It will be difficult to be granted access to some of the records of such drug offenders, especially those who have reformed and have been reintegrated successfully into the community. It is also illegal in some jurisdictions to have access to some of these records. Then interviewing people on treatment might not be that ethical. However, the research team will aspire to meet all the legal requirements and to get special permission from the participants in the interview before engaging in the process.
In addition, they will seek to assure the participants that no information will be used for any other purposes but for that it was intended. Finally, participants’ identity will not be disclosed to anyone nor their information circulated. Project organisation, management, schedule and budget The research will need a lot of planning (Mason, 2002). It is projected that the process will take five to seven months given that there will be tracking of each participant. It will be a state-by-state research, and considering the large size of the population sample, this will be a costly and time-consuming exercise.
The actual research is scheduled to commence on the 2nd day of August 2010 after a one-month period of preparation and planning. It is expected that the main costs will cover issues like travel, legal documents acquisition, results analysis, accommodation, document access fees, among others. Conclusion and Limitations The research will face limitations like denial of access to some legal documents, a factor that might delay the process. However, it will be overcome by starting early enough and planning ahead of time for the process.
There is a need to have the participants informed in advance of the day and time when they will be required for interviews and for assisting the researcher with the records. Finally, there needs to be further research on the need for more or fewer drug courts.
Aos, S. , Miller, M. & Drake, E. (2006). Evidence-based public policy options to reduce future prison construction, criminal justice costs, and crime rates. Olympia, WA: Washington State Institute for Public Policy. Bhati, A. S. , Roman, J. K. & Chalfin, A. (2008).To treat or not to treat: Evidence on the prospects of expanding treatment to drug-involved offenders. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute. Byrne, D. (2002). Interpreting Quantitative Data. London, Sage Publications Ltd Carey, S. et al. (2006). “California drug courts: Outcomes, costs and promising practices: An overview of phase II in a statewide study. ” Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, SARC Supplement 3, 345-356. Cooper, C. (2001). “Juvenile Drug Court Programs. ” Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grants Program Bulletin