The Washington State Legislature addresses Therapeutic Courts in Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 2.30.
National Association of Drug Court Professionals (NADCP) Best Practice Standards provides evidence based guidance on incentives/sanctions, target population, substance testing, multidisciplinary team, team roles, and complementary treatment services.
NADCP provides a quick reference on how Drug Courts work through their Research Update on Adult Drug Courts.
NDCI offers information on target population and alternative tracks to help better serve the needs of drug court participants in facts sheets Targeting the Right Participants for Adult Drug Courts and Alternative Tracks in Adult Drug Courts: Matching Your Program to the Needs of Your Client.
The National Center for State Courts identifies and outlines roles and responsibilities, discusses common team challenges, and explains team development in a The Drug Court Team: Role sand Responsibilities.
More information related to team roles and responsibilities:
- Role of the Judge and Drug Court Judicial Benchbook
- The Role of the Drug Court Coordinator
- The Role of Prosecutors in Drug Treatment Courts and The Role of the Prosecutor in Drug Courts
- The Role of Defense Counsel on the Drug Court Team, Critical Issues for Defense Attorneys in Drug Court, and The Role of Defense Counsel in Drug Courts
- Drug Court Case Management
- The Role of Law Enforcement in Treatment Courts
- Peer Support Roles in Criminal Justice Settings, Value of Peers (2017), and Integrating Peer Supports in Treatment and Recovery Courts
Justice for Vets has free foundational training available for Veterans Treatment Courts that are pre or post implementation, in need of a refresh, or never formally trained and facing challenges.
Justice for Vets also has a useful resource library with best practice information, key components, sample documents, and target population guidance.
MENTAL HEALTH COURTS
The Council of State Governments (CSG) Justice Center has created A Guide to Mental Health Court Design and Implementation. This guide provides a roadmap for those interested in establishing a mental health court in their jurisdiction. Based largely on the experiences of existing mental health courts, the guide is organized according to three basic steps that should be followed by any community considering the establishment of a mental health court, which are: understanding the mental health concept; determining whether a mental health court is appropriate; and considering elements of mental health court design and implementation.
National Center for State Courts offers Mental Health Court Performance Measures (MHCPM). MHCPM is a set of 14 performance measures that offers court managers and administrators a tool to monitor the performance of mental health courts. These measures were designed by the NCSC with guidance from national experts and field tested by four courts across the country. The measures are designated to be used as a management tool, to monitor program performance, and to demonstrate accountability to funding agencies, court leaders, external partners, and the public.
The Center for Court Innovation conducted The Brooklyn Mental Health Court Evaluation. This evaluation assesses the planning process; describes key features of the court’s model; and presents data on courtroom dynamics, team communication patterns, and participant characteristics, outcomes, and perceptions.
The Bureau of Justice Assistance identifies ten essential elements in their report Improving Responses to People with Mental Illness: The Essential Elements of a Mental Health Court.