cannabis, possession of drug paraphernalia, and possession of
hypodermic syringes. The programs are scheduled to be at
least 14 weeks in length, although most clients require 5 to 6
months to satisfy the conditions for graduation. To be
eligible to petition for record expungement, clients must (1)
successfully graduate from the drug court program, (2) pay
all court fees, and (3) wait the required amount of time
following program completion without any new arrests or
convictions. The misdemeanor programs in Dover and
Georgetown are virtually identical in structure to the program
in Wilmington and have virtually the same eligibility and
graduation criteria. One important difference between the
three misdemeanor programs is that clients in Wilmington are
required to be conviction-free for 6 months post-graduation
before they can petition for expungement of their qualifying
arrest, whereas clients in the Dover and Georgetown Drug Court Review, Vol. V, 1 11
programs are required to be conviction-free for 3 years postgraduation.
Eligibility criteria differ slightly between the
Delaware and Philadelphia felony courts. Eligible charges
for the felony courts in Dover and Georgetown, Delaware
include possession or consumption of narcotics, possession
with intent to distribute illicit drugs, distribution or
manufacturing of illicit drugs, and maintenance of a dwelling
for the consumption or distribution of illicit drugs. The
programs are scheduled to be a minimum of 6 months in
length, although most clients require nearer to 12 months to
graduate. The Delaware felony programs require graduates to
be conviction-free for 3 years before they can petition for
record expungement. Eligibility criteria for the Philadelphia
drug court program require offenders to be charged with a
felony drug offense that does not carry a mandatory sentence,
the most common of which was possession with intent to
deliver a controlled substance. Additionally, eligible
offenders can have no more than two prior non-violent
convictions. The Philadelphia program is scheduled to be a
minimum of 1 year in length, and graduates are required to be
conviction-free for 1 year before earning the opportunity for
expungement of their qualifying arrest. Unlike the Delaware
courts, the Philadelphia court automatically files the
expungement petition on behalf of all eligible offenders.
Surveys were administered to 191 offenders who had
voluntarily entered the six drug court programs. Within 2
weeks of their entry into the drug court, clients were asked
whether they would be interested in completing an
anonymous 7-item survey. Clients who consented to
participate were administered the survey by trained research
interviewers. All clients who were asked to participate in the
survey consented to participate. Survey participants were
primarily male (78%), with a mean age of 26.0 years (SD =
8.3). The sample had relatively equal proportions of African-12 Expungement in Drug Court
Americans (48%) and Caucasians (47%), followed by a much
smaller proportion of Hispanics (2%).
The surveys, which took approximately 5 minutes to
complete, included five open-ended questions and two Likertscale questions to examine the following:
(1) the reasons clients decided to enter the drug court
program (open-ended);
(2) the meaning of the term “expungement” (openended)
(3) the perceived importance of the expungement
opportunity (4-point Likert scale);
(4) the eligibility criteria for expungement (open-ended);
(5) the required waiting period before one can petition
for expungement (open-ended);
(6) the potential benefits of record expungement (openended);
(7) the likelihood of seeking expungement in the future
(4-point Likert scale)
Because question 1 asked for open-ended, subjective
responses about why the clients chose to enter drug court, we
had independent raters code the responses and we calculated
inter-rater reliability. Responses to this question were coded
into 5 separate categories: (1) to have their arrest record
expunged, (2) to have their charges dropped, (3) to retain
their driver’s license, (4) to receive treatment, and (5) due to
other external pressures (e.g., suggested by an attorney or
family member). The raters achieved an 87% inter-rater
agreement (Kappa = .84). We did not calculate inter-rater

Clients who answered incorrectly were provided with the correct
definition of expungement before proceeding to the subsequent
This item was not administered to the Philadelphia drug court
clients because the expungement petition is filed automatically by
that court. Drug Court Review, Vol. V, 1 13
reliability for the remaining open-ended questions, because
they were not subjective in nature and had clearly
quantifiable correct answers.
Finally, all participants were asked whether they had
any past criminal arrests and/or convictions. This variable
was examined because, as mentioned earlier, it is possible
that having a prior criminal record may diminish or otherwise
influence a client’s desire to seek expungement for new
[3] A total of 191 participants from the six different
courts completed the expungement survey. Forty-three
percent (n = 83) of the study sample was recruited from the
three misdemeanor drug courts and 57% (n = 108) was
recruited from the three felony drug courts. Forty-one
percent of the sample (n = 79) reported having prior criminal
charges, of which 41% (n = 32) were from misdemeanor
courts and 59% (n = 47) were from felony courts. Analyses
revealed no significant differences between participants with
or without prior criminal charges or between participants
charged with misdemeanors or felonies on any of the survey
As shown in Table 2, the most commonly reported
reasons for entering the drug court programs were to receive
treatment (43%), to have their record expunged (36%), to
have their charges dropped (35%), to keep their driver’s
licenses (14%), and as a result of other external pressures
(2%). Expungement in Drug Court 14
Table 2.
Survey Items and Responses
N Percent Response Item
82 43% Treatment
68 36% Expungement
66 35% Charges dropped
27 14% Retain drivers’ license
† Main reasons for entering drug court
4 2% External pressures

111 58% Current charges erased (correct)
59 31% Don’t know
9 5% Current charges dropped (incorrect)
Definition of “expungement”
Entire criminal record erased
12 6%

95 86% Extremely
9 8% Somewhat
2 2% A little
nt in decision to enter? * Importance of expungeme
5 5% Not at all
148 77% Employment opportunities
32 17% Reduce stigma
12 6% Eligibility for housing assistance
9 5% Reduce sentence if convicted in future
† Possible benefits of expungement
9 5% Eligibility for government benefits 15 Drug Court Review, Vol. V, 1
10 5% Eligibility for government loans
153 80% Successfully complete drug court
63 33% Remain abstinent
40 21% Avoid new arrests
37 19% Wait required amount of time
34 18% Pay court fines and fees
17 9% Avoid new convictions
† Expungement eligibility criteria
10 5% Petition the court for expungement
117 61% Correct until qualified for Post-graduation wait
74 39% Incorrect

110 85% Extremely
8 6% Somewhat
6 5% A little
** Likelihood of seeking expungement
6 5% Not at all
rrectly defined the term “expungement.” * Includes only participants who co
om the Delaware drug courts. ** Includes only participants fr
† Percentages can add up to more than 100% due to clients providing more than one response. 16 Expungement in Drug Court
Fifty-eight percent of the participants (n = 111) were
able to correctly define the term “expungement” as having
one’s current qualifying treatment court charges (arrests)
erased from their record. The balance of the participants
either provided an incorrect response or were unable to
generate a response, with 5% (n = 9) of the participants
confusing record expungement with having one’s current
charges dropped, 6% (n = 12) defining it as having one’s
entire criminal record wiped clean, and 31% (n = 59) unable
to provide a response.
Of the 111 participants who correctly defined
expungement, 86% (n = 95) reported that the opportunity for
expungement was “extremely important” in their decision to
enter the drug court program. Additionally, 8% (n = 9)
described expungement as being “somewhat important,” 2%
(n = 2) described expungement as being “a little important,”
and 5% (n = 5) described expungement as “not at all
important” in their decisions to enter the drug court program.
When asked to identify the potential benefits of
having their arrest records expunged, 77% reported that
expungement may improve their chances for future
employment, 17% reported that expungement would increase
their self-esteem, 6% reported that expungement would
increase their eligibility for housing assistance, 5% reported
that expungement would reduce their sentence if convicted in
the future, 5% reported that expungement would increase
their eligibility for government benefits, and 5% reported that
expungement would improve their opportunity to obtain
government loans. Participants reported an average of 1.2
(SD = 0.8) potential benefits.
When the entire sample, after being provided with the
correct definition of record expungement, was asked to list
the eligibility requirements for having their records
expunged, 80% correctly identified successfully completing
the drug court program, 33% correctly identified remaining Drug Court Review, Vol. V, 1 17
drug abstinent, 21% correctly identified avoiding any new
arrests, 19% correctly identified waiting the required amount
of time, 18% correctly identified paying court fines and fees,
9% correctly identified avoiding new convictions, and 5%
correctly identified petitioning the court for expungement.
Overall, participants were able to recall an average of 1.8 (SD
= 1.2) eligibility requirements, and only 2% of the drug court
clients were able to correctly identify all of the requirements
for expungement. When asked about the required waiting
period between graduation from the drug court program and
being eligible for expungement, 61% provided a correct
Finally, when the Delaware drug court clients were
asked about how likely they would be to seek expungement
in the future, 85% reported that they would be “extremely
likely,” 6% reported that they would be “somewhat likely,”
5% reported that they would be “a little likely,” and 5%
reported that they would be “not at all likely.” As mentioned
earlier, Philadelphia drug court clients were not asked this
question because the expungement process is automatic in
that jurisdiction.
[4] It is widely assumed that the opportunity for
record expungement in pre-plea drug courts is an important
incentive for offenders to enter drug court programs and to
maintain their involvement in aftercare and continued
sobriety once they graduate and are no longer under the
court’s jurisdiction. However, results of our survey suggest
that nearly one-half of the clients could not correctly define
the term “expungement,” virtually none (2%) of the clients
could correctly identify all of the requirements to obtain
expungement, and few were able to identify more than one
potential benefit of expungement. As it stands, the limited
understanding of expungement and its potential benefits may
significantly diminish its ability to function as a “secondary 18 Expungement in Drug Court
carrot” for enhancing adherence to post-graduate abstinence
and service utilization and likely contributes to the small
number of expungement petitions that are actually filed.
Importantly, however, of the participants who
correctly understood the concept of expungement, the
majority (88%) reported that the opportunity for
expungement was “extremely important” to their decision to
enter drug court. This suggests that educating clients about
the process of expungement could make record expungement
function as a more effective reinforcement of drug abstinence
and program compliance. That is, if graduates understood the
benefits of expungement, they might strive harder to satisfy
the requirements for expungement.
The current study highlights the need for enhanced
strategies to ensure that more graduates who meet the
requirements for record expungement ultimately obtain this
important benefit. One such strategy might involve
developing enhanced orientation procedures to help drug
court clients better understand the meaning and potential
benefits of record expungement. Although courts typically
provide detailed information on these issues, it is possible
that there is room to enhance these efforts by, for example,
providing clients with continuing education about the benefits
of expungement, administering brief quizzes or
questionnaires, or providing written discharge plans that
remind graduating clients about the opportunity and benefits
of expungement. In addition, clients may be better served if
this information were provided as part of an ongoing process
rather than a one-time event. For example, drug court staff
might provide expungement information to clients at regular
intervals (e.g., status hearings and at graduation) throughout
the program. Finally, many jurisdictions have begun to
automate the record expungement process. In some of these
jurisdictions, the drug court files the expungement petition on
behalf of the graduate and pays the associated filing fees. Drug Court Review, Vol. V, 1 19
Future research should examine the effectiveness of
these strategies for increasing drug court clients’
understanding of record expungement and its potential
benefits. Research might also examine ways of leveraging
record expungement to promote increased participation in
aftercare programs. For example, jurisdictions may be able to
shorten the required waiting periods for expungement
contingent upon regular participation in aftercare programs.
Research in this area could help to inform public policy,
improve outcomes for drug court clients, and reduce offender
recidivism and its associated costs to society.20 Expungement in Drug Court
Alexander, R. P., & Walz, K. (1974). Arrest record
expungement in California: The polishing of Sterling.
University of San Francisco Law Review, 9, 299-315.
Boyd, G. (2002). Collateral damage in the War on Drugs.
Villanova Law Review, 47, 839-850.
Demleitner, N. V. (2002). “Collateral damage”: No re-entry
for drug offenders. Villanova Law Review, 47, 1027-
Eastman, J. D. (2002). Expungements: Freedom from the
disability and life sentence of a legal record (2
Sparta, NJ: Northern Star Publishing.
Marlowe, D. B., Elwork, A., Festinger, D. S., & McLellan, A.
T. (2003). Drug policy by popular referendum: This, too,
shall pass. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 25,
McCrady, B. S., & Bux, D. A., Jr. (1999). Ethical issues in
informed consent with substance abusers. Journal of
Consulting & Clinical Psychology, 67, 186-93.
McMillan v. Pennsylvania, 477 U.S. 79 (1986).
Munro, C. A., Saxton, J., & Butters, M. A. (2000). The
neuropsychological consequences of abstinence among
older alcoholics: A cross-sectional study. Alcoholism:
Clinical & Experimental Research, 24, 1510-1516.
Saxton, J., Munro, C. A., Butters, M. A., Schramke, C., &
McNeil, M. A. (2000). Alcohol, dementia, and
Alzheimer’s disease: Comparison of neuropsychological Drug Court Review, Vol. V, 1 21
profiles. Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry & Neurology,
13, 141-149.
Tapert, S. F., & Brown, S. A. (2000). Substance dependence,
family history of alcohol dependence and
neuropsychological functioning in adolescence.
Addiction, 95, 1043-1053.
United States v. Kammerdiener, 945 F.2d 300 (9
Victor, M., Adams, R., & Collins, G. (1989). The WernickeKorsakoff Syndrome and related neurologic disorders
due to alcoholism and malnutrition (2
Philadelphia: FA Davis.
Wexler, H. K., Melnick, G., & Chaple, M. (2005). Stigma
reduction: The program rehabilitation and restitution
initiative. Offender Substance Abuse Report, 5, 1-14. 22 Expungement in Drug CourtDrug Court Review, Vol. V, 1 23
A Critical Review of Relevant Research and
Cannabinoid Detection Guidance for Drug Courts
By Paul L. Cary, M.S.
Toxicology and Drug Monitoring Laboratory
University of Missouri
Health Care
The testing of drug court clients for marijuana usage
is important for abstinence monitoring. Conventional wisdom
holds that marijuana remains detectable in urine for 30 days
or longer following smoking. This widely held assumption
has complicated the interpretation of testing results, likely
resulted in the delay of therapeutic intervention and judicial
sanctioning, and fostered the denial of marijuana usage by
drug court participants. A careful review of relevant
marijuana elimination research reveals that a reliable
cannabinoid detection window can be established to aid drug
courts in initiating strategies necessary produce to
behavioral change. The purpose of this paper is to provide
sensible cannabinoid detection guidance that will assist
courts in their decision making process.
An extensive evaluation of marijuana elimination
research is presented and cannabinoid detection window
guidance is offered. Recent scientific literature indicates that
it is uncommon for occasional marijuana smokers to test
positive for cannabinoids in urine for longer than seven days
using standard cutoff concentrations. Following smoking
cessation, chronic smokers would not be expected to remain
positive for longer than 21 days, even when using the 20
ng/mL cannabinoid cutoff. While longer detection times have 24 The Marijuana Detection Window
been documented in research studies, these prolonged
elimination findings represent uncommon occurrences and
should not be used as exculpatory evidence in the majority of
case adjudications. The interpretation of urine cannabinoid
testing results related to client detoxification, establishing an
abstinence baseline and continued testing after positive
results are discussed. Drug courts are encouraged to
establish a reasonable and pragmatic cannabinoid detection
window in order to provide objective criteria for equitable
and consistent court decisions.
Paul L. Cary, M.S. is scientific director of the
Toxicology and Drug Monitoring Laboratory at the
University of Missouri Health Care in Columbia, MO. For
the past twenty-five years, Mr. Cary has been actively
involved in the management of a nationally-recognized
laboratory (SAMHSA certified) that performs drug testing for
drug courts, hospitals, mental health facilities, attorneys,
coroners and medical examiners, athletics programs, and
public and private employers. He has authored numerous
scientific publications and monographs, has served on a
variety clinical and technical advisory committees, teaches at
the university, is involved in drug testing research, and serves
as a consultant in toxicology-related matters. Mr. Cary has
been a resource to drug court teams throughout the nation
and overseas and serves as visiting faculty for the National
Association of Drug Court Professionals, the National
Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, and the
National Drug Court Institute.
Direct all correspondence to Paul L. Cary, M.S.
Toxicology and Drug Monitoring Laboratory, 301 Business
Loop 70 West, Suite 208—Allton Building, Columbia, MO,
65203; carypl@health.missouri.edu. Drug Court Review, Vol. V, 1 25
[5] The cannabinoid
detection window is
defined as the estimated
number of days a urine
sample will continue to
test positive following the
last use of marijuana.
[6] Numerous
pharmacological and
technical variables
influence the length of
time required for
cannabinoids to be
eliminated from the body.
[7] A serious concern
associated with some of
the research upon which
the 30-plus day
assumption is based is the
inability to assure that
marijuana was not used by
subjects during the
[8] The 30-day window is
continually reaffirmed by
sources as varied as the
magazine High Times,
substance abuse treatment
literature, and health
information materials.
[9] For a single use event,
the cannabinoid detection
window is about 3-4 days
using the 50 ng/mL cutoff
concentration; for chronic
use, it would not be longer
than 21 days even at low
(20 ng/mL) cutoff levels.
[10] While a 30 day "clean
out" period may not be
required for a negative
urine test, it would be
unlikely for a drug court
client to remain
cannabinoid positive by
the end of this designated
abstinence period. 26 The Marijuana Detection Window
[11] The "two negative
test approach" for
establishing a client's
abstinence baseline allows
the determination of new
or recent marijuana usage.
[12] Urine drug testing
following a positive result
for cannabinoids should
continue to ensure that no
covert usage of drugs
besides marijuana occurs
and to avoid sending the
wrong therapeutic
message to other clients.
[13] Establishing a
cannabinoid detection
window defines
compliance boundaries
and aids the court in
applying intervention
strategies and sanctions in
an equitable and
consistent manner. Drug Court Review, Vol. V, 1 27
he duration of the urinary cannabinoid detection
window is not settled science. The number of days,
following the cessation of marijuana smoking,
necessary for cannabinoids to become non-detectable using
traditional drug testing methods is the subject of debate
among forensic toxicologists and a matter of on-going
scientific research. This article makes no pretense to limit
this important discussion, but rather, seeks to enhance it. It is
hoped that drug court practitioners will find that this
information clarifies some of the complex issues associated
with the elimination of marijuana from the human body.
Conventional wisdom has led to the common
assumption that cannabinoids will remain detectable in urine
for 30 days or longer following the use of marijuana. These
prolonged cannabinoid elimination projections have likely
resulted in the delay of therapeutic intervention, thwarted the
timely use of judicial sanctioning, and fostered the denial of
marijuana usage by drug court participants.

This review challenges some of the research upon
which the 30-plus day elimination assumption is based.
Careful scrutiny of these studies should not be interpreted as
an effort to discredit the findings or the authors of this
research. However, as our knowledge evolves, the relevancy
of previously published scientific data should be evaluated
anew. One fact is clear—more research is needed in the area
cannabinoid elimination.
Merely attempting to formulate cannabinoid
detection guidance invites controversy. Some will argue that
the proposed detection window defined in this article is too
short. Others will suggest the opposite. Still others will insist
that the scientific evidence is insufficient to allow the
establishment of such guidance. To some degree, each
position has merit. No detection window guidance, 28 The Marijuana Detection Window
regardless of the extent of scientific support, will encompass
every set of circumstances or all client situations. If nothing
else, the research demonstrates that there is significant
variability between individuals in the time required to
eliminate drugs.
These facts, however, should not preclude the
development of reasonable and pragmatic guidance,
supported by scientific research, for use in the majority of
drug court adjudications. It is widely accepted that in order
to instill successful behavioral changes in a substance abusing
population, that consequences need to be applied soon after
the identification of renewed or continued drug use. In a drug
court context, the application of judicial sanctions and the
initiation of therapeutic interventions have been needlessly
delayed due to a lack of coherent guidance regarding the
length of time cannabinoids will likely remain detectable in
urine following the cessation of marijuana smoking. The
purpose of this article is to provide that much needed
In a recent forensic publication, Dr. Marilyn Huestis
wrote: “Monitoring acute cannabis usage with a commercial
cannabinoid immunoassay with a 50-ng/mL cutoff
concentration provides only a narrow window of detection of
1–2 days,” (2002). In a 1985 article by Ellis et. al.,
researchers concluded; “that under very strictly supervised
abstinence, chronic users can have positive results for
cannabinoids in urine at 20 ng/mL or above on the EMITd.a.u. assay
for as many as 46 consecutive days from
admission, and can take as many as 77 days to drop below the

EMIT is a registered trademark of the Dade Behring/SYVA
Company and stands for (Enzyme Multiplied Immunoassay
Technique). EMIT is a commercial drug testing product for the
analysis of drugs of abuse in urine (d.a.u.). Drug Court Review, Vol. V, 1 29
cutoff calibrator for ten consecutive days.” Based upon these
seemingly divergent findings, it is not difficult to comprehend
why judges, attorneys and other drug court professionals are
in a quandary regarding the length of time marijuana can
remain detectable in urine following use. The dilemma—if
the scientific research seems not to be able to achieve
consensus on the urinary cannabinoid detection window, how
are those responsible for court mandated drug supervision
programs suppose to understand and resolve this issue?
Like many other scientific and technical topics that
have been thrust into the judicial environment, the detection
window of marijuana is both complex and controversial, yet
the understanding of the pharmacology of this popular
substance is crucial to the adjudication of cases in which
marijuana usage is involved. While the difficulties associated
with establishing the length of time a drug will continue to
test positive in urine after use are not unique to marijuana, the
problem is exacerbated by the extended elimination
characteristics of cannabinoids relative to other drugs of
abuse, most notably after chronic use.

The questions posed by drug court professionals
related to cannabinoid detection in urine include:
• How many days is it likely to take for a chronic
marijuana user to reach a negative urine drug test
• How long can cannabinoids be excreted and
detected in urine after a single exposure to
• How many days of positive urine drug tests for
cannabinoids constitutes continued marijuana
usage? 30 The Marijuana Detection Window
• How often should a client’s urine be tested to
monitor for continued abstinence from
• How many days should the court wait before
retesting a client after a positive urine drug test
for cannabinoids has been obtained?
• How should the court interpret a positive urine
drug test for cannabinoids after a client has
completed an initial 30-day detoxification period
designed to “clean out” their system?
To one degree or another, answering these questions
depends upon the ability of the court to estimate the length of
time cannabinoids will likely remain detectable in urine
following the use of marijuana by a drug court client. Thus,
the cannabinoid detection window becomes a determinative
factor in the appropriate interpretation of urine drug testing
results for marijuana. The lack of adequate guidance has
hindered the development of these standards for use in drug
It is important to note that while courts may be
seeking absolute answers (an exact cannabinoid detection
window), the science of drug detection in urine can only
provide reasonable best estimates. The law is not always
black and white; neither is science. Therefore, precise
“yes/no” answers or exact detection windows are generally
not attainable. Sensible guidance for the interpretation of
urine cannabinoid results by drug courts, however, is
[5] Simply put, the detection window is the length of
time in days following the last substance usage that
sequentially collected urine samples will continue to produce Drug Court Review, Vol. V, 1 31
positive drug test results—in other words, the number of days
until last positive sample will be produced. This time period
is not the same as the length of time a drug will remain in
someone’s system—that concept is, in reality, indeterminable
(given that there is no analytical method capable of detecting
the presence of a single molecule of drug in a donor’s body).
The question being addressed herein is not how long minute
traces of marijuana will remain in a client’s tissues or fluids
after smoking, but rather how long those residual cannabinoid
metabolites will continue to be excreted in urine in sufficient
quantities to produce a positive drug test (by standard
screening and confirmation testing).
For those compounds with uncomplicated metabolic
pathways or for those drugs that are not significantly retained
in body storage compartments, detection times have been
established and generally accepted. These include urinary
detection windows for drugs such as cocaine (1-3 days),
amphetamines and opiates (1-4 days), and PCP (1-6 days)
(Baselt, 2004). For marijuana, the urine elimination profile
used to establish the detection window is more complex. It is
well documented and understood that cannabinoids are lipidsoluble compounds that preferentially bind to fat-containing
structures within the human body (Baselt, 2004). This and
other chemical characteristics can prolong the elimination
half-life of cannabinoids and extend the detection window
beyond that of other abused substances. Chronic marijuana
use, which expands body stores of drug metabolites faster
than they can be eliminated, further increases cannabinoid
detection time in urine.
[6] Estimating the detection time of a drug in urine is
a complex task because of the many factors that influence a
compound’s elimination from the body. Additionally,
technical aspects of the testing methods themselves also
affect how long a drug will continue to be detected in urine. 32 The Marijuana Detection Window
The pharmacological variables affecting the duration of
detection include drug dose, route of administration, duration
of use (acute or chronic), and rate of metabolism. Detection
time is also dependent upon analytical factors including the
sensitivity of the test (cutoff concentration) and the method’s
specificity (the actual drug and/or metabolite that is being
Generally speaking, the following factors affect the
marijuana detection window accordingly:
-Drug dose: The higher the dose; the longer the
detection window. The percentage of psychologically active
delta-9 THC in marijuana plant material varies considerably,
making dosage difficult to estimate.
-Route of entry: Inhalation (smoking) is the only
route of administration to be evaluated in this review.
-Duration/frequency of use: The longer the duration
and the greater the frequency of cannabinoid usage (chronic);
the greater the body storage of fat-soluble metabolites; the
longer the cannabinoid detection window. Drug surveillance
programs may be able to define use patterns based on client
self-reporting, arrest reports, documentation of previous
treatment, or other court records.
-Metabolism rate: The higher the metabolic
functions of the client; the faster cannabinoids are broken
down; the shorter the detection window. Monitoring
programs cannot determine this parameter.
-Test sensitivity: The lower the cutoff concentration;
the more sensitivity the testing method toward cannabinoids;
the longer the detection window. Court staff can select
between various cannabinoid testing cutoffs. Drug Court Review, Vol. V, 1 33
-Test specificity: The less specific the testing
method; the greater number of cannabinoid metabolites
detected; the longer the detection window. This is difficult
for monitoring programs to assess without technical

Of these variables, drug courts are effectively limited
to controlling only the sensitivity of the drug test itself (i.e.,
cutoff concentration). Initial screening test cutoffs for
cannabinoids in urine generally include thresholds at 20, 50,
and 100 ng/mL. The choice of testing cutoff has a profound
effect on the cannabinoid detection window. The only other
factor that can assist the court in the interpretation of
cannabinoid testing results and the estimation of a client’s
detection window is attempting to define the duration and
extent of a client’s marijuana use over time (acute or
chronic). The differentiation between acute (a single use
event or occasional use) versus chronic (persistent, long-term,
continued usage) is important to establishing reliable
detection benchmarks. As a result, drug court practitioners
should attempt to gather as much information as they can
about client drug use behavior and patterns.
Finally, the detection window by its very nature is
subject to the timing of events outside the purview of the
court. The last use of marijuana by a client prior to a positive
test is often unknown to drug court staff. Thus, the real
interval between drug usage and first detection can rarely be
ascertained. For example, if a client smoked marijuana on
Monday and a urine sample collected on Friday produced a
positive result, the window of detection is 4 days shorter than
if that same client had smoked on Thursday and produced a
positive cannabinoid test on Friday. Therefore, the actual
detection window for marijuana will almost always be longer
than the analytically derived detection window as determined
via positive tests. 34 The Marijuana Detection Window
[7] Research associated with the detection window of
cannabinoids in urine spans several decades. While these
studies have produced a significant amount of valuable
information about marijuana elimination, older studies
(primarily those performed in the 1980’s) have also yielded
some unintended consequences as pertains to the detection
window. The technologies of drug testing and the
methodologies used in drug detection have advanced rapidly
in recent years. Consequently, cannabinoid detection studies
performed twenty years ago (employing older immunoassays
methods) utilized drug testing methods that are either no
longer in widespread use or assays that have been extensively
As cannabinoid screening tests evolved, these
improved assays became more selective in the manner in
which they detected marijuana metabolites (breakdown
products). As detection specificity increased, the length of
time cannabinoids were being detected in urine decreased.
The greater the cannabinoid testing specificity, the shorter the
detection window. Studies have demonstrated that detection
times of cannabinoid metabolites in urine monitored by
immunoassay have decreased over the past two decades
(Huestis, 2002; Huestis, Mitchell, & Cone, 1994). Therefore,
the results of cannabinoid elimination investigations
performed in the 1980’s may no longer be applicable to
estimating the detection window for marijuana in urine using
today’s testing methodologies. Not to mention that twenty
years ago, the routine use of on-site drug testing devices was
Studies of chronic marijuana users reporting
prolonged cannabinoid excretion profiles have provided the
basis for the common assumption that marijuana can be
detected in urine for weeks or even months following use. In
general, cannabinoid elimination studies that have manifested Drug Court Review, Vol. V, 1 35
exceptionally long detection times suffer from a variety of
research design shortcomings that raise concerns about their
usefulness in establishing a reliable cannabinoid detection
window for use in the modern drug court movement. Table I
examines some of the potentially limiting factors from studies
that produced prolonged cannabinoid detection times.
The research studies presented in Table 1 contain
numerous design details that confound the use of the data
presented in establishing a reasonable and pragmatic
cannabinoid detection window for drug court proceedings.
The most serious of these obfuscating factors is the inability
to assure marijuana abstinence of the subjects during the
studies. The adverse effect of this flaw on determining the
true cannabinoid elimination time after marijuana cessation is
significant. Drug use during an elimination study would
extend the duration cannabinoids would be detected in the
urine of subjects and would produce inaccurately long
detection windows. In several cases, the authors themselves
in their own review of results raise this concern. Other study
design issues that may limit their usefulness include the use
of detection methods with cannabinoid cutoff concentrations
far below those traditionally utilized in criminal justice
programs, the use of testing methods no longer commercially
available and the use of immunoassay drug tests with reduced
cannabinoid specificity (as compared with current
immunoassay testing methods). It is not the intention of this
article to discredit these studies, but rather to illustrate the
degree to which their prolonged cannabinoid detection
findings have influenced the understanding of the length of
time cannabinoids can be detected in urine.
This critical evaluation (Table 1) is not presented to
imply that these peer-reviewed articles are unscientific or
contain no information of probative value. It is insufficient,
however, to merely read the abstract of a scientific paper or
the findings of a research study and draw the conclusion that
a drug court client can remain positive for 30 days or longer, 36 The Marijuana Detection Window
Table 1. Review of Cannabinoid Studies Reporting Long
Detection Times
Times Determined
Factors Potentially Affecting the Relevance of Study Findings
to Cannabinoid Detection Window Interpretation
36 days Retrospective case study of a single patient; report on 6 similar
cases included; no testing data provided in publication; no
cannabinoid cutoff given.
(Dackis, Pottash, Annitto, & Gold)
37 days 27 subjects studied, no testing data provided in publication;
cannabinoid cutoff not provided; “calculated” cannabinoid cutoff
less than 10 ng/mL; 37 day detection derived from 95% confidence
interval for calculated elimination half-life; actual length of
positivity averaged 9.7 days (5–20 days); authors acknowledge
subjects may have been able to obtain marijuana during study;
possibility supported by staff monitoring subjects.
(Cridland, Rottanburg, & Robins)
40 days 10 subjects studied; self-reported as chronic users; subjects housed
on unrestricted drug treatment ward; marijuana use during study
suspected by authors and confirmed by several subjects.
67 days 86 subjects studied; self-reported as chronic users; subjects treated
on “closely supervised” ward; single case of an individual’s time to
last positive urine (at or above 20 ng/mL) of 67 days (77 days to
drop below the cutoff calibrator for ten consecutive days); spikes
in urine cannabinoid levels during the study are not explained by
the authors.
(Ellis, Mann, Judson, Schramm, & Tashchian)
25 days 11 subjects studied for cannabinoid elimination patterns (70
participants in entire study); only one subject remained positive for
25 days; mean elimination for self-reported “heavy” users was 13
days; immunoassay used in study not commercially available since
(Schwartz, Hayden, & Riddile)
25 days 13 subjects studied; self-reported as chronic users; subject
abstinence not supervised during study; subjects allowed to smoke
marijuana before and on the day of test drug administration; only
one subject tested positive beyond 14 days.
(Johansson & Halldin)
25 days Subject detection times determined using methods with a 5 ng/mL
cannabinoid cutoff concentration.
32 days 19 subjects studied - half withdrew from study prior to completion;
subjects were prisoners housed in general population with no
additional surveillance; participants not asked to report new drug
use during study; marijuana use during study suspected by authors.
(Smith-Kielland, Skuterud, & Morland)
1999 Drug Court Review, Vol. V, 1 37
based upon the longest cannabinoid detection time reported
therein. The data from these studies are often misused to
make such claims.
Despite the potential limitations affecting the
interpretation of the data produced by the studies in Table 1,
the research does present some general cannabinoid
elimination trends worth further examination. A closer
evaluation of the study by Smith-Kielland, Skuterud, &
Morland indicates that even with the factors identified as
limiting its relevance, the average time to the first negative
urine sample at a cannabinoid cutoff of 20 ng/mL was just 3.8
days for infrequent users and only 11.3 days for frequent
users (1999). In the Swatek study, eight out of ten chronic
subjects tested below the 50 ng/mL cutoff after an average of
only 13 days (range 5-19 days) (1984). Johansson and
Halldin identified only one study subject that tested positive
for longer than 14 days with all thirteen subjects having an
average last day with detectable levels (using a 20 ng/mL
cutoff) of 9.8 days (1989). In other words, despite the
potential factors restricting interpretation, those study
subjects with exceptionally long cannabinoid detection times
(30-plus days) were just that—exceptional. In several of the
studies presented in Table 1, only a single subject was the
source of the maximum cannabinoid detection time.
Unfortunately, these rare occurrences have had a
disproportional influence on the overall cannabinoid
detection window discussion in a manner that has led to the
general assumption that 30-plus day detection times are
routine in drug court clients—regardless of use patterns
(chronic vs. acute). Moreover, this prolonged elimination
assumption and its widespread use as exculpatory evidence
has most likely fostered client denial and hindered legitimate
sanctioning efforts.

By contrast, the research associated with acute
marijuana usage and resulting cannabinoid detection window
is considerably more straightforward and less contentious. In 38 The Marijuana Detection Window
a 1995 study using six healthy males (under continuous
medical supervision), Huestis, Mitchell, & Cone determined
that the mean detection times following a low dose marijuana
cigarette ranged from 1 to 5 days and after a high dose
cigarette from 3 to 6 days at a 20 ng/mL immunoassay cutoff
concentration (average 2.1 days and 3.8 days, respectively)
(1995). They also concluded that immunoassays at the 50
ng/mL cannabinoid cutoff provide only a narrow window of
detection of 1-2 days following single-event use. In 1996,
Huestis et. al. published research focusing on carboxy-THC,
the cannabinoid metabolite most often identified by gas
chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS) confirmation
methods. Using the 15 ng/mL GC/MS cutoff, the detection
time for the last positive urine sample (for six subjects
following high dose smoking) was 122 hours—just over five
days. In 2001, Niedbala et. al. demonstrated similar results
with 18 healthy male subjects following the smoking of
cigarettes containing an average THC content of 20-25 mg.
Analyzing urine samples at a 50 ng/mL immunoassay cutoff
yielded an average cannabinoid detection time of 42 hours.
These acute marijuana elimination studies conclude that after
single usage events cannabinoids are detected in urine for no
more than a few days.
While studies of the cannabinoid detection window in
chronic substance users have been more difficult to
accomplish, research protocols have been developed to
overcome concerns about marijuana usage during the study.
Using a well-crafted study design, Kouri, Pope, & Lukas in
1999 determined the cannabinoid elimination profiles of 17
chronic users. Subjects were selected after reporting a history
of at least 5000 separate “episodes” of marijuana use in their
lifetime (the equivalent of smoking once per day for 13.7
years) plus continuing daily usage. Abstinence during the 28-
day study was ensured by withdrawing those subjects whose
normalized urine cannabinoid levels (cannabinoid/creatinine
ratio) indicated evidence of new marijuana use. Kouri, et al,
found that five of the 17 subjects reached non-detectable Drug Court Review, Vol. V, 1 39
levels (less than 20 ng/mL) within the first week of
abstinence, four during the second week, two during the third
week and the remaining six subjects still had detectable
cannabinoid urinary levels at the end of the 28-day abstinence
period. Unfortunately, analytical results related to the
cannabinoid testing in the article were scant as the primary
objective of the study was to assess changes in aggressive
behavior during withdrawal from long-term marijuana use.
Even though this represents one of the best studies of chronic
marijuana users, interpretation of this data for cannabinoid
elimination purposes is limited because the actual drug
testing data is not available. Nonetheless, Kouri, et al, shows
that after at least 5000 marijuana smoking episodes, 30-day
elimination times are possible.
A 2001 research project by Reiter et al. also seemed
to avoid many of the design issues cited as concerns in Table
1. Reiter’s case study involved 52 volunteer chronic
substance abusers drug tested on a detoxification ward. Daily
urine and blood tests excluded illicit drug consumption
during the study. Using a 20 ng/mL immunoassay cutoff, the
maximum elimination time (last time urine tested above the
cutoff) for cannabinoids in urine was 433.5 hours (or just
over 18 days); with a mean elimination time of 117.5 hours
(4.9 days). When controlling for covert marijuana use by
subjects during the study, chronic users in this study did not
exhibit detectable urine cannabinoid levels for even three
In aggregate, using the data from the five studies
cited in this review that researchers described as chronic
marijuana users (even including data from Table 1), the
average detection window for cannabinoids in urine at the
lowest cutoff concentration of 20 ng/mL was just 14 days
(Ellis, et al, 2002; Iten, 1994; Niedbala, 2001; Schwartz,
Hayden, & Riddile, 1985; Swatek, 1984). 40 The Marijuana Detection Window
[8] The assumption that cannabinoids can be
routinely detected in urine following the smoking of
marijuana for 30 days or longer appears widespread and
longstanding. Exacerbating this problem is the nearly
constant proliferation of published material that continually
reinforces the 30-plus day cannabinoid detection window into
the criminal justice psyche. Examples of the enormous body
of information/literature that propagates the 30-plus day
cannabinoid detection times abound:
• Substance abuse treatment literature proclaiming that
“some parts of the body still retain THC even after a
couple of months.”
• Drug abuse information targeted toward teens that
often presents unrealistic cannabinoid detection times
such as; “Traces of THC can be detected by standard
urine and blood tests for about 2 days up to 11
• Criminal justice publications that list the cannabinoid
detection limits of a “Chronic Heavy Smoker” as
“21-27 days.”
• Drug testing manufacturers’ pamphlets that state the
time to last cannabinoid positive urine sample as
“Mean = 27.1 days; Range = 3-77 days.”
• General information websites that offer “expert”
advice concluding, “The average time pot stays in
your system is 30 days.”

• Urine tampering promotions in magazines such as
High Times and on websites that offer urine drug
cleansing supplements and adulterants intended to Drug Court Review, Vol. V, 1 41
chemically mask the presence of drugs in urine often
exaggerate the detection window in an effort to
promote the continued use of their products. Some of
their claims include: drug detection times in urine
[for] “Cannabinoids (THC, Marijuana) 20-90 days,”
and detection times for smokers who use “5-6x per
week—33-48 days.”

• Health information websites that provide the
following guidance; “At the confirmation level of 15
ng/ml, the frequent user will be positive for perhaps
as long as 15 weeks.”
• Dr. Drew Pinsky (a.k.a. Dr. Drew), who has cohosted the popular call-in radio show Loveline for 17
years, states that “Pot stays in your body, stored in fat
tissues, potentially your whole life.”
Based upon these information sources that claim
cannabinoids elimination profiles of 25 days, 11 weeks, 90
days, up to 15 weeks after use, and for “your whole life,” is it
any wonder that drug court professionals cannot reach
consensus on this issue? Is there any doubt why drug court
clients make outlandish cannabinoid elimination claims in
court? These represent but a sampling of the many dubious
sources that perpetuate the prolonged cannabinoid detection
window. As a consequence, the 30-plus day cannabinoid
elimination period remains a commonly assumed “fact.”
[9] The detection window for cannabinoids in urine
must be seen in the proper context—as a reasonable estimate.
Detection times for cannabinoids in urine following smoking
vary considerably between subjects even in controlled
smoking studies using standardized dosing techniques.
Research studies have also demonstrated significant inter-42 The Marijuana Detection Window
subject differences in cannabinoid elimination rates. The
timing of marijuana elimination is further complicated by the
uncertainty of the termination of use and continued
abstinence. That said, general estimates for establishing a
cannabinoid detection window in urine can be advanced and
accepted for use in drug courts. Based upon the current state
of cannabinoid elimination knowledge and the drug testing
methods available in today’s market, the following practical
cannabinoid detection guidance is offered.
Based upon recent scientific evidence, at the 50
ng/mL cutoff concentration for the detection of cannabinoids
in urine (using the currently available laboratory-based
screening methods) it would be unlikely for an individual to
produce a positive urine drug test result for longer than 10
days after the last smoking episode. Although there are no
scientific cannabinoid elimination studies on chronic users
using non-instrumented testing devices, one would assume
that if the on-site devices are properly calibrated at the 50
ng/mL cutoff level the detection guidance would be the same.
At the 20 ng/mL cutoff concentration for the
detection of cannabinoids in urine (using the currently
available laboratory-based screening methods) it would be
uncommon for an individual to produce a positive urine drug
test result longer than 21 days after the last smoking episode.
For occasional marijuana use (or single event usage),
at the 50 ng/mL cutoff level, it would be unusual for the
detection of cannabinoids in urine to extend beyond 3-4 days
following the smoking episode (using the currently available
laboratory-based screening methods or the currently available
on-site THC detection devices). At the 20 ng/mL cutoff for
cannabinoids, positive urine drug test results for the single
event marijuana use would not be expected to be longer than
7 days. Drug Court Review, Vol. V, 1 43
This cannabinoid detection guidance should be
applicable in the majority of drug court cases. These
parameters (acute vs. chronic), however, represent opposite
ends of the marijuana usage spectrum. Clients will often
exhibit marijuana-smoking patterns between these two
extremes resulting in an actual detection window that lies
within these limits. As noted in the Kouri, et al, study,
research suggests that under extraordinary circumstances of
sustained, extended and on-going chronic marijuana abuse
(thousands of smoking episodes over multiple years) that 30-
day urinary cannabinoid detection is possible in some
individuals at the 20 ng/mL cutoff (1999). However, the
burden of proof for documenting such aberrant and chronic
marijuana use patterns should fall on the drug court client or
the client’s representatives. For a client to simply disclose
“chronic” use is insufficient corroboration.
Much has been made about marijuana research that
has produced dramatically prolonged cannabinoid elimination
times, particularly in those subjects identified as chronic.
This data has often been used to explain continuing positive
cannabinoid test results in clients long after their drug
elimination threshold (resulting in negative urine drug tests)
should have been reached. The pertinent question: to what
extent does the scientific data (demonstrating 30-plus day
cannabinoid detection times in chronic users) influence the
disposition of drug court cases? Put another way, do drug
court practitioners need to be concerned about the potential of
extended cannabinoid detection times impacting court
decisions (i.e., sanctions)? In reality, the only timeframe in
which an individual’s chronic marijuana use (possibly leading
to extended cannabinoid elimination) is relevant is during a
client’s admission into the drug court program. It is during
this initial phase that the court may find itself attempting to
estimate the number of days necessary for a client’s body to
rid itself of acquired cannabinoid stores and the time required
to produce negative drug test results. In many programs, a
detoxification period is established for this purpose. Once in 44 The Marijuana Detection Window
the drug court program (following the initial detoxification
phase), the extent of a client’s past chronic marijuana usage
does not influence the cannabinoid detection window as long
as appropriate supervision and drug monitoring for abstinence
continues on a regular basis. It would seem reasonable to
assume that chronic client marijuana usage of the extreme
levels discussed here while within a properly administered
drug court would be highly unlikely. Therefore, the
consequences of chronic marijuana usage on the cannabinoid
detection window are effectively limited to the initial entry
phase of the program.
The cannabinoid detection window guidance
provided herein relies upon the widely used cutoff
concentrations for the initial screening tests—20 ng/mL and
50 ng/mL. For programs utilizing GC/MS confirmation for
the validation of positive screening results, the confirmation
cutoff has little influence on the length of the cannabinoid
detection window in urine. A review of the potential result
possibilities demonstrates this point. If a drug court sample
tests negative for cannabinoids on the initial screen, the
confirmation cutoff is obviously irrelevant because the
sample is not submitted for confirmation testing. If a sample
both screens and confirms as positive for cannabinoids (and is
reported as positive), then the cutoff concentration of the
confirmation analysis is also not relevant because the sample
would not have been sent for confirmation unless it produced
a result greater than or equal to the cutoff level of the initial
screening test. In other words, the confirmation procedure is
merely validating the results (and therefore the cutoff) of the
original screening test. The only scenario in which the
confirmation cutoff could potentially impact the length of the
cannabinoid detection window is if a sample screened
positive and the confirmation procedure failed to confirm the
presence of cannabinoids (and the results of the drug test
were reported as negative). In this circumstance, the
cannabinoid detection window might be shorter than the
estimate provided as guidance. This would be true on the Drug Court Review, Vol. V, 1 45
condition that the confirmation cutoff concentration was
lower than that of the screening procedure—which is nearly
always the case. A shorter cannabinoid detection window
would not be seen as prejudicial to the client and might
actually be beneficial to the drug court.
Using this cannabinoid detection window guidance,
the drug court decision-making hierarchy should be able to
establish reasonable and pragmatic cannabinoid detection
benchmarks that both provide objective criteria for court
decisions and protect clients from inappropriate or
unsupportable consequences. Some courts may choose to use
the cannabinoid elimination information detailed in this paper
exactly as presented to establish a marijuana detection
window that will allow the differentiation between abstinence
and continued/renewed use. Other courts may decide to build
into the guidance an additional safety margin, granting clients
further benefit of the doubt. Regardless of the approach,
however, courts are urged to establish detection benchmarks
and utilize these scientifically supportable criteria for case
Every day drug courts grapple with two seemingly
disparate imperatives—the need for rapid therapeutic
intervention (sanctioning designed to produce behavioral
change) and the need to ensure that the evidentiary standards,
crafted to protect client rights, are maintained. While
administrative decision-making in a drug court environment
(or a probation revocation hearing) does not necessitate the
same due process requirements and protections that exist in
criminal cases, as professionals we are obliged to ensure that
court decisions have a strong evidentiary foundation.
Courts establishing detection windows for
cannabinoids need to be aware of the existence of research
studies indicating prolonged elimination times in urine. It is
not recommended, however, that drug courts manipulate their
detection windows to include these exceptional findings. 46 The Marijuana Detection Window
Sound judicial practice requires that court decisions be based
upon case-specific information. In weighing the evidence,
courts also acknowledge the reality that a particular client’s
individualities or the uniqueness of circumstances may not
always allow the strict application of cannabinoid detection
window parameters in a sentencing decision. These
uncommon events, however, should not preclude the
development of cannabinoid detection windows for the use in
the majority of court determinations.
[10] As a result of the extended elimination of
cannabinoids (as compared to other abused drugs), some drug
courts have instituted a detoxification stage or "clean out"
period in the first phase of program participation. This grace
period allows new clients a defined time frame for their
bodies to eliminate stores of drugs that may have built up
over years of substance abuse without the fear of court
sanctions associated with a positive drug test. In many cases
this detoxification period extends for 30 days, which
corresponds to the commonly held assumption that this
represents the time period required for marijuana metabolites
to be eliminated from a client’s system.

Regardless of the origin of the 30-day marijuana
detection window and its influence on the duration of the
detoxification period, 30 days is certainly an equitable time
period for client drug elimination purposes. Simply because
the science may not support the necessity of a detoxification
period of this duration does not mean that a court cannot use
the 30-day parameter in order to establish program
expectations. However, based upon the cannabinoid detection
guidelines presented in this review, it is unlikely (utilizing
reasonable physiological or technology criteria) that a drug
court client would continue to remain cannabinoid positive at
the end of this designated abstinence period. After 30 days, Drug Court Review, Vol. V, 1 47
using either a 20 or 50 ng/mL testing cutoff, continued
cannabinoid positive urine drug tests almost certainly indicate
marijuana usage at some point during the detoxification
period and should provoke a court response to reinforce
program expectations.
[11] The abstinence baseline can either be a point at
which a client has demonstrated their abstinence from drug
use via sequentially negative testing results (actual baseline)
or a court-established time limit after which a client should
not test positive if that client has abstained from marijuana
use (scientific baseline). Each baseline has importance in a
court-mandated drug monitoring program. The later has been
the focus of this review. It is exemplified by establishing the
detection window for marijuana and utilizing positive urine
drug testing results to guide court intervention. Individuals
who continue to produce cannabinoid positive results beyond
the established detection window maximums (the scientific
baseline) are subject to sanction for failing to remain
abstinence during program participation.
The alternative approach uses negative test results in
establishing the actual abstinence baseline. This has been
referred to as the “two negative test approach” and has been
previously described in the literature (Cary, 2002). A drug
court participant is deemed to have reached their abstinence
baseline when two consecutive urine drug tests yielding
negative results for cannabinoids have been achieved, where
the two tests are separated by a several day interval. Any
positive drug test result following the establishment of this
baseline indicates new drug exposure. This technique can be
used with assays that test for marijuana at either the 20 or 50
ng/mL cutoff concentration.

Research data indicates that in the terminal phase of cannabinoid
elimination, subjects can produce urine samples with levels below 48 The Marijuana Detection Window

[12] Due to the prolonged excretion profile of
cannabinoids in urine (especially after chronic use) some
drug court programs wrestle with the issue of whether to
continue urine drug testing during the expected marijuana
elimination period. Simply put, why continue the expense
and sample collection burden for clients who have already
tested positive for cannabinoids knowing that the client may
continue to produce positive cannabinoid results for many
days? There are at least three principle reasons drug courts
are not advised to suspend urine drug testing following a
positive result for cannabinoids.
First, most court-mandated testing includes drugs
other than marijuana. Client surveillance often encompasses
testing for many of the popularly abused substances such as
amphetamines, cocaine, opiates, and alcohol. Programs that
forego scheduled testing run the very real risk of missing
covert drug use for substances other than marijuana. If a drug
court client knows a positive cannabinoid test will result in a
drug testing “vacation,” they may use that non-testing period

the cutoff concentration (negative results), followed subsequently
by samples with levels slightly above the cutoff (positive results)
(Huestis, 2002). This fluctuation between positive and negative did
not occur in all subjects and in those that did exhibit this pattern, the
fluctuation was generally transitory. Based on this elimination
pattern, it is recommended that programs using a cannabinoid cutoff
of 50 ng/mL allow an interval of at least three days between the two
negative result samples to establish the abstinence baseline. It is
further recommended that programs using the 20 ng/mL
cannabinoid cutoff allow an interval of at least five days between
the two negative result samples to establish the abstinence baseline.
If a program’s testing frequency is greater than every five days
(using the 20 ng/mL cutoff), a total of three or more negative tests
may be required before the five-day interval is achieved.Drug Court Review, Vol. V, 1 49
to use substances with shorter detection windows (i.e. cocaine
or alcohol). By continuing to test, the court maintains its
abstinence monitoring for drugs besides marijuana.
Second, from a programmatic standpoint the
suspension of scheduled client drug testing sends the wrong
therapeutic message. If a drug court's policies and procedures
require a certain schedule of testing, suspending testing for
even a short period may appear to other program participants
that the court is “rewarding” a client who has tested positive.
Eliminating scheduled drug tests in response to a positive
cannabinoid result degrades the program’s efforts at
maintaining client behavioral expectations.
Lastly, depending upon the cutoff concentration of
the drug test being used and whether the client's marijuana
usage was an isolated event (rather than a full relapse), it is
entirely possible that a client who has previously tested
positive for cannabinoids may test negative sooner than the
cannabinoid detection window estimate. As indicated earlier,
acute marijuana use results in cannabinoid positive urine
samples for only several days following exposure. Curtailing
drug testing for longer than three days extends unnecessarily
the period of uncertainty about a client’s recent behavior and
may delay appropriate therapeutic strategies or sanction
[13] One of the most important prerogatives of drug
court (or any therapeutic court) is to clearly define the
behavioral expectations for clients by establishing
compliance boundaries required for continued program
participation. Drug testing used as a surveillance tool defines
those boundaries and monitors client behavior in order that
the court can direct either incentives or sanctions as needed to
maintain participant compliance. To fulfill this important 50 The Marijuana Detection Window
responsibility, drug courts teams must agree upon specific
drug testing benchmarks in order to apply court intervention
strategies in an equitable and consistent manner.
The primary focus of this article is to promote the
establishment of a drug testing benchmark that defines the
expected detection window of cannabinoids in urine
following the cessation of smoking. In order for drug courts
to determine their cannabinoid detection window, the
program will need to consider the cutoff concentration of the
urine cannabinoid test being utilized and develop criteria for
defining chronic marijuana users. Drug courts should also
take into account how the cannabinoid detection window will
be incorporated into their current policies and procedures and
how the detection window will be used in case adjudication.
Once established, the court should apprise program
participants of the expectations associated with the
cannabinoid detection window. Clients should understand
that sanctions will result if continued cannabinoid positive
tests occur beyond the established detection window (the
drug elimination time limit after which a client should not test
positive if that client has abstained from marijuana use).
Courts are reminded that the cannabinoid detection window
may require revision if there are modifications to the drug
testing methods or if there are significant changes in
marijuana usage patterns in the court’s target population (i.e.,
significant increases in chronic use).

Practitioners are reminded that the goal in
establishing a cannabinoid detection window is not to ensure
that a monitored client is drug free. Chronic marijuana users
may carry undetectable traces of drug in their bodies for a
significant time after the cessation of use. Rather, the goal is
to establish a given time period (detection window limit) after
which a client should not test positive for cannabinoids as a
result of continued excretion from prior usage. Drug Court Review, Vol. V, 1 51
Finally, the cannabinoid detection window is a
scientifically supportable, evidence-based effort to establish a
reasonable and practical standard for determining the length
of time cannabinoids will remain detectable in urine
following the smoking of marijuana. Drug courts are
reminded that science is not black and white and that the state
of our knowledge is continually evolving. While detection
window benchmarks will and should guide the sanctioning
process for violations of abstinent behavior, courts are urged
to judge a client’s level of compliance on a case by case basis
using all of the behavioral data available to the court in
conjunction with drug testing results. In unconventional
situations that confound the court, qualified toxicological
assistance should be sought. 52 The Marijuana Detection Window
Baselt, R.C. (2004). Disposition of toxic drugs and chemicals
in man. Seventh Edition. Foster City, CA: Biomedical
Cary, P.L. (2002). The use creatinine-normalized cannabinoid
results to determine continued abstinence or to
differentiate between new marijuana use and continuing
drug excretion from previous exposure. Drug Court
Review, 4 (1), 83-103.
Cridland, J.S., Rottanburg, D., & Robins, A.H. (1983).
Apparent half-life of excretion of cannabinoids in man.
Human Toxicology, 2 (4), 641-644.
Dackis, C.A., Pottash, A.L.C., Annitto, W., & Gold, M.S.
(1982). Persistence of urinary marijuana levels after
supervised abstinence. American Journal of Psychiatry,
139 (9), 1196-1198.
Ellis, G.M., Mann, M.A., Judson, B.A., Schramm, N.T., &
Tashchian, A. (1985). Excretion patterns of cannabinoid
metabolites after last use in a group of chronic users.
Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, 38 (5), 572-
Huestis, M.A., Mitchell, J.M., & Cone, E.J. (1994). Lowering
the federally mandated cannabinoid immunoassay cutoff
increases true-positive results. Clinical Chemistry, 40 (5),
Huestis, M.A., Mitchell, J.M., & Cone, E.J. (1995). Detection
times of marijuana metabolites in urine by immunoassay
and GC-MS. Journal of Analytical Toxicology, 19 (10),
443-449. Drug Court Review, Vol. V, 1 53
Huestis, M.A., Mitchell, J.M., & Cone, E.J. (1996). Urinary
excretion profiles of 11-nor-9-carboxy-∆
tetrahydrocannabinol in humans after single smoked dose
of marijuana. Journal of Analytical Toxicology, 20 (10),
Huestis, M.A. (2002). Cannabis (marijuana): Effects on
human behavior and performance. Forensic Science
Review, 14 (1/2), 15-60.
Iten, P.X. (1994). Fahren untrer drogen-o-der
medikamenteneinfluss: Forensische interpretation und
begutachtung. Zürich, Switzerland: Institut für
Rechtsmedizin der Universtät Zürich.
Johansson, E. & Halldin, M.M. (1989). Urinary excretion
half-life of ∆
-tetrahydrocannabinol-7-oic acid in heavy
marijuana users after smoking. Journal of Analytical
Toxicology, 13 (7/8), 218-223.
Kouri, E. M., Pope, H. G., & Lukas, S. E. (1999). Changes in
aggressive behavior during withdrawal from long-term
marijuana use. Psychopharmacology, 143 (3), 302-308.
Niedbala, R.S., Kardos, K.W., Fritch, D.F., Kardos, T.F., &
Waga, J. (2001). Detection of marijuana use by oral fluid
and urine analysis following single-dose administration
of smoked and oral marijuana. Journal of Analytical
Toxicology, 25 (7/8), 289-303.
Reiter, A., Hake, J., Meissner, C., Rohwer, J., Friedrich, H.J.,
& Ochmichen, M. (2001). Time of drug elimination in
chronic drug abusers: Case study of 52 patients in a “lowstep” detoxification ward. Forensic Science
International, 119, 248-253. 54 The Marijuana Detection Window
Schwartz, R.H., Hayden, G. F., & Riddile, M. (1985).
Laboratory detection of marijuana use. American Journal
of Diseases of Children, 139 (11), 1093-1096.
Smith-Kielland, A., Skuterud, B., & Morland J. (1999).
Urinary excretion of 11-nor-9-carboxy-∆
tetrahydrocannabinol and cannabinoids in frequent and
infrequent drug users. Journal of Analytical Toxicology,
23 (9), 323-332.
Swatek, R. (1984). Marijuana use: Persistence and urinary
elimination. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 1 (4),
265-270. Drug Court Review, Vol. V, 1 55

Detoxing from Marijuana (pamphlet). (1992). Marijuana
Anonymous: 12-Step Program for Marijuana Addicts, 4. The entire
text reads as follows: “Why do some effects last so long?” “Unlike
most other drugs, including alcohol, THC (the active chemical in
marijuana) is stored in the fat cells and therefore takes longer to
fully clear the body than with any other common drug. This means
that some parts of the body still retain THC even after a couple of
months, rather than just the couple of days or weeks for water
soluble drugs.”
Website: TeenHealthFX.
is a project funded by Atlantic Health System, a New Jersey
hospital consortium. The website states that “the professional staff
who answer questions from our vast audience and provide oversight
include clinical social workers, health educators, adolescent
medicine physicians, pediatricians and pediatric subspecialists,
psychiatrists, psychologists, nurses, nutritionists, and many other
health professionals.”
QUESTION: “Dear TeenHealthFX,
smoking marijuana can be detected how long? I’ve heard a couple
of weeks in urine, a couple of days in blood, and a couple of years
in hair…please clarify! Also, during a routine physical at the
doctor, will they check for marijuana in the blood or urine sample?
Signed: Longevity Of Marijuana - How Long Does It Stay In Your
ANSWER: “Dear Longevity Of Marijuana - How Long Does It
Stay In Your System,
The chemical in marijuana, THC, is absorbed by fatty tissues in
various organs. Traces of THC can be detected by standard urine
and blood tests for about 2 days up to 11 weeks depending on the
person’s metabolism, how much they smoked and how long they
smoked. THC can be detected for the life of the hair. Again, the
sensitivity of the test ranges from person from to person depending
on many factors including the amount of body fat, differences in
metabolism, and how long and how much they smoked.” 56 The Marijuana Detection Window

Presumably, the 11 week estimate comes from the research finding
of Ellis, et. al. (1985) which has been described earlier.
Bureau of Justice Assistance Monograph entitled: Integrating
Drug Testing into a Pretrial Services System: 1999 Update, July
1999, NCJ # 176340. On page 48, Exhibit 5-3 titled; Approximate
Duration of Detectability of Selected Drugs in Urine lists
Cannabinoids (marijuana) Chronic heavy use as 21 to 27 days.
Source: Adapted from the Journal of the American Medical
Association’s Council on Scientific Affairs (1987, p. 3112).
The source material citation is the Journal of the American Medical
Association. (1987, June) 12;257(22):3110-4. The article is titled;
“Scientific Issues in Drug Testing—Council on Scientific Affairs.”
On page 3112, Table 2. titled “Approximate Duration of
Detectability of Selected Drugs in Urine” lists chronic heavy
smoker as 21-27 days. The references cited for this data are Dackis,
et. al (1982), and Ellis, et. al. (1985), the potential shortcomings of
both have been discussed in this article. It is noteworthy and
illustrative that this 1999 “updated” publication still relies on
research performed in 1982 and 1985.
Cannabinoid Issues: Passive Inhalation, Excretion Patterns and
Retention Times (pamphlet). (1991). Dade Behring, SYVA
Company, S-10036. On page 25 in a table titled: “Emit d.a.u.
Cannabinoid Assay (20 ng/mL)” is listed the following:
All Subjects (n = 86):
First Negative: Mean = 16.0 days Range = 3-46 days
Last Positive: Mean = 27.1 days Range = 3-77 days
Examination of the references associated with this data indicates the
following sources; Ellis, et. al. (1985), Schwartz, Hayden, &
Riddile (1985), and Johansson& Halldin (1989). All of these
references and their potential study design issues have been
reviewed in this article. This pamphlet also contains cannabinoid
elimination data using the Emit-st Cannabinoid Assay testing
method. Given that this assay is no longer being manufactured, the
data was not included. Drug Court Review, Vol. V, 1 57

Website: What You Need to Know. URL:
This is a popular
website for general information inquiries about almost any subject
matter. In a section entitled “About Our Service” the website states,
“Allexperts, created in early 1998, was the very first large-scale
question and answer service on the net! We have thousands of
volunteers, including top lawyers, doctors, engineers, and scientists,
waiting to answer your questions. All answers are free and most
come within a day!”
The question submitted to the site was, “How long does marijuana
stay in your system?” The expert response was: “The average time
pot stays in your system is 30 days. The time may differ depending
on your metabolism. If you have a fast metabolism it may be shorter
than 30 days, if you have a slow metabolism it may be more. The
average though is about 30 days.” Note that in this answer, 30 days
is given as an average cannabinoid elimination time.
Website: Health Choice of New York. This website
states: “It's One Stop Shopping For All Of Your Detoxifying Needs.
We Have All The Products You Need To Pass A Urine Drug Test.”
In a section entitled “Drug Approximate Detection Time in Urine,”
the site provides the following information: “Cannabinoids (THC,
Marijuana) 20-90 days.”
Site’s home page statement:
“Pass your drug test the safe and healthy way. Our programs and
drug testing kits are designed to ensure that you pass your test. We
provide same day and permanent detoxification programs that have
been tested over time since 1993 with proven results to remove all
drug metabolites and unwanted toxins from your system. We
understand how important it is to pass your drug test. Our
customers always come first while providing fast shipping and
responsible service with guaranteed passing results.” 58 The Marijuana Detection Window

The following table is provided:
Cannabinoids (THC, Marijuana) Detection Time:
1 time only 5-8 days
2-4x per month 11-18 days
2-4x per week 23-35 days
5-6x per week 33-48 days
Daily 49-63 days
Website: HealthWorld Online. URL:
. Site’s mission
statement; “HealthWorld Online is your 24-hour health resource
center—a virtual health village where you can access information,
products, and services to help create your wellness-based lifestyle.”
In the section called “Detection of Cannabinoids in Urine,” the
following information is provided: “Cutoff and Detection Post
Dose: The initial screening cutoff level is 50 ng/ml. The GC/MS
cutoff level is 15 ng/ml. The elimination half-life of marijuana
ranges from 14-38 hours. At the initial cutoff of 50 ng/ml, the daily
user will remain positive for perhaps 7 to 30 days after cessation. At
the confirmation level of 15 ng/ml, the frequent user will be
positive for perhaps as long as 15 weeks.”
Website: Dr. Drew. URL:

QUESTION: How long does pot (or other drugs) stay in your
body? Is there any way to detect it?
ANSWER: Most readily available drug screens are tests of the
urine. Blood tests and breath analyzers are another way substances
can be detected. Pot stays in your body, stored in fat tissues,
potentially your whole life. However, it is very unusual to be
released in sufficient quantities to have an intoxicating effect or be
measurable in urine screens. Heavy pot smokers, people who have
smoked for years on a daily basis, very commonly have detectable
amounts in their urine for at least two weeks. Drug Court Review, Vol. V, 1 59
This issue of the Drug Court Review synopsizes
reports on three studies in the field of drug court research
and evaluation: Evaluation of Program Completion and
Rearrest Rates across four Drug Court Programs; Evaluation
of Outcomes in Alaska’s Three Therapeutic Courts; and
Process Evaluation of Maine’s Statewide Adult Drug
Treatment Court Program.
[14] This evaluation of
four drug courts across the
country seeks to identify
those factors that
specifically impact
program completion status
(graduation or expulsion)
and post-program rearrest
rates. Overall findings
indicate that offenders
who successfully complete
the drug court program
through graduation are
less likely to be arrested
within a 12-month postprogram period than
expelled participants.
[15] In 2004, the Alaskan
State legislature funded an
evaluation of the
effectiveness of the State’s
three therapeutic drug
court programs.
Preliminary findings
indicate that graduates of
the programs show
significant reductions in
incarceration days, fewer
remands to custody, and
fewer convictions two
years after participation in
comparison to nonparticipants. 60 Research Update
[16] Maine is one of two
pioneer states to have
successfully implemented
a statewide adult drug
court program. This report
summarizes how key
components of the drug
court model—drug
testing, sanctions, and
treatment—operate in
Maine, and presents an
evaluation of the
effectiveness of these
components across a
variety of process
measures including how
they contribute to
participant success. Drug Court Review, Vol. V, 1 61
Donald F. Anspach, Andrew S. Ferguson,
and Vincent Collom
he findings presented in this research report are from a
larger study to test the efficacy of substance abuse
treatment provided as part of a drug court program. In
this update, results from an evaluation conducted in four drug
courts across the country (California, Louisiana, Oklahoma,
and Missouri) are presented. This study seeks to identify
those factors that specifically impact program completion
status (graduation or expulsion) and post-program rearrest
rates. Data were collected from a sample of 2,357 drug court
participants in four drug court sites and were analyzed using
multivariate and step-wise regression methods.
While there are site variations in program completion
rates and post-program rearrest rates, the most significant
factor found to be associated with variations in recidivism
rates in this study is program completion status; and
differences by discharge status are statistically significant in
all four sites. Findings indicate that offenders who
successfully complete the drug court program through
graduation are three times less likely to be arrested within a
12-month post-program period than expelled participants. In
sum, while these four drug court programs are contributing to

Taken from Anspach & Ferguson (2003) “Assessing the Efficacy
of Treatment Modalities in the context of Adult Drug Courts,”
funded by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ Grant No. DC VX
0008). Dr. Donald Anspach, Dr. Faye Taxman, Dr. Jeff Bouffard,
and Andrew Ferguson conducted the research reported on in this
update. 62 Research Update
reductions in recidivism rates overall, it appears they are
having their greatest effect on those individuals who
successfully complete the program.
[14] The findings presented here, which are drawn
from the larger study conducted to assess the efficacy of
substance abuse treatment in the context of adult drug courts
focus on the retrospective analysis of factors—specifically,
drug court participation, treatment, and drug testing—found
to affect program completion and post-program arrests.
Employing multivariate and step-wise regression methods,
findings provide information on compliance with drug court
program requirements, those factors that contribute to the
likelihood of graduation or expulsion, and the extent to which
these combined measures affect post-program rearrest rates.
Fieldwork was conducted between February 2001
and May 2002 with a sample of 2,357 participants enrolled in
one of four drug court programs who were either terminated
or had graduated, for whom both a minimum amount of
follow-up time (12 months) had elapsed since graduation or
discharge, and for whom National Crime Information Center
(NCIC) criminal history information was available.
The Four Drug Court Study Sites. The four drug court
sites include two located in relatively rural areas and two
located in more urban settings. These sites were selected
because their programs had been in operation long enough to
have institutionalized their procedures. Site 1, is a relatively
large, long-running court in a medium-sized California city,

Findings from the treatment component of the study
consisting of an analysis of observations of substance treatment
sessions, and surveys of treatment counselors are available
elsewhere, e.g., Bouffard & Taxman (2003, 2004).
Drug Court Review, Vol. V, 1 63
which utilizes existing drug treatment providers within the
local community. Site 2 is a rural court operating in
Louisiana with a dedicated treatment provider that is part of
the local county government. Site 3 is also a small, rural
court operating in Oklahoma, which at the time of the
evaluation was using two private treatment providers within
the community. Finally, Site 4 is a large court operating in a
medium-sized city in Missouri. This court, similar to Site 2,
made use of a dedicated treatment provider that was part of
the court itself and operated by local government.
Data Collected. Participant level data collected includes
general demographics, treatment attendance, outcomes of
drug and alcohol testing, program completion status, and
NCIC post-program arrest information. Program information
collected on participants includes drug court program start
and end dates, frequency of treatment sessions attended,
number of drug tests administered, and corresponding drug
test results. Information on drug court participation,
compliance with program expectations, and demographic
information was linked with NCIC rearrest data to assess the
impact of drug court participation on post-program rearrests
in a twelve month post-program follow-up period.
Clients. The majority of participants in the study are males
(65%). This is consistent across sites with the exception of
Site 1 where there are more females (54%). There are also
few age differences across sites and participants’ ages range
between 17 and 64 with a mean age of 31 years.
Approximately half of all drug court participants are white
(51%). Non-white participants are predominately found at
the Site 2 (46%) and Site 4 (68%) programs. The majority of
drug court participants are not married (86%) ranging from a
low of 77% at Site 3 to a high of 92% at the Site 1 drug court.
Less than half of the participants across sites (42%) have
dependents. Participants with dependents range from a low
of 13% at Site 1 to a high of 59% at Site 3. With the
exception of Site 3, where most participants were employed 64 Research Update
at the time of their admission (63%) and had completed their
high school education (63%), participants at the three other
sites were typically unemployed and most had neither
completed high school nor obtained their GED. Participants
who completed high school or obtained a GED range from a
low of 29% (Site 1) to a high of 63% (Site 3).
Overall, 779 (33%) of the 2,357 participants
successfully completed the drug court program through
graduation and 1,578 (67%) were terminated or expelled.
Graduation rates range between a low of 29% at Site 4 to a
high of 48% at Site 3. Program completion rates in this study
are somewhat lower than reported nationwide. For example,
in his review of 37 drug court research evaluation studies,
Belenko (2001) reports that graduation rates across eight drug
court programs averaged 47%, and range between 36% and
A total of 31% of the 2,357 participants had one or
more post-program arrests during the twelve-month followup period. As shown in Figure 1, cross-site variations in the
percent of post-program arrests range from a low of 17% at
Site 2 to a high of 39% at Site 1. Post-program recidivism
rates reported here fall within the range of recidivism rates
reported nationally. In comparison with other sites, the Site 2
drug court has the lowest rate of recidivism for both
graduates (6%) and terminated participants (22%).
Conversely, the Site 1 drug court has the highest rate of postprogram arrests for both program graduates (13%) and
terminated participants (53%).
The most significant factor found to be associated
with variations in recidivism rates in this study is program
completion status. Overall, 41% of terminated participants
but only 9% of graduates had a post-program arrest.
Differences by discharge status are statistically significant in Drug Court Review, Vol. V, 1 65
all four sites. Simply stated, only 73 of the 779 graduates
from the drug court programs were involved in a criminal
offense leading to an arrest within one year after graduation.
Furthermore, program graduates show substantially lower
post-program arrests than terminated participants, as 90% of
the 722 arrested participants had been expelled and 10% were
program graduates. This finding indicates that offenders who
successfully complete the drug court program through
graduation are three times less likely to be arrested within a
12-month post-program period than expelled participants.
Moreover, it was found that drug court graduates who were
arrested had a longer period of exposure beforehand. In sum,
while these four drug court programs are contributing to
reductions in recidivism rates overall, it appears they are
having their greatest effect on those individuals who
successfully complete the program.
This report examines how variations in post-program
arrests during the 12-month follow-up period are related to
differences in participant characteristics, various program
compliance requirements such as drug use and treatment
attendance, as well as program discharge status. The results
of a series of logistic regression models and path analyses
indicate that participant compliance with key components of
the drug court model operate through program completion,
thereby affecting post-program recidivism. Other factors
associated with post-program recidivism at one or more sites
include: treatment attendance, with participants with lower
attendance at treatment sessions having a greater likelihood
of being arrested following program discharge; having an inprogram arrest, with participants with in-program arrests
being twice as likely to have a subsequent post-program
arrest; race/ethnicity, with racial and ethnic minorities being
more likely than white non-Hispanics to be arrested; age at
first arrest, with participants who have prior arrests at te ch Upda r Resea 66
es m Month Follow-up Post-Program Arrest Outco Figure 1. 12-
7 5.
8 10.
0 13.
0 22.
4 39.
4 53.
8 16.
5 25.
0 0.
0 10.
0 20.
0 30.
0 40.
0 50.
0 60.
0 70.
0 80.
0 90.
0 100.
e 1 ti S e 3 ti S 2 eti S
ent cr eP
1 7.
4 9.
1 38.
1 41.
1 29.
6 30.
al ot T e 4 ti S
l al er v O ed nat i mr eT ed aduat r GDrug Court Review, Vol. V, 1 67
younger ages being more likely to be rearrested; and gender,
with males being more likely to have a post-program arrest.
Since the findings are site dependent, there is no one
overall “best fitting” logistic model. At each drug court site,
a specific set of variables—primarily related to participant
compliance with the expectations of the program as distinct
from participant demographic characteristics—are operant.
Operant factors affecting the recidivism outcomes at one or
more sites revealed by the path analysis include: program
completion, treatment attendance, in-program arrests, positive
drug tests, race, age, and prior treatment experiences. That is,
participants who comply with the performance expectations
of drug court programs and attend treatment sessions are less
likely to recidivate than non-compliant participants.
At the Site 2 drug court, where discharge status was
not a significant predictor of recidivism, the low overall rate
of recidivism found may be related to the high overall rate of
treatment attendance. The Site 1 drug court program had the
highest rates of recidivism with the highest percent of postprogram arrests for drug related offenses. In-program arrests
at the Site 3 drug court were related to post-program arrests.
And, participants at this drug court with in-program arrests
were six times more likely to recidivate during the postprogram follow-up period. Finally, at the Site 4 drug court,
positive in-program drug tests were related to post-program
Overall, the findings from this research confirm what
has been found in other studies—namely that drug court
graduates “succeed” and terminated participants “fail.” This
finding has important policy implications nationally, as it
suggests that improvements in program retention and
program completion should remain focal points of drug court
programs. 68 Research Update
The drug court program is defined by a collaborative
process to assemble and direct a variety of resources from
numerous agencies toward the achievement of mutual goals.
In this respect, drug courts are not intended to provide a
“quick fix,” rather, they are designed to overcome the
boundaries of historically independent systems (Hartmann &
Rhineberger 2002). As documented in this paper, the adult
drug court model can be an effective intervention to reduce
recidivism for substance abusing offenders. However, results
of this study and others should also remind policy makers that
drug courts are effective for only some offenders. As Harrell
(2003) points out, drug courts are not a magic bullet—many
drug court participants fail. Yet, findings of this and other
major studies of drug court programs have not identified
theoretical flaws in the ‘drug court’ model, and thus,
continued enthusiasm for drug treatment courts is warranted. Drug Court Review, Vol. V, 1 69
Alaska Judicial Council
Report submitted to the Legislature and the Alaska
Department of Health and Social Services
with the cooperation of the Alaska Court System
April 2005
n 2001, the Alaska state legislature created two new
therapeutic courts for felony defendants with alcohol
problems to supplement a federally funded therapeutic
drug court that has been in operation since 2000. In 2004, the
legislature funded the Alaska Department of Health and
Social Services to conduct an evaluation of the effectiveness
of all three therapeutic courts.
Effectiveness of the
therapeutic court process was measured using three criteria:
number of incarceration days, number of remands, and
number of convictions within two years following entry into
the therapeutic court as compared to the two years prior to
entering the program. Data was collected on every defendant
who had voluntarily chosen to participate in one of the three
court programs (N = 154), and was compared to data
collected on a comparison group of defendants with similar

The completion of outcome evaluation studies for these three
courts was a condition of the receipt of federal funds. The U.S.
Department of Justice required evaluations of all felony drug courts
created with its grants (such as the Anchorage Felony Drug Court).
HB172, section 1 (k) requires that “The Council shall evaluate the
effectiveness of the pilot therapeutic courts programs by developing
baseline information and comparing that data with on-going
program results as reported by the therapeutic courts, and prepare a
report to the legislature, courts, and affected agencies.” 70 Research Update
characteristics who did not participate in one of the three
therapeutic courts (N = 104).
Components of the therapeutic court programs
include participating in outpatient treatment, frequent testing
for drug and alcohol use, maintaining steady employment or
educational pursuits, making restitution to victims, and
regularly appearing before the judge. Across the three courts,
findings show that participants of the therapeutic courts, in
comparison to non-participants, exhibit an improved quality
of life including more stable family situations, better
education and employment outcomes, and improvements for
their children. Additionally, program graduates show
significant reductions in incarceration days, fewer remands to
custody, and fewer convictions.
[15] The preliminary findings presented in this report
are from an evaluation of three therapeutic drug courts to
compare outcomes of participating defendants [including
graduates (N = 32), current participants (N = 63), and those
who had started the program but withdrew before completion
(N = 59)] to outcomes from a similar group of defendants
who did not participate in the court programs. Specifically,
for drug court participants, secondary data was coded from
the drug court database to compare changes in days of
incarceration, numbers of remands, and convictions. This
data was compared to baseline data from a 1999 sample of
felony drug court participants to compare the measures of
interest two years following entry into the therapeutic court
program to the two years prior; thus providing a ‘before’ and
‘after’ time frame for comparison within each drug court
participant/non-participant comparison group.
Data Collection. In the Site 1 court, data was collected on 30
participants and a comparison group of 20 non-participants
identified by the court and prosecutor as defendants who were Drug Court Review, Vol. V, 1 71
considered for participation in the drug court program but
chose not to enroll. In the Site 2 court, data was collected on
73 participants and 54 non-participants (34 of whom had
chosen not to participate in the program and 20 randomly
selected defendants from the same time period who had not
considered the therapeutic court option). Finally, in the Site 3
court, data was collected on 51 participants and 30 nonparticipants.
Data sources include interviews with court
officials, court case files, Department of Public Safety
records of prior offenses, and Department of Corrections’
records on remands to custody and days of incarceration for
all defendants. Information specific to therapeutic court
participants that was not available from court records was
also collected from the felony probation officers assigned to
the Site 1 and Site 2 courts at the time
—information includes
defendant’s employment status, educational status, and other
measures of improvement in accountability and quality of
life. Baseline data was extrapolated from data previously
collected by the Alaska Judicial Council on felony

Client Groups. Of the 258 defendants (154 drug court and
104 comparison), there are no significant differences between
the groups in age (overall mean of 35 years), gender (78%
male), ethnicity (44% white; 44% Alaskan Native/American
Indian), level of offense, and seriousness of charged offense.
In comparison to the 1999 baseline sample, the therapeutic

Ideally, with more resources, a matched control group of
defendants who had not been referred to, or shown interest in, the
therapeutics courts would be preferable. Given the Council’s
presented findings that the current group tended to be well matched
except on prior criminal history, future evaluators should pay
particular attention to matching defendants on criminal history.
The Department of Corrections has since withdrawn the federal
probation officers from the therapeutic courts programs.
See Carns, T.W., Cohn, L. & Dosik, S.M. (2004). Alaska Felony
Process: 1999 under “Publications.”) 72 Research Update
court sample (defendants and non-participants) tends to be
older, with about one-third of this group being over the age of
40 as compared to only 22% of the baseline sample. There
are also differences across sites with respect to gender, with
the Site 1 court having the highest number of female
defendants (50%) and the Site 3 court having the fewest
The whole therapeutic court sample includes
somewhat more Native defendants than does the 1999
baseline group. In the therapeutic court group, Natives
comprise 44% of defendants, as compared to 30% of the 1999
group. Whites also comprise 44% of the therapeutic group as
compared to 50% of the 1999 group. And, while white
defendants predominated in the Site 1 and Site 2 courts, they
comprised only 10% of the Site 3 court; in this court, 88% of
defendants are Native.
There is a difference between the groups with respect
to criminal history in that the comparison group has fewer
recorded serious offenses. In addition, prior criminal
histories of defendants vary by site. While the majority of
participants at Site 1 and Site 2 have prior felony convictions
(73% and 60% respectively), only 49% of the Site 3
defendants do. These numbers are even lower in the
comparison group: only 40% of the Site 1 comparison
defendants, 43% of the Site 2 comparison defendants, and
23% of the Site 3 comparison defendants have a prior felony.

One possible reason for this is that the comparison groups were
largely comprised of people who had been interested in the court,
but who chose not to participate. Based on interviews with attorneys
and judges, the differences between the two groups on prior record
could be explained by the fact that the comparison group defendants
with less serious criminal histories may have believed that the
program was too lengthy and difficult, and that the time and
conditions required by the program were substantially more onerous Drug Court Review, Vol. V, 1 73
In general, though differences are evident between the drug
court and comparison groups, they are not substantial enough
to preclude a comparison of outcomes between the groups.
The data show that comparison defendants in all
three programs spent significantly more days incarcerated
during the two years after their offense, while graduates and
active participants spent fewer days incarcerated during the
same period. Differences were also found when examining
the number of remands and the number of convictions.
Graduates and active participants had fewer remands and
convictions after joining the program than in the two years
prior to participating, while those in the comparison group
had either more remands or showed no change.
Days of Incarceration. The days of incarceration before and
after starting the therapeutic court program (or, for the
comparison group, entering a plea) changed in expected ways
for each group of defendants. Across the three drug court
programs, graduates and those still active in the program have
substantially fewer days of incarceration in the two years
after joining the program, while the comparison group has
significantly more days of incarceration during this same time
period (Table 1). Results vary somewhat by site for those
defendants who either opted out of the program or began the
program and then dropped out. In the Site 1 and Site 2
courts, those who opted out or dropped out of the program
also have more days of incarceration in the two year followup period; however, in the Site 3 court, this group of
defendants has significantly fewer days of incarceration (at

than any possible penalties than they would occur in a straight
The data presented in this section are based on analyses by the
Institute for Social and Economic Research at the University of
Anchorage under contract with The Judicial Council. 74 Research Update
p < .10) in the two years post as compared to the two years
prior to opting out of or dropping out of the program.
Table 1. Mean days of incarceration by court, defendant
group, and program status
Days 2
Years Prior
Days 2
Years Post
Sig. N
Site 1
Graduated 142 66 .12 10
Active 100 60 .62 7
Opted out/dropped out 187 249 .37 13
Not in program 104 208 .03 20
Site 2
Graduated 71 31 .00 15
Active 177 88 .01 34
Opted out/dropped out 233 313 .07 24
Not in program 158 311 .00 50
Site 3
Graduated 140 7 .07 7
Active 124 22 .00 22
Opted out/dropped out 243 155 .08 22
Not in program 115 182 .01 30
Remands to Custody. Remands to custody (for a probation
or parole violation, or for a new offense) are considered part
of the therapeutic court process, used if a defendant has a
positive drug test or other violation of conditions of the
program. As a result, it is expected that defendants in the
drug court might have a higher number of remands to custody
after beginning the program. However, the opposite result is
Across the three drug court sites, graduates and

This result is due to the fact that participants in the therapeutic
drug court program are so carefully supervised; problems are
discovered earlier and handled with progressive sanctions rather
than immediate remands to custody. The progressive sanctions,
according to one interviewed policy-maker, give participants
learning opportunities and reduce the need for remands. The fact
that all of those active in or graduated from the drug court programs Drug Court Review, Vol. V, 1 75
active participants show fewer remands in the two years postprogram in comparison to the two years before beginning the
program (Table 2). For those who opted out or dropped out
of the program, remands are either constant or higher in the
two years post as compared to the two years prior. For those
not in the program, however, remands are also either constant
or lower in the two years post in all three sites (though these
changes are not significant).
Table 2. Mean of remands by court, defendant group, and
program status
Days 2
years prior
Days 2
years post
Sig. N
Site 1
Graduated 2.5 0.8 .02 10
Active 2.7 2.4 .78 7
Opted out/dropped out 2.9 3.9 .16 13
Not in program 2.4 1.9 .55 19
Site 2
Graduated 2.0 0.8 .00 15
Active 2.7 1.2 .00 34
Opted out/dropped out 3.4 3.3 .87 24
Not in program 3.1 2.1 .11 53
Site 3
Graduated 7.7 1.0 .25 7
Active 5.2 3.9 .42 22
Opted out/dropped out 4.1 5.8 .09 20
Not in program 3.3 3.6 .77 30
Number of convictions. The third measure used to test the
effectiveness of the therapeutic courts is a comparison of the
change in the mean number of convictions between the
periods before and after the program dates.
A conviction

had lower numbers of remands suggests that the programs are
successful in preventing problems for a substantial number of
For all groups, including the comparison groups, the instant
offense was excluded from the analysis. 76 Research Update
was coded as a charge for a new offense for which the
defendant pled guilty (or was found guilty at trial). The
process of arriving at a conviction is lengthier than that of a
remand to custody, so there are fewer convictions across all
groups in the two-year follow-up period (with the exception
of the comparison group in the Site 1 court, though this
increase was not significant). There are some variations by
site and program status of the defendants as shown in Table
Table 3. Mean of convictions by court, defendant group,
and program status
Days 2
years prior
Days 2
years post
Sig. N
Site 1
Graduated 1.0 0.5 .03 10
Active 1.7 0.4 .04 6
Opted out/dropped out 2.1 1.4 .43 13
Not in program 1.3 1.6 .52 20
Site 2
Graduated 0.7 0.1 .07 15
Active 1.5 0.1 .00 33
Opted out/dropped out 2.0 1.0 .08 23
Not in program 1.4 0.3 .00 54
Site 3
Graduated 0.7 0.2 .10 7
Active 2.3 0.2 .00 21
Opted out/dropped out 2.7 0.7 .00 22
Not in program 1.3 0.6 .14 30
Qualitative Changes for Therapeutic Court Participants.
The statistically measurable outcomes for therapeutic court
participants are not the only valid way to assess the
effectiveness of the programs. Other information about
changes in educational and employment status, stability in
family situations, and benefits to the children of participants
is just as important. Information on these measures was
gathered through a review of client case files by probation Drug Court Review, Vol. V, 1 77
officers responsible for the Site 1 and Site 2 clients.
observations were then combined with data drawn from the
court case files to demonstrate the other types of benefits
gained by individual participants and the larger community.
These data, however, are not reported consistently in the case
files, and thus, should not be used to make definitive
statements regarding relative improvements; however,
because this data is from objective sources and not from selfreport data, they provide a reliable perspective on the
experiences of program participants. Therefore, this
information helps inform our understanding of the types of
benefits that many therapeutic court participants have
experienced. Examples of changes experienced by Site 1 and
Site 2 participants include:
• 16% of graduates and 6% of those active in the
programs appear to have improved their child support
situations in terms of either providing more child
support to non-custodial children or for those with
custodial children, receiving more child support
• 81% of graduates and 32% of those active in the
programs have more stable family situations during
or after participation;
• 63% of graduates and 46% of those active in the
programs are holding a steady job following
participation; and
• 41% of graduates and 21% of those active in the
programs have improved their educational status
following participation.

For this report, qualitative data was not available on the clients in
the Site 3 court program. 78 Research Update
The findings from this evaluation of the three
therapeutic courts that serve felony defendants suggest further
steps for consideration by the courts, legislature, and
participating agencies. In particular, findings demonstrate
notable successes, both quantitative and qualitative, for the
therapeutic court programs. Specifically, clear reductions in
days of incarceration, the numbers of remands to court, and
subsequent convictions were found for program participants,
and probation officers noted improvements in the quality of
life of program participants in the areas of employment,
education, and family stability. Overall, the data support
continuation and possible expansion of the therapeutic court
Given that this evaluation suffered from a number of
limitations, evaluations of court programs should be
expanded. To address these limitations in future evaluations,
studies should include a longer follow-up period, the
establishment of baseline data drawn from the same sample
of clients, and more data sources from which to draw
information to analyze.
Finally, this evaluation largely found that most
successful graduates of these therapeutic drug court programs
have become employed, sober citizens, equipped with the
tools to help prevent relapse and to remain accountable to
their community. If defendants owed restitution to victims,
these payments were made as part of the program. Sustaining
and building on these accomplishments following
participation in the drug court program through community
support systems will benefit not only the defendants, but also
their families and communities in the long term. Drug Court Review, Vol. V, 1 79
Donald F. Anspach and Andrew S. Ferguson
Report submitted to Kimberly Johnson, Director
Maine State Office of Substance Abuse, Division of
Behavioral and Developmental Services
Augusta, ME (04333-0159)
aine is one of two pioneer states to have
successfully implemented both a statewide adult
drug court program and a statewide juvenile drug
court program. The adult drug court program, begun in 2001
and implemented in five of the state’s 16 counties, is a courtsupervised, post-plea (but pre-final disposition), deferred
sentencing program requiring weekly court appearances
before a designated program judge.
This first report in a three-part series
how key components of the drug court model—drug testing,
sanctions, and treatment—established by the National Drug
Court Institute operate in Maine, and presents an evaluation
of the effectiveness of these components across a variety of
process measures including how they contribute to participant

The second report focuses specifically on the delivery of
treatment services and examines the implementation of the
manualized treatment program, Differentiated Substance Abuse
Treatment (DSAT). The third report is concerned with drug court
outcomes. Specifically, using a comparison sample of substance
abusing offenders who did not participate in the drug court
program, the third report examines the overall impact of Maine’s
drug court program with a focus on recidivism outcomes and cost
savings. 80 Research Update
success. The key components of the drug court model
evaluated include whether:
• eligible participants are identified early and promptly
placed in the drug court program;
• drug courts provide access to a continuum of
alcohol, drug, and other related treatment and
rehabilitative services;
• abstinence is monitored by frequent alcohol and
other drug testing;
• a coordinated strategy governs drug court responses
to participants’ compliance.
Maine’s adult drug courts have incorporated these
components in the daily operations of their programs.
Moreover, findings reported here indicate positive program
effects along all four dimensions. This report also outlines
improvements that should be considered to increase program
effectiveness at each of the five drug court sites.
[16] To examine the efficacy of the core components
of the drug court model including client supervision, drug
testing, and sanctions—and how effectively sanctions and
incentives, case management supervision, drug testing, and
the delivery of ancillary services are integrated into program
operations—this study draws on offender-level data obtained
on 1,127 individuals referred to the drug court between April
1, 2001 and November 30, 2004; findings are presented both
for this larger group as well as for a smaller group of 111
participants admitted to the program between December 1,
2003 and November 30, 2004. This data includes
demographic characteristics, outcomes of drug and alcohol Drug Court Review, Vol. V, 1 81
testing, treatment attendance, and utilization of ancillary
Participant Characteristics: Of the 111 participants across
the five drug courts admitted between December 1, 2003 and
November 30, 2004, most are male (77%) and white (93%),
with an average age of 31 years old. The majority of
participants were employed at the time of their admission
(64%; except in one site where only 41% were employed),
and nearly half of the participants (47%) had neither
completed high school nor obtained their GED. More than
two-thirds (68%) of participants had a prior treatment episode
for alcohol or drug use, and most offenders (85%) currently
have a very serious substance abuse problem according to
scores on the Computerized Screening Assessment.
predominant drugs of choice are opiates and alcohol, and the
median age of first substance use is 14 years in the aggregate,
as well as within each of the five sites,. Additionally, the
mean age at which these participants first became involved
with the criminal justice system is 20 years old (with an age
range from 8 to 56). These participants also report a
substantial volume of criminal activity, obtaining, on average,
$554.00 per week in illegal funds to support their drug habits;
the amount of money reported spent to support their habit
varied significantly by site from a low of $124 per week to a
high of $1,195.
One key component of the drug court model requires
that eligible participants are promptly identified, screened,
and admitted to the drug court program. Following is an
examination of the relationship between referrals and

The Computerized Screening Assessment is an instrument used to
provide an initial substance abuse screen to identify the severity of
an offender’s substance abuse problem. In this study, over 85%
received substance abuse scores in the moderate to severe range. 82 Research Update
admissions to determine the extent to which Maine’s drug
court program comports with this key component.
Enrolling Participants. During the most recent reporting
period (December 1, 2003 through November 30, 2004), the
program received a total of 327 new referrals—a 26%
increase in referrals over the previous year. Of these referrals,
only 111 (34%) new clients were accepted into the program.
Across the five drug court sites, the number of referrals
received and processed varies, with a low of 171 to a high of
266; the number of admissions ranges from a low of 73 to a
high of 102. These findings suggest that efforts should be
taken by the drug courts to increase the number of
admissions, thereby expanding capacity. The variability
found across sites in referral processing and admission
rates—and the fact that there is a high rate of referrals as
compared to a low rate of admissions—indicates that delays
or log jams are occurring in the admissions process, thus
reducing the state’s overall capacity.
Processing Participants. Upon reviewing the basic steps that
occur before a potential drug court participant is admitted to
the program, as well as calculating the approximate amount
of time (via state-wide averages) required to complete this
process, clear delays in the length of time it takes for an
offender to be admitted to the drug court program were
found. Specifically, it was found that across the five sites it
takes about 87 days between the date of initial referral and
final admission to the program; this time frame not only
exceeds the amount of time recommended by existing
policies, but also fails to comport with the key component of
drug court programs requiring early identification and prompt
placement of participants.
Overall, these findings indicate

This time frame also represents an increase of 12% over findings
from an earlier report (2003) that indicate the time from referral to
admission was 78 days. It should be noted, however, that two sites Drug Court Review, Vol. V, 1 83
that the state’s adult drug court program has been unable to
reduce the amount of time it takes for new clients to be

Program Completion. Since the inception of the drug court
program in 2001, a total of 330 clients have either been
favorably or unfavorably discharged. Of these, 183 (56%)
participants successfully completed the program through
graduation and 147 (44%) participants were expelled.
Graduation rates do not differ significantly across sites, and
the overall program completion/graduation rate is 56%, a
number which is higher than most statewide drug courts
nationally (48%) and higher than rates recently reported by
the GAO
Other key components of the drug court model
include successful implementation of drug testing,
supervision, sanctions and incentives, treatment, and ancillary
services protocols. Following is a review of each of these
components within Maine’s drug court programs.
Drug Testing. Though state policy indicates a goal of two
drug tests per person per week, the frequency of drug testing,
as found in this evaluation period, has decreased. In fact, in

have reduced the length of time it takes, though these reductions are
In a more detailed analysis of the steps in the admission process
to address where these log jams are occurring, the authors identified
that the lengthiest step in the process (51 days) was between the
completion of the comprehensive assessment interview (CAI) and
final admission to the drug court—this represents an increase of 13
days over previous findings reported in 2003. The amount of time
for determining final eligibility is clearly where the log jam is
U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2005, February). Adult
drug courts: Evidence indicates recidivism reductions and mixed
results for other outcomes. Report to congressional committees.
Washington, DC: Author. 84 Research Update
2004, the frequency of drug tests decreased by 18%, reducing
the statewide average to 1.4 tests per person per week (with a
range from a low of only 0.8 drug tests per person per week
to a high of 1.7); and, this pattern of decreased drug testing
occurred in three of the five drug court sites.
Based on drug testing results obtained for the 111
program participants reported on in this evaluation, of a total
of 6,449 drug tests administered, 387 (6%) were positive for
one or more drugs. This particular finding compares
favorably with rates of positive drug tests across drug court
programs nationally (17%) as well as for adult offenders in
other non-institutionalized programs (35%).
Across the five
sites, 56% of participants did not test positive for drugs over
the past year, 21% had one positive drug test, and 23% had
two or more positive drug tests. Those testing positive
averaged two positive tests with a range from one to nine.
Furthermore, it was found that in the three sites where drug
testing rates declined, rates of positive drug tests increased—
suggesting that infrequent drug testing fails to serve as a
deterrent, and that an increase in drug testing rates may result
in more positive outcomes for participants.
Supervision via Home Visits. While improvements are
evident in four of the five programs, overall, the drug court
programs in the state are not in compliance with the new
policy that requires a minimum of 2 unscheduled home visits
per person per month. Controlling for length of program
participation, findings indicate that participants, overall,
received approximately 1.2 unscheduled home visits per
month (with a range of a low of 0.5 visits to a high of 2.9)—
an increase from the previous year, but still lower than the
recommended policy. These findings are consistent across

American University Drug Court Clearinghouse and Technical
Assistance Project. (2001, June 20) Drug court activity update:
Summary information on all programs and detailed information on
adult drug courts. Washington, DC: Author Drug Court Review, Vol. V, 1 85
sites with the exception of one program where participants
receive 2.9 unscheduled home visits per month.
Sanctions and Incentives. Overall findings indicate that the
drug court programs use of rewards and sanctions is
consistent with a program of behavioral management in that it
complies with the principle of providing more rewards (n =
690) than sanctions (n = 413). However, it was found that
incarceration is the most heavily relied upon sanction (54%)
in the program (and its use as a sanction increased by 15%
from the previous reporting year), and the tendency for using
incarceration as an initial rather than last sanction contradicts
the principal of graduated sanctions. The most frequently
used rewards are phase advancement (70%), followed by
graduation (11%), and jurisdictional passes (8%).
Substance Abuse Treatment. Substance abuse treatment
provided in the drug court programs is provided over the
course of five phases. The first three phases include attending
treatment sessions based on a formalized treatment
curriculum, the DSAT program. The fourth phase also occurs
during the one-year drug court program and consists of
individualized treatment. The fifth phase occurs upon
graduation from the drug court program and is a postprogram aftercare phase. Upon examining the time spent in
each phase of treatment prior to drug court graduation, wide
variations in the total length of time spent in phases one
through four (ranging from 34 weeks to 113 weeks) were
found across sites in what is intended to be a standardized
substance abuse treatment program.
Ancillary Services. This key component of drug court is
designed to provide clients access to a continuum of alcohol,
drug, and other related treatment, as well as rehabilitation
services both during participation in the drug court and after
program completion. To date, many drug court participants
(37%) have been able to benefit from a number of ancillary
services including crisis intervention, mental health 86 Research Update
treatment, health care, and employment services. Of the 111
offenders in the current evaluation, 37% utilized at least one
type of ancillary service and 20% utilized multiple types of
these services. Conversely, 63% of clients did not utilize any
ancillary services over the past year—a marked reduction of
about 50% from previously reported findings. Significant
variations in the utilization of ancillary services across sites
were also found, with a range of a low of 9% utilization to a
high of 96%. Overall, it was found that the use of psychiatric
services and supplementary substance abuse treatment
services are the most frequently utilized ancillary services.
Over the past four years, Maine has successfully
operated an adult drug treatment court in five sites across the
state; the findings presented in this report show that program
operations are proceeding as implemented. The report does
support the efficacy of the drug court program (a test of
whether this intervention can be successful when properly
implemented), but not necessarily its effectiveness (a test of
whether this intervention typically is successful in actual
clinical practice).
Specifically, findings highlight broad
variations in drug court practices and operations across the
five sites. On the one hand, this suggests that the drug court
model has been adapted to various local needs; on the other
hand, some of the wide variations in practices and operations
are actually in direct conflict with statewide protocols (e.g.,
drug testing, treatment, attendance, and home visits).
Overall, drug court practices can be improved; the findings
presented in this report suggest a number of ways to improve
the operations (effectiveness) of various components of
Maine’s Adult Drug Court Program with goals of increased

See Marlow (2004, September 9) in Join Together Online for a
discussion on the different standards of proof for establishing the
efficacy of an intervention as opposed to its effectiveness
Drug Court Review, Vol. V, 1 87
graduation rates, reduced rates of recidivism, and lower
overall operational costs. 88 Research UpdateDrug Court Review, Vol. V, 1 89
The following cumulative Subject Index is designed to
provide easy access to subject references. Each reference
can be located by:
™ Volume by using a roman numeral e.g. I
™ Issue by using a number e.g. 2
™ Subject reference by its page number in parenthesis
e.g. (121)
Addiction Severity Index (ASI)…II2(120), IV1(50), IV2(3, 11-12, 17)
Administrative Office of the Courts, State of North Carolina...IV1(108)
Administrative Office of the Delaware Superior Court...II1(111)
Adolescent Drug Abuse Diagnosis…I1(80)
Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997…III1(103-104)
Ahola, Tapani…III2(49, 53)
Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC)…IV2(88)
Alabama, University of…III1(40)
Alabama at Birmingham, University of…III2(5, 6)
Department of Psychiatry…III2(6)
Alameda County (Oakland), CA Drug Court…I1(34, 50, 60, 86), II1(39, 61, 65),
Court System…V1(69)
Department of Health and Social Services…V1(69)
Judicial Council…V1(71)
Legislature of… V1(59)
Alcoholics Anonymous (AA)…I1(68), II1(71, 74-75, 81, 98-99, 102), III1(69, 130-
131), III2(10), IV2(13)
Alexandria, VA…II2(135)
Allen County, IN Drug Court Intervention Program (DCIP) …III1(124)
Alternative Treatment Against Crack Cocaine...II1(102)
American Bar Association (ABA)…III1(13), III2(25)
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)…III1(35)
American Correctional Association…III2(36)
American Medical Association (AMA)…III1(13)
American Psychological Association (APA)…III2(40, 42, 59)
American Society for Addiction Medicine…III1(22)
American Society of Criminology…IV2(1)
American University…III1(5), IV1(46)
Drug Court Clearinghouse and Technical Assistance
Project…I1(8, 35, 86, 88), II1(63), II2(5), III1(29, 76), IV1(46), IV2(44)
1997 Drug Court Survey Report…I1(19, 21-22, 47, 57)
1998 Drug Court Survey Preliminary Findings…I1(18, 26)
Amherst, NY Drug Court…II2(17) 90 Subject Index
Anchorage, AK Felony Drug Court…V1(69)
Anderson, Mark…II2(11)
Andrews, D.A.…II2(108)
Anglin, Dr. M. Douglas…III1(14-16)
Anova Associates...II1(111), II2(10, 14)
Anspach, Dr. Donald F....II1(119), II2(16, 32), III1(131), III2(120, 123), V1(61)
Anthony, NM Drug Court…II2(42)
Antisocial Personality Disorder…IV2(5, 11, 26-27)
Arizona…III1(33), III2(19), IV2(49-50, 55)
Legislature of…IV2(56)
Legislature of…IV2(55)
Proposition 200 …IV2(7-8, 26, 55)
Artist, Kim…II2(8)
Asay, Ted…III2(41)
Associated Students of Colorado State University (ASCSU) ...IV1(15, 28, 30, 32)
Baca, Sheriff Leroy...II1(101)
Bachelor, Alexandra…III2(48, 73)
Bakersfield, CA Drug Court…I1(60, 68)
Baltimore, MD…III1(15, 36, 38)
Baltimore, MD Drug Court…I1(27), II2(11)
Baton Rouge, LA...II1(98)
Baton Rouge, LA Drug Court...II1(98)
Bazemore, Gordon…III2(41)
Bedford-Stuyvesant section of Brooklyn, NY…III2(24)
Behind Bars: Substance Abuse and America’s Prison Population…I1(1), II2(1)
Belenko, Dr. Steven R.…I1(1), II2(1, 26, 38), III1(5), III2(41), IV1(44-45), IV2(74)
Bell, Merlyn…II2(12, 17, 32, 140)
Berg, Insoo…III2(67)
Berman, Greg…III2(1)
Bernalillo County, NM…II2(22)
Bird, Dr. Steven…III1(124)
Birmingham, AL…III1(27)
Bohart, Arthur…III2(48, 51)
Boston College…III2(68)
Boston, MA…II2(102)
Drug Court …I1(21), II2(11)
Boyles, Mary...II1(100)
“Break the Cycle” (Maryland)…III1(33)
Brekke, Edward...II1(101), III2(6, 10, 19)
Brendtro, Larry…III2(68)
Briceno, Georgette…II2(8)
Brigham Young University…III2(43)
Bright, Sheriff Forrest...II1(100)
Brisbane, Dr. Frances…II2(17, 142)
Bronx, NY…IV2(69-71, 75)
Brooklyn, NY…III1(26), IV2(69-71, 75-77)
Brooklyn (Kings County), NY…III2(24)
Mental Health Court…III2(1, 5)Drug Court Review, Vol. V, 1 91
Treatment Court…I1(60), II2(21)
Broome, K.M....II1(39)
Broward County, FL...II1(102), II2(5), III1(31)
Sheriff’s Office...II1(102)
Broward County (Ft. Lauderdale), FL Drug Court…I1(8, 60), II1(102), II2(10)
Buckley Amendment [Family Educational Rights & Privacy Act
(FERPA)] ...IV1(21)
Buffalo, NY…IV2(69)
Burbank, CA…IV2(57)
Bureau of Governmental Research…II2(93)
Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA)...II1(109), II2(3, 79), IV2(68)
Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS)...II1(90), I2(5, 79), III1(29)
Bush (George W.), Administration…IV2(53)
Butler County, OH Drug Court…II2(135, 139)
Butzin, Dr. Clifford A. ...IV1(50)
Byrne Evaluation Partnership Grant...II1(109), II2(17)
Byrnes, Edward I....II1(109), II2(17)
California…I1(25, 66), II2(40), III1(17, 29, 33), III2(3, 19-20, 69), IV2(49-50, 52,
56, 60), V1(61)
Bureau of Identification and Investigation…III1(90, 128)
Civil Addict Program…III1(16)
Department of Corrections…III1(16)
Department of Motor Vehicles…III1(90, 128)
Drug Court Partnership Program…III1(86)
Office of Alcohol and Drug Programs…III1(86)
Proposition 36 …IV2(7-8, 26, 56-57, 60-61)
Welfare and Institutions Code…I1(76)
Wellness Foundation...II1(62)
Youth Authority…I1(77)
California State University at Long Beach...II1(62), II2(8)
California State University at San Bernadino...II2(8)
California, University of...II1(71)
Los Angeles…III1(26), III2(69)
Santa Barbara…II2(9, 13-14)
Campaign for New Drug Policies…IV2(49, 53)
Campbell, Senator Ben Nighthorse (R-CO)...IV1(35)
Carrier, Laurel…II2(16)
Cary, Paul L.… IV1(83), V1(23)
Cavanagh, Shannon…II2(9, 14), IV1(61)
Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA)…I1(1, 25, 87, 89), II2(1),
III1(5, 30), III2(7, 41)
Center for Applied Local Research…II2(13)
Center for Community Alternatives, New York City and Syracuse, NY…III2(8)
Center for Court Innovation…III2(1, 4, 6-7), IV2(68)
Center for Drug and Alcohol Education (CDAE), Colorado State
University…IV1(7, 13, 15-18, 20-21, 27, 29, 32)
Center for Drug and Alcohol Studies (CDAS), University of Delaware…III1(24),
IV1(49-51, 59)
Center for Strength-Based Strategies…III2(36)92 Subject Index
Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP)…II2(59, 79)
Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT)…II2(3, 44, 59), III1(19, 22, 32),
IV2(1, 4)
Century Regional Detention Facility...II1(101)
Charleston, SC…III2(102)
Chatman, Judge Sharon…III2(6, 9, 18, 26)
Cheavens, Jennifer…III2(50, 52, 56, 64)
Chestnut Health Systems…II2(15)
Chicago, IL…I1(3)
Choices Group, Inc. …III2(5, 7)
Choices Unlimited-Las Vegas…II2(11)
Christensen, Andrew…III2(60)
Chronicle of Higher Education...IV1(6)
Clallam County, WA…II2(7, 17, 41, 43)
Clark County, (Las Vegas), NV Drug Court…II2(6, 11)
Clark, Judge Jeanette, District of Columbia Superior Court…IV2(60)
Clark, Michael D.…III2(35-36)
Clemson University…III2(7)
Institute on Family and Neighborhood Life…III2(7)
Clery Act (1989)...IV1(6)
Cleveland, OH Drug Court…III1(123)
Client Satisfaction Survey (CSS)...IV1(50-51, 71-81)
Clinton (William J.), Administration…IV2(53)
Clymer, Bob…III1(129)
Coalition for the Homeless (New York City, NY)…III1(35)
Coates, Robert…III2(41)
Coblentz, Kris…II2(11)
Cohen, Dr. Shelly…II2(17, 142)
College on Problems of Drug Dependence…IV2(1)
Collom, Vincent…V1(61)
Colorado…III1(33), IV1(12, 28, 35)
Department of Public Safety…II2(14)
Division of Criminal Justice…III1(132)
Colorado State University (CSU)...IV1(5, 7-17, 20, 25-26, 28-30, 34-35)
Drug Task Force Team...IV1(13)
Police Department...IV1(29)
Columbia University…III1(5, 30), III2(7, 41)
Community Crime Prevention Association…II2(9)
Congress of the United States...IV1(6)
Cook, Foster…III2(5-6, 12, 23)
Coos County, OR…III1(33)
CORE Drug and Alcohol Survey...IV1(6-7, 12, 15, 33)
Cornerstone Program (Oregon)…III1(23-24)
Correctional Counseling, Inc.…I1(73), II1(107), II2(135)
Corrections Today…III2(36)
Cosden, Dr. Merith…II2(9, 13-14, 30, 148)
Countywide Criminal Justice Coordination Committee (CCJCC) (Los Angeles,
CA)…III1(61, 63, 67, 79, 86)
Drug Court Oversight Subcommittee…III1(61-63)
Cousins, Norman…III2(69)
Cowles, E.L.…II2(101) Drug Court Review, Vol. V, 1 93
Creek County, OK Drug Court…III1(129-130)
Crest Program (Delaware) …III1(24-25)
Crime and Justice Research Institute (CJRI)…II2(10)
Crothers, Linda…II2(9, 13-14, 148)
Cumberland County, ME…
Project Exodus...II1(119), II2(16, 18-19, 21, 32, 38-39),
Cunningham, Dr. Phillippe B.…III2(89, 97)
D-Metro Group…II2(16)
Dade County, FL…III1(31)
Dade County (Miami), FL Drug Court…I1(3, 60), II1(38-39), II2(4, 10)
Dallas County, TX…III2(118), IV1(105)
DIVERT Court…III2(117-119), IV1(105-107)
Dallas, TX Housing Authority…III1(35)
Dalton, Dr. Karen S....II1(99)
Daytop Lodge…III1(13)
Daytop Village…III1(10)
Dederick, Charles…III1(10)
Defining Drug Courts: The Key Components…I1(48), III1(60)
DeLeon, George…III1(11-13)
Delaware…III2(20), IV2(3), V1(9)
Adult Drug Court…I1(21, 27-28), II1(107, 109-110, 112),
II2(10, 14, 28)
Criminal Justice Information System...II1(111), III1(126)
Department of Corrections…III1(24)
Department of Health and Social Services…IV2(9)
Institutional Review Board of…IV2(9)
Division of Substance Abuse & Mental Health…IV2(10)
Juvenile Drug Court…I1(28, 73-74, 82-84), III1(125-127)
Statistical Analysis Center...II1(111), II2(10, 14)
Superior Court...II1(111), III2(6), IV1(49-50)
Delaware, University of…III1(24), IV1(49)
DeMatteo, Dr. David S.…V1(1)
Denman, Kristine…II2(16)
Dennis, Dr. Michael…II2(15, 147)
Denver, CO Drug Court…I1(27, 50, 56, 60, 68, 90), II2(5-6, 9, 14), III1(132-134)
Denver, University of…II2(9)
Deschenes, Dr. Elizabeth...II1(61-62, 68, 83), II2(5, 8, 13, 30), III1(127)
Diaz, Lori…II2(13), III1(127)
Differentiated Substance Abuse Treatment (DSAT)…V1(79, 85)
District of Columbia…II2(3), III1(32, 60), IV2(8), IV2(50, 58-60)
Board of Elections and Ethics…IV2(59)
Drug Court…I1(26, 36, 43, 50, 55, 60), II1(4, 91), II2(6, 9, 14,
22, 25, 31, 34, 36-38, 41), III1(32, 60)
Doe Foundation (New York City, NY)…III1(35)
Dole, Vincent…III1(13-14)
Domino, Marla…II2(11)
Dover, DE…IV2(13, 18, 20), V2(9-10) 94 Subject Index
Drug Abuse Reporting Program (DARP)…II2(105), III1(18, 20)
Drug Abuse Treatment Assessment and Research…II2(117)
Drug Abuse Treatment Outcomes Study (DATOS)…II2(105, 107, 126),
III1(19, 22)
Drug Court Standards Committee…I1(48)
Drug Court System (DCS)…I1(90-92)
Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA)…IV2(53)
Drug Free Schools and Campuses Act...IV1(6)
Drug Medicalization Prevention and Control Act (Proposition 200, State of
Drug Policy Alliance…IV2(49, 53)
Drug Reduction of Probationers Program (Coos County, OR)…III1(33)
Drug Treatment Alternative to Prison Program (DTAP) (Brooklyn,
Drug Use Forecasting System…I1(19)
Drugs Alcohol and You Program I (DAY I), Colorado State
University...IV1(14, 16)
Program II (DAY II)...IV1(14, 16-17)
Program III (DAY III)...IV1(14)
Program IV (DAY IV)...IV1(14-15, 17-28, 30-31, 33-34)
Duncan, Barry…III2(40, 43-45, 51, 60-61, 65, 67)
Earley, Dr. Paul…III2(39-40)
Early Intervention Project (EIP) (Cleveland, OH)…III1(123)
East Baton Rouge Parish, LA Prison...II1(98)
Eby, Cindy…II2(5, 9)
Education Assistance Corporation…III1(26)
Edwards, Thomas…I1(75)
Eighth Judicial District of Colorado…IV1(12-13)
Justice Center…IV1(12-13)
Juvenile Drug Court…IV1(12)
Ellis, Peter…I1(75-76)
Ellison, Willie…I1(75-76)
Enzyme Multiplied Immunoassay Technique of Drugs of Abuse in Urine
(EMIT-d.a.u.)…V1(28, 56)
English, Kim…II2(14), III1(132)
Enzyme Multiple Immunoassay Test (EMIT)…IV2(11)
Ericson, Rebecca…II2(16, 32)
Escambia County, FL Adult Drug Court...II1(33-34, 36- 37, 40-43, 53, 55-56,
113-114), II2(14, 18-20, 25-27, 31, 35-36, 47)
Evans, Lieutenant Dale...II1(100)
Ewing Marion Kaufman Foundation…II2(11)
Fain, Terry...II1(61-62)
Fairfield County, OH Juvenile Drug Court…II2(17, 26, 41-42)
Falkin, G.P.…III1(23)
Family Educational Rights & Privacy Act (FERPA) [Buckley
Family Justice (formerly La Bodega de la Familia), New York City, NY…III2(7)Drug Court Review, Vol. V, 1 95
Family Services Research Center, Medical University of South
Family and Youth Institute, Colorado State University…IV1(13-15, 28, 30, 32)
Farmington, NM Drug Court…II2(12)
Fathering Project (Jackson County, MO)…III1(105)
Fayette County, KY Drug Court…II2(15, 18, 20, 24, 26)
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)…III1(90)
Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA)…IV2(81, 88, 90)
Federal Office for Human Research Protections…IV2(10)
Federal Probation…II2(5)
Feinblatt, John…III2(6, 8-9, 12, 15, 20-21, 24-25, 28, 30-31)
Ferguson, Andrew S....II1(119), II2(16, 32), III1(131), III2(120, 123), V1(61)
Festinger, Dr. David S.…V1(1)
Finigan, Dr. Michael…I1(24-25), II2(12, 59, 71)
Finkelstein, M.…II2(71)
Fisler, Carol…III2(1)
Florida…II2(144), III1(28), III2(20), IV2(8, 50, 60-61)
Judicial Circuit (Pensacola)...II1(107-108, 113), II2(14, 19, 22, 27),
Judicial District Drug Court…II2(14, 22, 25)
Judicial District Drug Court…II2(11)
Judicial Circuit (Fort Lauderdale)…III2(7)
Crime Information Center...II1(43-44)
State Court Administrator...II1(113)
Supreme Court…IV2(60)
Florida International University, School of Policy and Management…II2(10)
Forsyth County, NC (Judicial District 21)…IV1(108)
Fort Collins, CO…IV1(12)
Fort Worth, TX…III1(8)
Foster, Thomas…II2(13), III1(127)
Fox, Aubrey…III2(1)
Freedman, Justice Helen…III1(35)
Frerichs, Rebecca…II2(16)
Fort Lauderdale, FL City Jail...II1(102)
Fort Lauderdale (Broward County), FL Drug Court…I1(8, 60), II1(102),
Fulton, Betsy…II2(139)
Funk, Rod…II2(15, 147)
Furman, Ben…III2(49, 53)
Gainesville, FL…III2(102)
Gas Chromatography Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS)…IV2(11), V1(38, 44)
Gebelein, Judge Richard…III2(6, 18, 22, 26, 33)
George Washington University…III2(8)
Law School…III2(8)
Georgetown, DE…IV2(13, 18, 20), V1(10)
Georgia State University…II2(14)
Glen Helen Rehabilitation Center...II1(98-99)
Godley, Dr. Mark…II2(15, 31, 147)
Goldkamp, Dr. John…I1(21), II2(10)
Gottfredson, Denise C.…II2(11, 111, 117) 96 Subject Index
Granfield, Robert…II2(5, 9)
Greenwood, Dr. Peter...II1(61-62), II2(8)
Grimm, Dr. Richard…II2(15)
Guam…II2(3), III1(60)
Guerin, Dr. Paul…II2(16)
Haas, Amie L....II1(33)
Hadley, Suzanne…III2(60)
Halliday-Boykins, Dr. Colleen A.…III2(89)
Halsted, Jeff…II2(16)
Hampson, Dr. Robert B.…III2(118)
Harborview Medical Center (Seattle, WA)…III1(40)
Harmon, Michele…II2(11)
Harrell, Dr. Adele…I1(55-56), II2(9, 14, 31), III1(32-33), IV1(61)
Harris, Christie…II2(11)
Harrison, Judge George…II2(12)
Hawaii, Legislature of…IV2(8)
Hayes, Vann...II1(101)
Health Choice of New York…V1(57)

Henggeler, Dr. Scott W. …III2(89, 92, 97)
Hennepin County, MN…IV1(48)
Minneapolis Drug Court…II2(16, 18, 32)
Higgins, Stephen…III1(37-38)
High Times…V1(40)
Hillsborough County (Tampa), FL Drug Court…II2(14)
Holland, Rebecca…III2(7, 11, 14, 16)
Hollweg, Ashley…III2(118)
Honolulu, HI…III2(102)
Drug Court…I1(24), II2(11)
Hora, Judge Peggy…I1(48)
Hubble, Mark…III2(40, 42-44)
Huddleston, III, C. West...II1(87), III2(7, 11, 31)
Huestis, Dr. Marilyn…V1(28)
Huntington, Bill…III1(129)
Hutchinson, Asa…IV2(53)
Hyde, Robert…II2(16)
Imam, Dr. Iraj…II2(13), III1(127)
Immigration and Naturalization Service…II2(67-68)
Inciardi, Dr. James A.…III1(24)
Initiative 62, District of Columbia…IV2(58-60)
Institute on Behavioral Research in Addictions...II1(1)
Institute of Behavioral Research, Texas Christian University…II2(117), III1(18)
Institute on Family and Neighborhood Life, Clemson University…III2(7)
Institute of Medicine (IOM)…III1(21), III2(104)
Institute for Social and Economic Research, University of Anchorage…V1(73)

Ireland, Gregory…II2(12) Drug Court Review, Vol. V, 1 97
Issue 1, State of Ohio…IV2(62-63)
Ithaca, NY…IV2(69)
Jackson, Alphonso…III1(35)
Jackson, MS…III1(37)
Jackson County (Kansas City), MO Drug Court…I1(27), II2(5-6, 11), III1(103-
109, 113, 118)
Jacksonville, FL Drug Court…II2(7, 15, 23)
Jacobson, Neil…III2(60)
Jefferson County, KY…II2(146)
Drug Court…II2(5, 15, 19, 27, 31, 33-34, 135, 145)
Jenne, Sheriff Ken...II1(102)
Johns Hopkins University…III1(15, 38)
Johnson, Patrick…III2(7, 30)
Johnson, Thomas…II2(16)
Join Together Online…V1(86)
Jonnes, Jill…III1(7)
Journal of the American Medical Association…V1(56)
“Jump Start” of the Santa Clara County, CA Juvenile Drug Court…III2(72)
Justice Institute...II1(113)
Justice Research Center...II1(115), II2(13)
Justice System Journal… II2(5)
Kalamazoo, MI…III1(36)
Drug Court…I1(60)
Kansas City (Jackson County), MO Drug Court…I1(27), II2(5-6, 11),
III1(36, 104)
Kassebaum, Gene…II2(11)
Kazdin, A.E.…III2(48)
Kelly, Sharon…II2(83)
Kelly, William…II2(12)
Kennedy, President John F.…III1(13)
Presidential Commission on Narcotics and Substance Abuse (the
Prettyman Commission)…III1(13)
Kent County, DE...II1(111-112), III1(125)
Superior Court…IV2(2), V1(2)
Kentucky…IV1(47, 59)
Kentucky, University of…II2(15)
Key Program (Delaware)…III1(24-25)
Key West (Monroe County), FL Drug Court…I1(21), II2(11)
Kidorf, Michael…III1(15)
Kimbrough-Melton, Dr. Robin…III2(7, 10, 15, 21, 25, 27)
Kings County (Brooklyn), NY Treatment Court…I1(60), II2(21), III1(26)
King County, WA Drug Court…II2(6, 12, 17, 22, 26-28, 32-33, 36, 38, 40, 135,
Kirby, Dr. Kimberly...II1(1)
Koch, Robert...II1(102)
Kunkel, Carol A.…II2(12)
Kurhajetz, Sarah…II2(16) 98 Subject Index
Lackawanna, NY…IV2(69)
Lambert, Michael…III2(41-43)
Lankton, Carol…III2(61)
Larimer County, CO…IV1(12, 28)
Las Cruces, NM Drug Court…II2(42)
Las Vegas, (Clark County), NV Drug Court…II2(6, 11)
Latessa, Dr. Edward…II2(139), III1(123)
Law & Policy…II2(5)
Leach, Judge Leslie…III2(5, 7, 12, 16-17, 22, 28-29, 32)
Lee, Patricia A.…V1(1)
Legal Action Center (New York City)…III1(36)
Legal Aid Society of New York City…III1(34-35)
Leukefeld, Carl…II2(15)
Lewis, George…IV2(53-54)
Lexington, KY…III1(8)
Lipsey, M.W.…II2(110)
Little Rock, AR Drug Court…II2(21)
Logan, T.K.…II2(15)
Long Day’s Journey Into Night…III1(6)
Los Angeles, CA...II1(101), II2(5, 40-41), III1(7)
Drug Court…I1(60), II2(6, 8, 13, 18, 26, 30, 33, 38), III1(60-68, 70-71,
75-81, 83-87, 89-97)
Drug Court (Sentenced Offenders)...II1(101)
Municipal Court…II2(40)
Superior Court…III2(6)
Los Angeles Times…IV2(57)
Lowenkamp, Christopher T.…III1(123)
Mackenzie, Dr. Doris…II2(98)
Madison County, IL…II2(148)
Drug Court…II2(15, 18-19, 22, 24, 26-27, 31, 34, 36-37, 135, 147-148)
Maine…III2(120-125), V1(79, 86)
Department of Corrections, Division of Juvenile Services…III2(123)
Drug Court Program...II1(119, 131), V1(87)
State Office of Drug Abuse, Division of Behavioral and
Developmental Services…V1(79)
Statewide Adult Drug Treatment Court System…III2(117, 120-121),
Statewide Juvenile Drug Treatment Court System…III2(117, 123)
Maluccio, Anthony…III2(68)
Manhattan, NY…IV2(69, 76)
Marathon (Marathon Key), FL Drug Court…I1(60, 67)
Maricopa County, AZ…III1(31), IV1(47)
Drug Court…I1(7, 26, 34, 36), II1(38, 61-62, 64, 74)
Drug Court (First Time Drug Offender Program)...II1(62, 64-67, 71,
74, 76), II2(8)
Marijuana Anonymous…V1(55) Drug Court Review, Vol. V, 1 99
Marlowe, Dr. Douglas B....II1(1), V1(1)
Marmo, Dr. Robert…II2(17, 142)
Marr, John…III2(5, 7, 9, 13, 15-16, 22, 25-26, 28)
Maryland, University of…II2(11, 97-98, 102)
Department of Criminal Justice… II2(93)
May, Judge Melanie...II1(102), III2(7, 13, 15, 20-21, 27, 33)
McCaffrey, General Barry…I1(6), IV2(53)
McDevitt, Jack…II2(11)
McLellan, A. Thomas…III1(22)
Mealy, Judge Thomas...II1(100)
Mecklenburg County, NC (Judicial District 26)…IV1(108)
Medicaid…IV2(81, 86, 90)
Medical University of South Carolina…III2(89)
Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences…III2(89)
Family Services Research Center…III2(89)
Miami, FL…III1(28)
Dade County Drug Court…I1(3, 60), II1(38-39), II2(4, 10)
Michael, Scott…III2(50, 52, 56, 64)
Michigan…III1(33), IV2(8, 50, 61)
Court of Appeals…IV2(61)
Office of Drug Control Policy…III1(33)
Milby, Jesse…III1(40)
Miller, Dr. Marsha L.…I1(83), II2(10), III1(125)
Miller, P.M.…III1(37)
Miller, Scott…III2(40, 43-45, 51, 60-61, 65, 77)
Miller, William R. …III2(47, 63-64)
Citizens Council on Crime and Justice…II2(16)
Multiphastic Personality Inventory (MMPI)…IV1(18)
Missouri…IV2(50, 61, 82, 85, 91), V1(61)
Judicial Circuit…IV2(83)
Division of Juvenile and Adult Court Programs…III2(8)
Drug Addiction Treatment Initiative…IV2(61-62)
Monroe County (Key West), FL Drug Court…I1(21), II2(11)
Monterey County, CA Drug Court...II1(107-108, 114-115), II2(13, 23, 30, 35, 38,
135, 137)
Montgomery County, MD…III1(36)
Moral Reconation Therapy (MRT®)...II1(100), II2(17, 99), III1(130)
Moreno, Veronica…II2(13), III1(127)
Morris, Judge Patrick...II1(99)
Moyers, Bill…III2(39-40)
Multisystemic Therapy (MST)…III2(89-90, 94-105)
Multnomah County (Portland), OR…II2(59, 61-63, 65, 69, 79-80, 82-83, 86, 89),
Department of Community Corrections…II2(12, 62, 81)
Drug Court…I1(20, 24-25), II1(39), II2(6, 12, 38, 59, 61-68, 70-71, 78,
81-85, 87, 89)
Justice Center…II2(79, 81)
Justice System…II2(81, 87)
Murphy, John J. …III2(42, 49-50)
Murrin, Mary R....II1(33, 113), II2(14, 31) 100 Subject Index
Narcotic Addict Rehabilitation Act of 1966…III1(17)
Narcotics Anonymous (NA)...II1(71, 74-75, 81, 98-99, 102), III1(32, 69), III2(10),
“Narcotics Court”…I1(3)
National Association of Drug Court Professionals (NADCP)…I1(6, 8, 47-48, 51-
52, 61, 65, 77, 79, 86), II1(33), II2(119), III1(60, 76), IV1(35, 84)
National Center for Campus Drug Courts (proposed), Colorado State
National Center for Fathering…III1(105)
National Center on Rural Justice and Crime Prevention…III2(7)
National Center for State Courts…I1(34, 50), II2(8)
National Committee to Prevent Child Abuse…III1(36)
National Council of Juvenile & Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ) …IV1(84)
National Crime Information Center...II1(43-44), V1(62-63)
National Crime Victimization Survey…II2(74-76, 79, 82)
National Drug Court Institute (NDCI)...II1(87, 107), II2(5, 44), III2(7), IV1
(35, 84), V1(79)
National Drug Court Institute Review (NDCIR)...II1(107, 113), II2(3, 135)
National Institute of Corrections (NIC)…II2(117)
National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA)…III2(89, 103)
National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA)...II1(64, 71), II2(3, 104, 109, 117),
III1(19), III2(89-90, 93-94, 97, 103), IV1(39-40, 42, 49-50), IV2(1, 4)
NIDA’s Thirteen Principles of Drug Addiction Treatment…III2(89, 94, 97-101,
104-105, 107-108)
National Institute of Justice (NIJ)…I1(37), II1(61, 63-64), II2(3, 6, 44), III1(32),
National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH)…III1(19), III2(72)
NIMH’s Treatment of Depression Collaborative Research Project…III2(72)
National Institutes of Health (NIH)…IV2(10)
National Judicial College (NCJ)…I1(73), II1(107), II2(135), IV1(35)
National Treatment and Evaluation Study…III1(19)
Native American Tribal Courts…II2(3)
ND Enterprises…II2(17)
Nelson, Travis…II2(17)
Ness, Arlin…III2(68)
Nestlerode, Evelyn…III1(125)
Nevada…III2(5, 7)
New Castle County, DE...II1(111-112), III1(125), IV1(49-50)
Court of Common Pleas…IV2(2), V1(2)
Drug Court…II2(6, 18)
New Haven, CT...II1(98), III1(7)
Drug Court…I1(60, 67)
New Mexico… II2(25)
Judicial District… II2(16)
Judicial District…II2(16, 18, 25-27)
Judicial District Juvenile…II2(16, 41-42)
New Mexico, University of…II2(16)
New Orleans, LA…III2(102)
Drug Court…II2(16, 25, 31, 33)
New South Wales, Australia…IV1(48)
New York, State of…III1(17, 26, 33), III2(3, 20, 24), IV2(52, 67-68, 77) Drug Court Review, Vol. V, 1 101
Division of Criminal Justice Services…IV2(69)
Legislature of…III1(18)
Narcotics Addiction Control Commission…III1(18)
Unified Court System…IV2(68-69)
New York Academy of Medicine…III1(13)
New York, NY…I1(3, 56), I2(27), III1(7, 10, 13-14, 28, 36), IV2(69)
New York City Criminal Justice Agency…I1(53)
New York City Housing Authority…III1(34-35)
New York Lincoln Hospital…I1(47)
Nichols, William…II2(17)
Nicholls State University…II2(15)
Nixon, (Richard M.), Administration…III1(25)
North Carolina…IV1(105, 108)
Drug Treatment Court Program (DTC)…IV1(108-109)
North Star (Jackson County, MO)…III1(113-114)
Northeastern University…II2(11)
Northwest Professional Consortium…II2(12, 59)
Nyswander, Marie…III1(13-14)
O’Connell, John P.…I1(83), II1(110), II2(10, 14), III1(125)
O’Connell, Paul…III1(129)
O’Hanlon, Bill…III2(52)
O’Neill, Eugene…III1(6)
Oakland (Alameda County), CA Drug Court…I1(34, 50, 60, 86), II1(39, 61, 65),
Oberg, John…II2(9)
Office of Judicial Affairs (OJA), Colorado State University…IV1(7-8, 11, 13, 15-
17, 25-26, 29, 32-33)
Office of Justice Programs (OJP)…III1(104), IV1(108)
Corrections Program Office…III1(23)
Drug Courts Program Office (DCPO)…I1(5, 9 48, 77, 79), II1(63),
II2(3, 6, 44-45, 51), III1(86, 104), III2(4, 36), IV1(108), IV2(43)
Office of Medical Assistance Programs…II2(79)
Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP)…I1(6), III1(1), IV2(53)
Office of the Ombudsman, Colorado State University…IV1(15, 28, 30)
Ogden, UT...II1(109), II2(43)
Ohio…IV1(48), IV2(50, 62)
Drug Treatment Initiative, The (Issue 1, State of Ohio)…IV2(62-63)
Ohioans Against Unsafe Drug Laws…IV2(62)
Okaloosa County, FL Drug Court...II1(113-114), II2(14, 19-20, 25-26, 31, 33,
36, 47)
Okamato Consulting Group…II2(11)
Okamato, Duane…II2(11)
Omer, Hiam…III2(71)
Orange County, CA…IV1(47)
Drug Court…II2(13, 30, 33), III1(60-71, 75-77, 79-80, 83, 89-97,
Oversight Committee…III1(77, 95)
Planning Committee…III1(62)102 Subject Index
Oregon…I1(25), II2(59, 62, 69, 76-77, 79-80, 82-83, 89), III1(33)
Office of Alcohol and Drug Abuse…II2(69)
State Police…II2(69)
Osborne Association, New York City, NY…III2(7)
Parsons, Dr. Bruce...II1(109), II2(17)
Partnership for a Drug Free America…III1(34)
Patascil, Leslie…II2(13), III1(127)
Patrick, Diane…II2(14), III1(132)
Payne County (Stillwater), OK Drug Court…I1(49), II2(17)
Peerson, Stacy…II2(9, 13-14, 148)
Pennsylvania, University of...II1(1), III1(22)
Penrod, Sheriff Gary...II1(99)
Pensacola, FL Drug Court…I1(60), II2(6), III1(36)
Person/Caswell County, NC (Judicial District 9A)…IV1(108)
Peters, Dr. Roger...II1(33, 113), II2(14, 31)
Petersilia, Joan...II1(83), II2(101, 109)
Peterson, N. Andrew…II2(5, 11)
Peyton, Elizabeth…III2(5, 7-8, 25, 31-32)
Philadelphia, PA…V1(9-10)
Treatment Court…V1(2)
Phoenix House…III1(10-12)
Pinsky, Dr. Drew…V1(41, 58)
Portland, ME...II1(119)
Portland (Multnomah County), OR Drug Court…I1(20, 24-25, II1(39), II2(6, 12,
38, 59, 61-68, 70-71, 78, 81-85, 87, 89), III1(27, 30)
Powell, Dr. Ronald…III1(124)
“Presentation of Outcome Evaluation Findings DIVERT Advisory Board,” for
Dallas County, TX DIVERT Court…IV1(106)
Presidential Commission on Narcotics and Substance Abuse (the Prettyman
Project Sentry (Lansing, MI)…III1(33)
Proposition 36, State of California…IV2(7-8, 26, 56-57, 60-61)
Proposition 200, State of Arizona…IV2(7-8, 26, 55)
Psychological Reports…II2(5)
Psychology Department, Southern Methodist University…IV1(106)
Puerto Rico…II2(3), III1(60)
Quebec, University of…III2(48)
Queens, NY…IV2(69-71, 75-77)
Queens County, NY…III2(5, 7)
Raine, Valerie…III2(5, 7, 16, 19, 23-24, 26)
RAND Corporation…I1(24, 34), II1(61-62, 64, 67-68, 71), II2(6, 8), III1(26, 31)
Randall, Dr. Jeff…III2(89)
Ray, Scott…II2(16, 31)
Ready, Willing & Able Program (Doe Foundation) (New York City,
NY)…III1(35)Drug Court Review, Vol. V, 1 103
Recent Treatment Survey (RTS)…IV2(11-12)
Recovery Opportunity Center...II1(68, 117)
Redlands, CA Drug Court...II1(99)
Reed, Emily…II2(10)
Reily, Judge Tara...II1(99)
Reno, Attorney General Janet (United States)…I1(6)
Reno, NV Drug Court…I1(67), III1(36)
Responsivity Theory…IV2(4, 25-26)
Richmond, VA Drug Court…I1(60)
Ries, Richard K.…III1(40)
Risk Principle…IV2(4, 17, 25-26)
Riverside County, CA...II1(117)
Drug Court…I1(24), II1(107-108, 117), II2(8)
Roberts-Gray, Dr. Cindy…II2(12)
Robinson, Dr. Kenneth…I1(73), II1(107), II2(135, 144)
Rochester, NY…III2(4, 7), IV2(69-72)
Rockefeller, Governor Nelson (New York)…III1(18)
Rockefeller Institute (New York City)…III1(13)
Rocky Mountains…IV1(12)
Roehl, Dr. Jan...II1(114), II2(13, 30, 137)
Rollnick, Stephen…III2(47, 63-64)
Roman, John…II2(14), IV1(61)
Rosenthal, Mitchell…III1(10)
Saint Louis, MO…IV2(67, 80, 83)
Adult Felony Drug Court…IV2(67, 80, 83-84)
Saint Mary’s Parish, LA Drug Court…II2(15-16, 23-24)
Salem, Oregon…II2(82)
Salt Lake City, UT Drug Court...II1(109), II2(17, 41, 43)
San Bernardino, CA...II1(98)
Drug Court...II1(99)
Sheriff's Office...II1(98)
San Diego, CA Drug Court…I1(60)
Santa Ana, CA…III1(63, 79, 128)
Santa Barbara County, CA Drug Court…II2(6, 9, 13, 28, 37, 135, 148-150)
Santa Clara, CA…
Adult Drug Court…I1(21, 26-27), II2(9)
Juvenile Drug Court…I1(73-76, 78-79, 81, 84), II2(9)
Superior Court…III2(6)
Santa Monica, CA…III1(10)
Drug Court…II2(40)
Satel, Dr. Sally…I1(43), II1(91)
Saum, Dr. Christine A. …IV1(50)
Scarpitti, Dr. Frank R. …IV1(50)
Schiff, Mara…II2(5, 10)
Schma, Judge William…I1(48)
Schneider, P.…II2(71)
Schrunck, Mike…II2(83)
Schwartz, Judge John…III2(4, 7, 9, 12, 17, 19, 24, 28)
Schwartz, M.…II2(102)
Scocas, Evelyn…I1(83), II2(10) 104 Subject Index
Seachrest, Dale K....II1(117), II2(8)
Self-Sufficiency Program (Dallas, TX)…III1(35)
Seligman, Martin…III2(59)
Selis, Saul B.…III1(18)
Shadish, W.R.…III2(94)
Shapiro, Carol…III2(7, 10, 11, 23)
Shaw, Michelle…I1(73), II1(107), II2(135, 144)
Sheen, Martin…IV2(49)
Shichor, David...II1(117), II2(8)
SHORT Program (Travis County, TX) Drug Court…II2(12)
Shreveport, LA…III1(7, 15)
Sibley, Ashley…IV1(106)
Siekmann, Melissa…II2(15, 147)
Silverman, Ken…III1(38-39)
Simpson, D.D.…II2(112, 121-122)
Simpson, Martin…II2(15)
Smith, Linda…II2(14)
Smith, Dr. Michael…I1(47)
Snyder, C.R. …III2(50, 52, 56, 64)
SODAT…I1(82), II2(10), III1(126-127)
Soros, George…IV2(53-54)
Sousa, William…II2(11)
South Florida, University of… II1(33, 36), II2(14-15)
South Carolina…III2(27)
Southeast Baltimore Drug Treatment Program…III1(15)
Southern Maine, University of…III2(120, 123)
College of Arts and Sciences…III2(120, 123)
Southern Methodist University (SMU)…III2(118), IV1(106)
Sperling, John…IV2(53-54)
Stanton, M.D.…III2(94)
State Justice Institute...II1(115), II2(3, 44), III1(30)
State University of New York at Stony Brook...II2(17)
Stay’n Out (New York)…III1(23-24)
Stillwater (Payne County), OK Drug Court…I1(49)
Strupp, Hans…III2(60)
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), U.S.
Department of Health & Human Services…IV1(84)
Substance Abuse Subtle Screening Inventory (SASSI)...II1(109), II2(120)
Suffolk County, NY…IV2(69-71, 75, 77)
Drug Court…II2(17, 28, 135, 142-143)
Supreme Court of the State of New York Queens County…III2(7)
Sussex County, DE...II1(111-112)
Superior Court…IV2(2), V1, (2)
Sviridoff, Michele…III2(7, 12, 14, 17)
Synanon (New York City)…III1(10)
Syracuse, NY…IV2(69-71, 75)
Tallman, Karen…III2(48, 51)
Tampa, FL…II2(25)
Tauber, Judge Jeffery…I1(47, 65, 86), II2(8)
Taxman, Dr. Faye…II2(93, 122) Drug Court Review, Vol. V, 1 105
Temple University...II1(1)
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)…IV2(82, 88, 90), V1(6)
Terry, Dr. W. Clinton…II2(5, 10)
Tewksbury, Dr. Richard…II2(15, 31, 145)
Texas Christian University…II2(117), III1(18)
Theriot, Dr. Judy…II2(15)
Thomas, Stephen…II2(17)
Tonawanda, NY…IV2(69)
Torres, Sam…II2(5, 8)
Travis County, TX Drug Court…II2(12)
Treatment Access Services Center...II1(111)
Treatment Accountability for Safer Communities (TASC)…IV2(4)
Treatment Alternatives to Street Crime (TASC)…I1(3), II2(102), III1(25-28)
Treatment Instead of Jail For Certain Non-Violent Drug Offenses (Initiative 62,
District of Columbia)…IV2(58)
Treatment Outcome Prospective Study(TOPS)…II2(105), III1(19-20, 26)
Treatment Research Institute...II1(1)
Treatment Services Review (TSR)…IV2(12)
TUC Drug Screen…II2(120)
Turley, Monica M.…III2(118), IV1(106)
Turner, Dr. Susan...II1(61), II2(8, 101)
Tuttle, Robert…III2(8, 14, 20, 22, 29)
Tynan, Judge Michael...II1(101)
Umbriet, Mark…III2(41)
Unita County, WY...II1(100)
Drug Court...II1(100)
Sheriff's Office...II1(100)
United States of America…II2(74-75), III1(14, 18, 24, 60, 105), IV1(10)
United States Comptroller General…III1(8)
United States Congress…II2(97), III1(8), IV1(6)
United States Department of Education (DOE)…IV1(6, 14)
United States Department of Education General Administrative
United States Department of Education’s Safe & Drug Free Schools’
Competition to Prevent High Risk Drinking on College
United States Department of Health & Human Services (DHHS)…III1(103),
United States Department of Justice (USDOJ)…I1(23), II2(71), III1(104), III2(4,
36), IV1(11, 35, 108), IV2(46), V1(69)
United States Department of the Treasury…III1(7)
Narcotics Unit…III1(8)
United States General Accounting Office (GAO)…I1(7-9, 19, 34), II2(27, 44),
III1(30), IV2(7, 43, 46)
United States Judicial System…IV1(11)
United States Public Health Service…III1(8)
United States Supreme Court…III1(36)
United States Veterans Administration…III1(41)106 Subject Index
University Counseling Center (UCC), Colorado State University…IV1(13, 15,
18, 20, 27, 29, 32)
University of Phoenix…IV2(53)
Urban Institute…I1(26, 36, 55), II2(9, 14, 25), III1(32)
Juvenile Drug Court...II1(107-109), II2(43)
Utah, University of…II1(109), II2(17)
Ventura County, CA Drug Court…I1(26-27), II2(6, 9, 14, 30, 35)
Vera Institute of Justice…III1(27-28)
Vermont, University of…III1(38)
Vidal, Dr. Carlos…II2(17, 142)
Violent Crime Control Law Enforcement Act 1994…I1(5, 15)
Vito, Gennaro…II2(15, 31, 145)
Volusia County, FL…II2(144)
Drug Court…II2(135, 144-145)
Wake County, NC (Judicial District 10)…IV1(108)
Walters, John…IV2(53)
Ward, DeSondra…II2(13), III1(127)
Warren County, NC (Judicial District 9)…IV1(108)
Washington, DC…III2(4, 6)
Washington, State of…IV2(52)
“Weekend Nights at CSU” Program, Colorado State University…IV1(23-24)
Weiland, Doris…II2(10)
Weisheit, Dr. Ralph…II2(15, 147)
Weissman, Marsha…III2(8, 15, 18, 24, 30-32)
Welter, Sarah…II2(16)
Wensuc, Ed…II2(14), III1(132)
Whillhite, Stephen A....II1(110), II2(14)
White House, The…III1(1)
Willamette University…II2(59)
Williams, Katie…II2(15)
Williams, Robert…II2(84)
Wilmington, DE…IV2(12-13, 18, 20), V1(7, 9-10)
Juvenile Drug Court…II2(10)
Wilson, Ann…III2(8, 12, 25)
Wilson, D.B.…II2(110)
Wisconsin, University of Social Science Research Center…II2(59)
Woolf Jr., William…II2(11)
World War II…III1(7-8, 10, 14)
Worth Street Clinic (New York City)…III1(7)
Wright, Dr. David…III1(129)
Wright, Robin…III2(8, 11)
Yale University School of Medicine…I1(43)
Youth Violence Prevention Institute...II1(62) Drug Court Review, Vol. IV, 2 107
The Headnote Index provides access to an article’s major
points or concepts using a cumulative indexing system. Each
headnote can be located by:
™ Volume by using a roman numeral i.e. I
™ Issue by using a number i.e. 2
™ Headnote by using a number in brackets
i.e. [4]
Ballot Initiatives
IV2[13] State Ballot Initiatives Threaten Drug Court
IV2[14] Specific Initiatives Addressed
Campus Drug Courts
IV1[1] Crime and Campus Drug Courts
IV1[2] “Hard Core” Drinkers on Campus
IV1[3] Increase in Serious Student Offenses at CSU
IV1[4] Drug Court at CSU
IV1[5] CSU Campus Drug Court Pilot Successful
IV1[6] Campus Drug Court Process and Design
IV1[7] Campus Drug Court Team (CDCT)
IV1[8] Campus Departments Involved
IV1[9]Campus Drug Court Evaluation
IV1[10] Future of Campus Drug Courts
III1[1] Coercion Necessary
III1[2] Drug Courts Successful
III1[3] National Results
III1[4] Drug Court Retention
III1[5] Social Contracting
III1[6] Contingency Management
III1[7] Participant Motivation
III1[8] Drug Courts Provide Lesson
Community Reintegration and Drug Courts
III2[1] Importance of Reintegration
III2[2] What is Reintegration?
III2[3] The Court’s Role
III2[4] The Court’s Authority
III2[5] Courts and Communities
III2[6] Risks Involved
III2[7] Judicial Ethics
III2[8] Courts and Treatment 108 Headnote Index
Cost Assessments
II2[9] Evaluating Multnomah County STOP Program
II2[10] Costs in Calculating Taxpayer Savings
II2[11] Multnomah County Justice System Savings
II2[12] Cost Savings to the Oregon Citizen
II2[13] Estimated Savings of Expanding Program
Countywide Approaches to Drug Court
III1[9] Countywide Standards
III1[10] County Comparisons
III1[11] Program Comparisons
III1[12] Stakeholder Cooperation
III1[13] L.A.’s MIS
III1[14] Orange County’s MIS
III1[15] Countywide MIS
III1[16] Countywide Success
Creatinine-Normalized Cannabinoid Results
IV1[19] Non-Normalized Method for Detecting Drug Use
IV1[20] Considerations in Creatinine-Normalized Cannabinoid Drug
IV1[21] Creatinine-Normalized Calculations
IV1[22] Interpreting Creatinine-Normalized Ratios
V1[5] Framing the Question
V1[6] Variables
V1[7] Research Review
V1[8] Perpetuating the 30-Plus Day Assumption
V1[9] Establishing the Cannabinoid Detection Window
V1[10] Client Detoxification
V1[11] Abstinence Baseline
V1[12] Cannabinoid Testing Following Positive Results
V1[13] Court Expectations and Client Boundaries
Critical Elements to Consider for Methodologically Sound
Impact Evaluations
IV2[9] Methodologically Sound Impact Evaluations
IV2[10] Comparison Group
IV2[11] Data Collection & Analysis
IV2[12] Evaluator Involvement Critical
Drug Court Critical Review
II2[1] Consistent Findings
II2[2] Client Characteristics
II2[3] Drug Use
II2[4] Retention and Graduation Rates
II2[5] Recidivism Rates
II2[6] Post Program Recidivism
II2[7] Cost Savings
II2[8] Improving Drug Court Evaluation
Drug Court Participants’ Satisfaction
IV1[11] Other Studies Drug Court Review, Vol. IV, 2 109
IV1[12] CDAS/NIDA Drug Court Participant Study
IV1[13] CDAS Study Format
IV1[14] Basic Client Information
IV1[15] Motivation for Drug Court
IV1[16] Clients’ Thoughts on Treatment
IV1[17] Clients’ Opinions on the Court
IV1[18] Conclusions on Client Perceptions
Drug Court System I1[23]-I1[28]
I1[1] Consistent Findings
I1[2] Retention Rates
I1[3] Population Demographics
I1[4] Supervision
I1[5] Cost Saving
I1[6] Drug Usage
I1[7] Recidivism During Program
I1[8] Recidivism
I1[9] Design Weakness
V1[1] Benefits of Expungement
V1[2] Methods
V1[3] Results
V1[4] Discussion
Family Drug Courts
III1[17] Development
III1[18] Jackson County
III1[19] Criminal/Civil Cases
III1[20] Immediate Involvement
III1[21] Appropriate Treatment
III1[22] Sanctions & Incentives
III1[23] Effectiveness
III1[24] Challenges
Four Common Factors and Positive Behavior Change: Improving the
Effectiveness of the Therapeutic Approach
III2[9] Common Factors in Treatment
III2[10] Influence of Client Factors
III2[11] Influence of Therapeutic Relationship Factors
III2[12] Importance of Perceived Empathy
III2[13] Client’s Acceptance of Treatment Program
III2[14] Role of Warmth/Self-Expression
III2[15] Hope and Expectancy
III2[16] Conveying Hope
III2[17] Hope is Future-Focused
III2[18] Empowering the Client
III2[19] Model and Technique
III2[20] The Strengths Approach
III2[21] Strength-Based Implications for Practice 1 110 Headnote Index
III2[22] Strength-Based Implications for Practice 2
III2[23] Strength-Based Implications for Practice 3
III2[24] Strength-Based Implications for Practice 4
Jail Based Treatment
II1[19] Jail-Based Treatment Gap
II1[20] Jail-Based Treatment And Drug Courts
II1[21] A “Working Model”
II1[22] Communication With Drug Courts
II1[23] Jail Staff Support
II1[24] Program Space
II1[25] Staff Assignment
II1[26] Follow-Up And Re-Entry Courts
I1[10] Role
I1[11] Role Codified
I1[12] “Judge Effect”
I1[13] Self-Assessment
I1[14] Counter-transference
I1[15] Participant Attitude
I1[16] Participant’s Psychology
I1[17] Court Environment
I1[18] Court Environment
The Judge is a Key Component of Drug Court
IV2[1] Judge’s Role in Drug Court
IV2[2] Research Design
IV2[3] Study Measures
IV2[4] Study Sites
IV2[5] Original Study Findings
IV2[6] Study Replication: Misdemeanor Population
IV2[7] Study Replication: Felony Population
IV2[8] Judge is Key to Drug Court
Juvenile Drug Courts
I1[19] Cost Savings-Santa Clara
I1[20] Santa Clara- Retention
I1[21] Wilmington- Recidivism
I1[22] Wilmington- Post Program Recidivism
Multisystemic Therapy (MST): An Evidence-Based Substance Abuse Treatment
in Juvenile Drug Courts
III2[25] Treating Adolescent Substance Use Effectively
III2[26] NIDA’s Thirteen Principles
III2[27] What is Multisystemic Therapy (MST)?
III2[28] Evaluating the Effectiveness of MST
III2[29] MST and the Thirteen Principles
III2[30] MST and Juvenile Drug Court
III2[31] Evaluating MST in Juvenile Drug Court Drug Court Review, Vol. IV, 2 111
Perceptions of Drug Court
II1[15] Evaluating the FTDO Program in Maricopa
II1[16] 12-Month/36-Month Outcomes
II1[17] Difficulty of Compliance
II1[18] Helpfulness, Strengths/Weakness
II1[27] Recidivism and The Utah Juvenile Court
II1[28] Delaware Drug Court Evaluation
II1[29] Florida’s First Judicial Circuit Drug Court Evaluation
II1[30] Monterey County First-Year Drug Court Evaluation
II1[31] Riverside County Drug Court Evaluation
II2[21] Monterey County, 1
Year Evaluation
II2[22] Butler County CDAT Evaluation
II2[23] King County Drug Court Evaluation
II2[24] Suffolk County Drug Treatment Court
II2[25] Volusia County Process & Output Evaluation
II2[26] Jefferson County Impact Evaluation
II2[27] Madison County Final Evaluation
II2[28] Santa Barbara County Year Three
III1[25] Cleveland Drug Court
III1[26] Allen County
III1[27] Delaware Juvenile Diversion Program
III1[28] Orange County
III1[29] Creek County
III1[30] Project Exodus (Maine)
III1[31] Denver Drug Court
III2[32] Dallas County DIVERT Court
III2[33] Maine’s State-wide Adult Drug Treatment Court Program
III2[34] Maine’s State-wide Juvenile Drug Treatment Court Program
IV1[23] Dallas County DIVERT Court
IV1[24] North Carolina
IV2[15] New York State Evaluation
IV2[16] Saint Louis Cost-Benefit Analysis
V1[14] Four Drug Court Site Evaluation
V1[15] Alaska’s Therapeutic Court Evaluation
V1[16] Maine’s Adult Drug Court Program
II1[8] Early Predictors
II1[9] Treatment Outcomes
II1[10] Graduate/Non-Graduate Similarities
II1[11] Predictors of Program Completion
II1[12] Arrest During Follow-Up
II1[13] Predictors of Rearrest
II1[14] Using Predictors
II1[1] Increased Performance
II1[2] Sanctions Need Not Be Painful
II1[3] In The Eyes Of The Behavior
II1[4] Regularity Of Sanctions 112 Headnote Index
II1[5] Clarification Of Expected Behaviors
II1[6] Effective Punishment
II1[7] Research Potential
Treatment for Offenders
II2[14] Successful Treatment Programs
II2[15] Therapeutic Setting
II2[16] Treatment Completion
II2[17] Cognitive Behavioral Tx What Works
II2[18] Effective Treatment Components
II2[19] Treatment Matching
II2[20] Sanctions and Incentives Expungement of Arrest Records in Drug Court:
Do Clients Know What They’re Missing?
David S. Festinger, Ph.D., David S. DeMatteo,
J.D., Ph.D., Douglas B. Marlowe, J.D., Ph.D.,
and Patricia A. Lee, M.S. .................................................. ..... 1
The Marijuana Detection Window: Determining
the Length of Time Cannabinoids Will Remain
Detectable in Urine Following Smoking:
A Critical Review of Relevant Research and
Cannabinoid Detection Guidance for Drug Courts
Paul Cary, M.S .................................................. ................... 23
Research Update: Reports on Recent Drug
Court Research
Compilation....................................... ................................... 59
Subject Index .................................................. .................... 89
Headnote Index............................................. .................... 107

Post Quality Reviews:
Great post, but could you please clean up the formatting, it is a tad difficult to read
please reformat your post. It used way too much space
waaay too long. unnecessary.
Old 04-05-2011, 05:28
FreeBliss FreeBliss is offline
Silver Member
Join Date: 26-01-2010
29 y/o Male from United States
Posts: 369
FreeBliss is a decent psychonaut.FreeBliss is a decent psychonaut.
Re: Cannabis: Clean in 14 days?

Swim can believe it, he passed a drug test after he was clean the nsmoked for a week straight. But then he failed a test a few weeks later after he had been smokeing a month straight.

So basicly you can get away with some smoking but thats only one experiance someone should do some experamenting of course that would be costly.
Old 04-05-2011, 17:20
Shanty Shanty is offline
Titanium Member
Join Date: 06-11-2009
Male from Earth
Posts: 209
Shanty is on the way upShanty is on the way upShanty is on the way upShanty is on the way up
Points: 637, Level: 3 Points: 637, Level: 3 Points: 637, Level: 3
Activity: 0.4% Activity: 0.4% Activity: 0.4%
Re: Cannabis: Clean in 14 days?

By the way.... since X can't post links, X had to copy and paste the article. If someone would like a more organized read.... and it may be worth it, the studies are quite interesting, the article link can be found in Erowids Cannabis Drugtesting vault, scroll down, under "test types", hyperlinked in text as, "The marijuana detection window"
Old 22-05-2013, 07:46
Oldyeller Oldyeller is offline
Join Date: 08-05-2013
Male from Earth
Posts: 8
Oldyeller is an unknown quantity at this point
Points: 5, Level: 1 Points: 5, Level: 1 Points: 5, Level: 1
Activity: 0% Activity: 0% Activity: 0%
Re: Cannabis: Clean in 14 days?

I think my friends experience can also be useful in helping regular cannabis users rest more easily. My friend took a preemployment drug test at quest diagnostics yesterday afternoon. My friend had quit for 3 weeks and 1 day prior to the test. My friend was a regular heavy user for the last 7 or so years basically taking no breaks. My friend really feels like he is going to pass the test because he took a couple of at home tests over the last week and passed both. It should be noted that my friend exercised vigorously during his period of abstinence as from his extensive research it appears that is the only legitimate and proven way to speed up detoxification. I will report back in a couple of days to say for sure that he indeed did pass. From what my friend was led to believe if my friend does not hear back from the lab within 3 days it is safe to assume he passed the test. It should also be noted that my friend was about 195 lbs when he quit but dropped down to about 180 by the test due to the impact of not consuming cannabis anymore (loss of munchies) and exercising so much. My friend shares this story because he has spent this entire period combing the internet in pure panic from the diverse information he found on the internet on the topic. My friend will still continue to experience anxiety for 2 more days then he plans to blaze like theres no tomorrow. ON a side note: anyone who thinks cannabis withdrawal is a made up scare tactic will be in for a rude awakening. My friend would have laughed in the face of anybody that told him he would experience withdrawals a month ago but after experiencing it himself he definitely did. He couldn't sleep, he was anxious, and depressed and ironically couldn't concentrate. This subsided dramatically after the first week except the insomnia persisted longer. Exercise was the only thing that really helped alleviate these symptoms but not entirely.
Old 25-05-2013, 04:54
Oldyeller Oldyeller is offline
Join Date: 08-05-2013
Male from Earth
Posts: 8
Oldyeller is an unknown quantity at this point
Points: 5, Level: 1 Points: 5, Level: 1 Points: 5, Level: 1
Activity: 0% Activity: 0% Activity: 0%
Re: Cannabis: Clean in 14 days?

just wanted to let everyone know my friend is now pretty confident he passed his preemployment test. so much so that he is finally going to blaze up a fatty for the first time in almost a month in a couple of minutes. Wish him luck!
Old 03-06-2013, 16:38
Zaman Zaman is offline
Join Date: 12-03-2012
39 y/o Male from Belgium
Posts: 1
Zaman should review received reputation comments.
Points: 5, Level: 1 Points: 5, Level: 1 Points: 5, Level: 1
Activity: 0% Activity: 0% Activity: 0%
Re: Cannabis: Clean in 14 days?

I had to pass a weekly drugs test and found this method helped me gain a pass every time. I sell special patches that can be put anywhere on the body that draw out toxins as well as any remaining drugs in your system. You wear the patches overnight and awaken feeling cleansed and fresh

Providing you stay clean for 5 days prior to your test after wearing the patches for 5 days you will more than likely gain a pass/

Post Quality Reviews:
this sounds like tacit solicitation

Share this on:

cannabis, cannabis and drug testing, cannabis drug test, cannabis drug testing, cannabis urinalysis, drug test, drug testing, marijuana, marijuana and drug testing, marijuana drug testing, urinalysis, weed

Thread Tools

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Cannabis History - Detailed Timeline NeuroChi Drug Articles 5 19-10-2015 13:09
Longitudinal Teen Study: First Puff-->Daily Use. Factors Involved in Daily MJ Use Richard_smoker Miscellaneous 13 05-08-2013 17:07
UK: Cannabis Psychosis - Off Your Head? Motorhead Cannabis & Health 27 04-07-2010 17:59
UK - Policing guidance following reclassification of Cannabis (UK) Lunar Loops Drug Policy Reform & Narco Politics 1 22-01-2007 12:39

Sitelinks: Information:

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 16:59.

Copyright: SIN Foundation 2003 - 2014, All rights reserved