{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01384083044982699, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.655172413793103, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Sustaining Drug Courts in Arizona and South Carolina: An Experience in Hodgepodge Budgeting

Douglas and Hartley provide data that indicates that drug courts face budgetary and resource hurdles in their effort to become institutionalized reforms to courts. Drug courts commonly adopt what the authors call "hodgepodege budgeting" strategies where ingenuity, opportunity, and luck seperate those programs that succeed from those that fail. They also note the challenges that hodgepodge budgeting presents to those who hope to institutionalize drug courts and other court reforms.