ILNews

Monroe County drug court wins award

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Monroe County Drug Treatment Court recently received a national award for its efforts to foster community transformation by reducing drug addiction and crime.

The drug court received the Community Transformation Award Dec. 16 from the National Association of Drug Court Professionals, according to a statement posted on the Indiana Courts' Web site Monday afternoon. The drug court accepted the award on its 10th anniversary.

Since 2007, only 10 of the 2,369 drug courts that now exist nationwide have received the award.

The Drug Treatment Court began as a pilot project in November 1999. The program admits drug- and alcohol-addicted offenders with criminal pasts who aren't charged with dealing illegal substances. More than 350 defendants have been admitted into the program, with 91 current participants.

A 2006 independent study by the Northwest Professional Consortium of Portland, Ore., found the Monroe County drug court reduces recidivism by nearly 70 percent and saves more than $7,000 per participant when compared with the traditional court process.

The NADCP is a nonprofit organization that represents more than 27,000 drug court professionals and provides training and advocacy for drug courts.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT