a national report on drug courts - ndci.org

PAINTING THE CURRENT PICTURE:A NATIONAL REPORT ON DRUG COURTS

AND OTHER PROBLEM-SOLVING COURT

PROGRAMS IN THE UNITED STATES

West Huddleston

Douglas B. Marlowe, J.D., Ph.D.

1029 N. Royal Street, Suite 201Alexandria, VA 22314

(703) 575-94001-877-507-3229

(703) 575-9402 Faxwww.ndci.org

JULY 2011

About the Office of National Drug Control Policy (www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov)The White House Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), a component of the ExecutiveOffice of the President, was established by the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988. The principal purposeof ONDCP is to establish policies, priorities, and objectives for the Nation’s drug control program.The goals of the program are to reduce illicit drug use, manufacturing, and trafficking, drug-relatedcrime and violence, and drug related health consequences. To achieve these goals, the Director ofONDCP is charged with producing the National Drug Control Strategy. The Strategy directs theNation’s anti-drug efforts and establishes a program, a budget, and guidelines for cooperation amongFederal, State, and local entities. By law, the Director of ONDCP also evaluates, coordinates, andoversees both the international and domestic anti-drug efforts of executive branch agencies andensures that such efforts sustain and complement State and local anti-drug activities. The Directoradvises the President regarding changes in the organization, management, budgeting, and personnelof Federal Agencies that could affect the Nation’s anti-drug efforts and regarding Federal agencycompliance with their obligations under the Strategy.

About the Bureau of Justice Assistance (www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bja)The Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice,supports law enforcement, courts, corrections, treatment, victim services, technology, and preventioninitiatives that strengthen the nation’s criminal justice system. BJA provides leadership, services, andfunding to America’s communities by emphasizing local control; building relationships in the field;developing collaborations and partnerships; promoting capacity building through planning;streamlining the administration of grants; increasing training and technical assistance; creatingaccountability of projects; encouraging innovation; and ultimately communicating the value ofjustice efforts to decision makers at every level.

About the National Association of Drug Court Professionals (www.nadcp.org)The National Association of Drug Court Professionals (NADCP) was established in 1994 as the premiernational membership and advocacy organization for drug courts. Representing over 25,000 drug courtprofessionals and community leaders, NADCP provides a strong and unified voice to our nation’sleadership. By impacting policy and legislation, NADCP creates a vision of a reformed criminal justicesystem. NADCP’s mission is to reduce substance abuse, crime, and recidivism by promoting andadvocating for the establishment and funding of drug courts and providing for the collection anddissemination of information, technical assistance, and mutual support to association members.

About the National Drug Court Institute (www.ndci.org)The National Drug Court Institute (NDCI) is the educational, research and scholarship arm of theNational Association of Drug Court Professionals (NADCP), and is funded by the White HouseOffice of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP); the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), U.S.Department of Justice; and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), U.S.Department of Transportation. In addition to staging over 130 state of the art training events eachyear, NDCI provides on-site technical assistance and relevant research and scholastic information todrug courts throughout the nation.

Painting the Current Picture:A National Report on Drug Courts and Other Problem-Solving Court Programs in the United States

West Huddleston


July 2011

i

National Drug Court Institute

ii

Painting the Current Picture: A National Report on Drug Courts and Other Problem-SolvingCourt Programs in the United States.

This document was prepared under Cooperative Agreement Number 2009-DD-BX-K149from the Bureau of Justice Assistance of the U.S. Department of Justice, with the supportof the Office of National Drug Control Policy of the Executive Office of the President.Points of view or opinions in this document are those of the authors and do notnecessarily represent the official position of the U.S. Department of Justice or theExecutive Office of the President.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrievalsystem, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical,photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior written permission of theNational Drug Court Institute.

West Huddleston, Chief Executive OfficerCarolyn Hardin, Senior Director1029 North Royal, Suite 201Alexandria, VA 22314Tel. (703) 575-9400Fax. (703) 575-9402www.NDCI.org

Prepared by the National Drug Court Institute, a professional services branch of theNational Association of Drug Court Professionals (NADCP). More information aboutNADCP can be found at www.AllRise.org.

Drug Courts perform their duties without manifestation, by word or conduct, of bias orprejudice, including, but not limited to, bias or prejudice based upon race, religion, gender,national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, language or socioeconomic status.

Copyright © 2011, National Drug Court Institute


Acknowledgments

and public safety; and delivered over 450keynote speeches in forty-four states andnine countries.

Douglas B. Marlowe, J.D., Ph.D., is theChief of Science & Policy for the NationalAssociation of Drug Court Professionals, aSenior Scientist at the Treatment ResearchInstitute, and an Adjunct Associate Professorof Psychiatry at the University ofPennsylvania School of Medicine. A lawyerand clinical psychologist, Dr. Marlowe hasreceived numerous research grants to studycoercion in drug abuse treatment, the effectsof Drug Courts and other diversionprograms for drug abusing individualsinvolved in the criminal justice system, andbehavioral treatments for substance abusersand criminal offenders. He is a Fellow of theAmerican Psychological Association (APA)and has received proficiency certification inthe treatment of psychoactive substance usedisorders from the APA College ofProfessional Psychology. Dr. Marlowe haspublished over 125 articles and chapters ontopics of crime and substance abuse. He isthe Editor-in-Chief of the Drug Court Reviewand is on the editorial board of CriminalJustice & Behavior.

ReviewersNDCI especially wishes to thank thefollowing individuals who peer-reviewed thisdocument:

The Honorable Marie Baca, ret. (NM),NDCI Senior Judicial Fellow

The Honorable Irv Condon (SC), Judge,Chairman, Congress of State Drug CourtAssociations

The National Drug Court Institute (NDCI)wishes to acknowledge those who havecontributed to this important publication.Special thanks to the individuals,organizations, and jurisdictions thatcompleted the survey instrument on whichthis publication is based. For a list of surveyrespondents, see Table 10, page 48.

NDCI owes debts of gratitude to the Officeof National Drug Control Policy of theExecutive Office of the President and theBureau of Justice Assistance at the U.S.Department of Justice for the support thatmade this publication possible.

AuthorsWest Huddleston is the Chief ExecutiveOfficer of the National Association of DrugCourt Professionals (NADCP) and ExecutiveDirector of its professional service branches,the National Center for DWI Courts(NCDC), National Drug Court Institute(NDCI) and Justice For Vets: The NationalClearinghouse for Veterans TreatmentCourts. Mr. Huddleston is regarded as apioneer in Drug Courts and other alternativesentencing strategies, having spent more thantwenty years providing vision and leadershipthroughout the world and furthering themovement’s impact on the addict, the familyand the community. During his thirteenyears of service at NADCP, Mr. Huddlestonhas authored nineteen publications, articlesand briefs; testified numerous times beforethe U.S. Congress, state legislatures, andinternational parliaments; been interviewedrepeatedly by radio, television, and printmedia on Drug Courts and topics related toalternative sentencing, alcohol and otherdrug abuse/dependence, drug policy, crime

iii

The Honorable Rogelio Flores (CA),Superior Court Judge

The Honorable Peggy Fulton Hora, ret.(CA), NDCI Senior Judicial Fellow

Kirstin Frescoln (NC), Statewide DrugTreatment Court Manager

The Honorable Jamey H. Hueston (MD),District Court Judge

Norma Jaeger (ID), Statewide Director,Problem Solving Courts and CommunitySentencing Alternatives

Mike Loeffler (OK), NDCI SeniorProsecutorial Fellow

The Honorable William G. Meyer, ret.(CO), NDCI Senior Judicial Fellow

Connie Payne (KY), Executive Officer,AOC, Statewide Services Department

The Honorable William Ray Price, Jr.,(MO), Chief Justice, NADCP Chairman ofthe Board

The Honorable Robert G. Rancourt (MN),District Court Judge, NADCP Vice Chairmanof the Board

Richard Schwermer (UT), Assistant StateCourt Administrator

Yvonne Segars, (NJ), New Jersey PublicDefender

The Honorable Keith Starrett (MS),U.S. District Court Judge

Rev. Dr. James White (WI)

StaffNDCI also wishes to express its gratitude toJennifer Columbel; Chris Deutsch; LeonoraFleming, M.S.; Carson Fox, J.D.; TonyaGriesbach; Carolyn Hardin, M.P.H.; andKelly Stockstill, M.S., who made invaluablecontributions to this publication.

iv

Painting the Current Picture: A National Report on Drug Courts and Other Problem-Solving Court Programs in the United States

Before After

Drug Courts Transform Lives

v

Key Findings At-A-Glance .............................................................................................................................................. 1Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................................ 3

Report Highlights ................................................................................................................................................... 3Methodology ............................................................................................................................................................ 3

Drug Courts: Justice Done Right ................................................................................................................................ 6What is a Drug Court? ..................................................................................................................................................... 7The Verdict Is In, Drug Courts Work: A Review of the Scientific Literature ............................................. 9

Adult Drug Courts .................................................................................................................................................. 9• Adult Drug Courts Reduce Crime .................................................................................................................. 9• Adult Drug Courts Save Money ................................................................................................................... 10Family Dependency Treatment Drug Courts .............................................................................................. 10• Family Dependency Treatment Courts Improve Treatment Outcomes ........................................... 10• Family Dependency Treatment Courts Save Money ............................................................................. 11Juvenile Drug Courts ........................................................................................................................................... 11• Juvenile Drug Courts Reduce Substance Abuse and Delinquency .................................................. 11• Juvenile Drug Courts Save Money .............................................................................................................. 12DWI Courts .............................................................................................................................................................. 12• DWI Courts Reduce Impaired Driving ........................................................................................................ 12

The 10 Key Components are Key .............................................................................................................................. 14Watering Down the Model ............................................................................................................................... 14Anecdotal Criticisms ........................................................................................................................................... 15Best Practice Standards ..................................................................................................................................... 16Taking Drug Courts to Scale: The Future of Drug Courts ..................................................................... 16• Drug Courts are not for Everyone ............................................................................................................... 17• Project H.O.P.E. .................................................................................................................................................. 17• Building a System of Justice for all Drug-Involved Offenders ............................................................ 17

Part I. 2009 National Survey Results: .................................................................................................................... 19Number of Drug Courts in Operation .......................................................................................................... 19State-Specific Growth ........................................................................................................................................ 19Drug Court Models .............................................................................................................................................. 19• Veterans Treatment Courts on the Rise ..................................................................................................... 23Dispositional Models of Adult Drug Court ................................................................................................ 24Which Model is Preferable? ............................................................................................................................. 25

Part II. 2008 National Survey Results: .................................................................................................................. 27Drug Court Capacity ............................................................................................................................................ 27• How Many Counties Do Not Have a Drug Court? ................................................................................. 27• How Many People are Being Served in Drug Courts Nationally? .................................................... 27• What Limits the Expansion of Drug Courts? ............................................................................................ 27National Drug Court Population .................................................................................................................... 28• Representation of Racial Minorities ........................................................................................................... 28• Representation of Ethnic Minorities ............................................................................................................ 28• Proportionality of Minority Representation .............................................................................................. 29• Minority Representation as Compared to Other Populations ............................................................ 29

Table of Contents



vi

Primary Substances of Abuse Among Drug Court Participants ........................................................ 31• Urban Drug Courts .......................................................................................................................................... 31• Suburban Drug Courts ................................................................................................................................... 31• Rural Drug Courts ............................................................................................................................................ 31Drug Court Graduation and Retention Rates ............................................................................................ 31Average Cost Per Drug Court Participant ................................................................................................... 34State Drug Court Legislation ........................................................................................................................... 34State Drug Court Appropriations ................................................................................................................... 34Federal Drug Court Appropriations .............................................................................................................. 35Other Problem-Solving Courts ........................................................................................................................ 37• Problem-Solving Court Models .................................................................................................................... 37

International Drug Court and Problem-Solving Court Activity .................................................................... 42Operational Descriptions of Drug Courts and Other Problem-Solving Courts ...................................... 43Resource Organizations ............................................................................................................................................... 49References ......................................................................................................................................................................... 50Endnotes ............................................................................................................................................................................ 57

Tables and Figures Figure 1: Timeline of Drug Courts and Other

Problem-Solving Courts in the United States ........................................................................................ 5Table 1: Operational Drug Courts by Year ............................................................................................................... 6Table 2: Comparison of Operational Drug Courts 2008 to 2009 .................................................................. 19Table 3: Operational Drug Courts in the United States (December 31, 2009) ......................................... 20Figure 2: Total of 2,459 Operational Drug Courts in the United States (December 2009) .................... 21Figure 3: Operational Drug Court Programs in the United States .................................................................. 22Table 4: Drug Court Participants by Race .............................................................................................................. 28Table 5: Representation of Ethnic Minorities in Drug Court ........................................................................... 29Table 6: Minority Representation in Drug Courts Compared to Other Populations ................................ 30Figure 4: Primary Substances of Abuse Among Urban Drug Court Participants ........................................ 32Figure 5: Primary Substances of Abuse Among Suburban Drug Court Participants ................................. 32Figure 6: Primary Substances of Abuse Among Rural Drug Court Participants .......................................... 33Figure 7: State Appropriations for Drug Court ...................................................................................................... 35Figure 8: Federal Appropriations for Drug Court .................................................................................................. 36Figure 9: Combined Appropriations for Drug Court ............................................................................................ 36Table 7: Drug Court Legislation and State Appropriation by State ............................................................... 38Table 8: Comparison of Problem-Solving Courts 2008 to 2009 .................................................................... 39Table 9: Operational Problem-Solving Courts in the United States (December 31, 2009) .................. 40Figure 10: Total of 3,648 Problem-Solving Courts in the United States (December 2009) .................... 41Table 10: Primary State Points of Contact Survey Respondents (December 2009) ................................. 48


Painting the Current Picture: A National Report on Drug Courts And Other Problem-Solving CourtPrograms in the United States

Key Findings At-A-GlancePart I. 2009 National Survey Results

• As of December 31, 2009, there were 2,459 Drug Courts1 in the United States.

• The aggregate number of Drug Courts increased 40% in the past five years.

• 56% of U.S. states and territories reported an increase in the number of DrugCourts in 2009.

• Alabama and Arizona reported the greatest increase in the number of Drug Courts in 2009, with 22 additional programs each.

• As of December 31, 2009, the majority (58%) of Adult Drug Courts followed apost-plea model.

• As of December 31, 2009, there were 1,189 Problem-Solving Courts2 other thanDrug Courts in the United States.

• As of December 31, 2009, there were a total of 3,648 Drug Courts and othertypes of Problem-Solving Courts in the United States.

Part II. 2008 National Survey Results

• As of 2008, 56% of U.S. counties did not have an Adult Drug Court, 84% did nothave a Juvenile Drug Court and 87% did not have a Family DependencyTreatment Court.

• As of December 31, 2008, it was estimated that there were over 116,300 DrugCourt participants in the U.S.

• 96% of U.S. states and territories reported that Drug Court capacity could beexpanded.

• The primary factor limiting Drug Court expansion is funding, not a lack ofjudicial interest.

• On average, Caucasians were reported to represent nearly two-thirds (62%) ofDrug Court participants nationwide.

• On average, African-Americans were reported to represent 21% of Drug Courtparticipants nationwide.

1 Includes adult, DWI, juvenile, family, tribal, campus, reentry, federal and veteran drug/treatment courts.2 Includes truancy, mental health, domestic violence, child support, reentry, community, homeless, prostitution,

gun, parole violation, and gambling courts.

1


2

• On average, Spanish, Hispanic or Latino(a) persons were reported to represent10% of Drug Court participants nationwide.

• People of color were reported to be proportionately represented in 58% of therespondents’ Drug Courts.

• Representation of African-Americans was reportedly higher in Drug Courts thanin the general population; however, representation of Hispanic citizens wasslightly lower than in the general population.

• Minority representation was reportedly about the same in Drug Courts as inprobation and parole settings.

• Representation of African-Americans in jails and prisons was nearly twice that ofboth Drug Courts and probation, and was also substantially higher among allarrestees for drug-related offenses.

• Cocaine/crack, alcohol, cannabis and methamphetamine were reported to be themost commonly abused substances among Drug Court participants nationwide.

• Methamphetamine abuse was twice as prevalent among rural Drug Courtparticipants as compared to urban and suburban participants. Cocaine/crackabuse was far more prevalent among urban Drug Court participants than ruraland suburban participants.

• Over 22,584 participants successfully graduated from Drug Courts in 2008.

• The average national graduation rate in 2008 was 57%.

• The average reported cost per Drug Court participant was $6,985 in 2008; it was$5,718 excluding a small number of outliers.

• 65% of U.S. states and territories reported having Drug Court authorization legislation.

• State appropriations totaled more than $243 million for Drug Courts for 2009.

• State Drug Court appropriations increased by nearly $63 million (35%) from2007 to 2009.

• 51% of U.S. states and territories reported an increase in funding for DrugCourts between 2007 and 2009 budget cycles; 20% reported a decrease infunding, and 6% reported no change in funding.

• Federal funding for Drug Courts increased over 250% from fiscal years 2008 to 2010.


Introduction

responses were compiled as of December 31,2008. All data represent statewide DrugCourt and/or Problem-Solving Court activity.

NDCI also sent the survey instrument to, onaverage, two additional officials in eachjurisdiction, totaling 168 surveyed individualsnationwide. These additional officials includedthe presidents of state drug court associations,designated members of the Congress of StateDrug Court Associations, NADCP BoardMembers, and other individuals possessingcomprehensive knowledge concerning DrugCourt and other Problem-Solving Courtactivities in their jurisdiction. By this process,NDCI ensured a thorough and accuratesnapshot of the number and type ofoperational Drug Courts and other Problem-Solving Court programs in the United States asof the concluding date of the survey.

The survey respondents represented a wide range of organizations within eachjurisdiction, including the State SupremeCourt (e.g., Louisiana), the AdministrativeOffice of the Courts (e.g., Missouri,California), the Governor’s Office (e.g., Texas), the Single State Agency forAlcohol and Drug Services (e.g., Oklahoma)and other independent state commissions(e.g., Maryland).

One hundred percent (54 out of 54) of U.S.states, commonwealths, districts andterritories reported on the aggregate numberof Drug Courts and other Problem-SolvingCourts as of December 31, 2009 (Part I ofthe survey).

This document is a national report on DrugCourt and other Problem-Solving Courtactivity in every state, commonwealth,territory and district in the United States asof December 31, 2009 (Part I) and as ofDecember 31, 2008 (Part II).

Report HighlightsSpecific to this volume and in addition toreporting on the aggregate number and typesof operational Drug Courts and otherProblem-Solving Court programs throughoutthe United States, a major section of thisreport is dedicated to recent research findingsrelated to the most prevalent Drug Courtmodels. Additionally, sections are dedicatedto analyses of national survey data on DrugCourt capacity; drug-of-choice trends amongDrug Court participants in rural, suburbanand urban areas; average graduation rates;participation costs; state Drug Courtauthorization legislation and fundingappropriations; and international Drug Courtactivity. Finally, this year’s report providesfirst-ever national demographic data on racialand ethnic minority representation amongDrug Court participants.

MethodologyPart I of the NDCI National Drug Court andOther Problem-Solving Court Survey was sentto Statewide Drug Court Coordinators oranother primary point of contact (PPC) inevery U.S. state or territory in July of 2009,and the responses were compiled as ofDecember 31, 2009. Part II of the Survey wassent to the Statewide Drug CourtCoordinators or PPCs in July of 2008, and the

3

Drug Courts Restore Families

Part II Survey Response Rates (December 2008)

Item % Respondents (out of 51)**

Number of Counties with Adult Drug Courts 51 (100%)

Number of Counties with Juvenile Drug Courts 49 (96%)

Number of Counties with Family Dependency Treatment Courts 49 (96%)

Number of Clients being Served 46 (90%)

Factors Limiting Drug Court Expansion 50 (98%)

Representation of Racial Minorities 40 (78%)

Representation of Ethnic Minorities 38 (75%)

Proportionality of Minority Representation 48 (94%)

Drug Court Population Reflects Arrestee Population 43 (84%)

Primary Drug of Choice in Urban Areas 45 (88%)

Primary Drug of Choice in Suburban Areas 40 (78%)

Primary Drug of Choice in Rural Areas 43 (84%)

No. 2008 Graduates 37 (73%)

No. Total Graduates 32 (63%)

Average Graduation Rate 35 (69%)

Average Cost Per Client 26 (51%)

Drug Court Legislation 51 (100%)

Part I Survey Response Rates (December 2009)

Item % Jurisdictions (out of 54)*

Total Number of Drug Courts 54 (100%)

Total Number of Problem-Solving Courts 54 (100%)

Ninety-four percent (51 of 54) of U.S. states,commonwealths, districts and territoriesresponded to Part II of the survey as ofDecember 31, 2008. However, becauseapproximately half of these jurisdictions did not have statewide managementinformation systems capable of collectingreliable data on statewide Drug Courtactivity, some Part II survey questions wereanswered at a lower rate.

4


* The 50 U.S. states, District of Columbia,Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. VirginIslands.** Illinois, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and West Virginia did not respond to Part II ofthe survey.

Before After

5


Tim

elin

e of

Dru

g Co

urts

and

Oth

er P

robl

em-S

olvi

ng C

ourt

s in

the

Uni

ted

Stat

es

198

9He

ight

of c

rack

coc

aine

ep

idem

ic in

the

U.S.

Firs

t Dru

g Co

urt o

pens

in

Mia

mi,

Flor

ida

199

0Sp

endi

ng o

n co

rrect

ions

exc

eeds

$2

6 bi

llion

nat

iona

lly

199

15

Drug

Cou

rts

in o

pera

tion

Drug

offe

nses

acc

ount

fo

r 31%

of a

ll co

nvic

tions

in

sta

te c

ourts

Stat

e pr

ison

cos

ts fo

r lo

w-le

vel d

rug

offe

nder

s ex

ceed

$1.

2 bi

llion

ann

ually

199

210

Dru

g Co

urts

in

ope

ratio

n

One-

third

of w

omen

in

mat

es in

sta

te p

rison

s ar

e dr

ug o

ffend

ers

Firs

t wom

en’s

Drug

Cou

rt op

ens

in

Kala

maz

oo, M

ichi

gan

199

319

Dru

g Co

urts

in

ope

ratio

n

Drug

offe

nder

s ac

coun

t for

60

% o

f fed

eral

pris

oner

s

Firs

t com

mun

ity

cour

t ope

ns in

Br

ookl

yn, N

ew Y

ork

199

440

Dru

g Co

urts

in

ope

ratio

n

U.S.

tota

l inc

arce

ratio

n fi g

ure

tops

1 m

illio

n

Cong

ress

pas

ses

Viol

ent

Crim

e Co

ntro

l and

La

w E

nfor

cem

ent A

ct

(the

Crim

e Bi

ll)

Nat

iona

l Ass

ocia

tion

of

Drug

Cou

rt Pr

ofes

sion

als

(NAD

CP) f

ound

ed

199

575

Dru

g Co

urts

in

ope

ratio

n

Drug

Cou

rts P

rogr

am O

ffi ce

(D

CPO)

est

ablis

hed

in U

.S.

Depa

rtmen

t of J

ustic

e

NAD

CP h

olds

fi rs

t nat

iona

l Dr

ug C

ourt

train

ing

conf

eren

ce in

La

s Ve

gas,

Nev

ada

Firs

t DW

I cou

rt op

ens

in

Dona

Ana

, New

Mex

ico

Firs

t juv

enile

Dru

g Co

urt

open

s in

Vis

alia

, Cal

iforn

ia

Firs

t fam

ily D

rug

Cour

t op

ens

in R

eno,

Nev

ada

199

613

9 Dr

ug C

ourts

in

ope

ratio

n

2 ou

t of 3

pol

ice

chie

fs

favo

r cou

rt-su

perv

ised

tre

atm

ent o

ver p

rison

fo

r dru

g ab

user

s

Firs

t Sta

te D

rug

Cour

t As

soci

atio

n in

corp

orat

ed

in C

alifo

rnia

Firs

t NAD

CP M

ento

r Dr

ug C

ourt

esta

blis

hed

Firs

t fel

ony

dom

estic

vi

olen

ce c

ourt

open

s in

Br

ookl

yn, N

ew Y

ork

199

723

0 Dr

ug C

ourts

in

ope

ratio

n

5.7

mill

ion

peop

le in

th

e U.

S. a

re u

nder

crim

inal

ju

stic

e su

perv

isio

n

Firs

t trib

al h

ealin

g to

w

elln

ess

cour

t ope

ns

in F

ort H

all,

Idah

o

NAD

CP a

nd th

e De

partm

ent o

f Jus

tice

Assi

stan

ce re

leas

e De

fi nin

g Dr

ug C

ourts

: Th

e Ke

y Co

mpo

nent

s

Firs

t men

tal h

ealth

co

urt o

pens

in B

row

ard

Coun

ty, F

lorid

a

199

834

7 Dr

ug C

ourts

in

ope

ratio

n

Nat

iona

l Dru

g Co

urt

Inst

itute

(NDC

I) fo

unde

d

Fede

ral f

undi

ng fo

r Dr

ug C

ourts

reac

hes

$40

mill

ion

for F

Y 19

99

199

947

2 Dr

ug C

ourts

in

ope

ratio

n

U.S.

tota

l inc

arce

ratio

n fi g

ure

tops

2 m

illio

n

10th

ann

iver

sary

of

Dru

g Co

urt

Nat

iona

l Dis

trict

At

torn

eys

Asso

ciat

ion

pass

es re

solu

tion

in

supp

ort o

f Dru

g Co

urts

Nat

iona

l She

riffs

’ As

soci

atio

n pa

sses

re

solu

tion

in s

uppo

rt of

Dru

g Co

urts

20

00

665

Drug

Cou

rts

in o

pera

tion

Amer

ican

Bar

Ass

ocia

tion

rele

ases

Pro

pose

d St

anda

rd 2

.77

- Pr

oced

ures

in D

rug

Trea

tmen

t Cou

rts

Conf

eren

ce o

f Chi

ef

Just

ices

/Con

fere

nce

of S

tate

Cou

rt Ad

min

istra

tors

pas

ses

reso

lutio

n in

sup

port

of p

robl

em-s

olvi

ng

cour

ts (C

CJ/C

OSCA

)

20

01

847

Drug

Cou

rts

in o

pera

tion

NAD

CP a

nd N

atio

nal

Coun

cil o

f Juv

enile

an

d Fa

mily

Cou

rt Ju

dges

rele

ase

Best

St

rate

gies

for J

uven

ile

Drug

Cou

rts

20

02

1,04

8 Dr

ug C

ourts

in

ope

ratio

n

Firs

t cam

pus

Drug

Cou

rt op

ens

at C

olor

ado

Stat

e Un

iver

sity

DCPO

mer

ges

into

BJA

20

03

1,18

3 Dr

ug C

ourts

in

ope

ratio

n

1,66

7 pr

oble

m-s

olvi

ng

cour

ts in

ope

ratio

n

The

Nat

iona

l Ins

titut

e of

Jus

tice

repo

rts

Drug

Cou

rt re

cidi

vism

ra

tes

are

as lo

w a

s 16

.4%

nat

ionw

ide

one

year

afte

r gra

duat

ion

20

04

1,62

1 Dr

ug C

ourts

in

ope

ratio

n

2,55

8 pr

oble

m-s

olvi

ng

cour

ts in

ope

ratio

n

NAD

CP h

olds

10

th A

nnua

l Dru

g Co

urt

Trai

ning

Con

fere

nce

CCJ/

COSC

A re

affi r

ms

supp

ort f

or p

robl

em-s

olvi

ng

cour

ts b

y pa

ssin

g a

seco

nd jo

int r

esol

utio

n

20

05

1,75

6 Dr

ug C

ourts

in

ope

ratio

n

23%

of a

dult

Drug

Cou

rts

acce

pt im

paire

d dr

ivin

g po

pula

tion,

a 1

65%

in

crea

se fr

om 2

004

33 U

.S. s

tate

s re

port

an in

crea

se in

Dru

g Co

urt

clie

nts

who

se p

rimar

y dr

ug o

f cho

ice

is

met

ham

phet

amin

e

20

06

1,92

6 Dr

ug C

ourts

in

ope

ratio

n

U. S

. inc

arce

rate

d po

pula

tion

reac

hes

2.2

mill

ion

Nat

iona

l stu

dy fi

nds

that

par

ents

in F

amily

De

pend

ency

Trea

tmen

t Co

urts

wer

e si

gnifi

cant

ly

mor

e lik

ely

to b

e re

unifi

ed

with

thei

r chi

ldre

n th

an

wer

e co

mpa

rison

gr

oup

pare

nts

7.2

mill

ion

peop

le in

the

U.S.

are

und

er c

rimin

al

just

ice

supe

rvis

ion

20

07

2,14

7 Dr

ug C

ourts

in

ope

ratio

n

1 in

100

adu

lts in

Am

eric

a ar

e in

carc

erat

ed

20

08

2,32

6 Dr

ug C

ourts

in

ope

ratio

n

Firs

t Vet

eran

s Tr

eatm

ent C

ourt

open

ed

in B

uffa

lo, N

Y

Nat

iona

l stu

dy fi

nds

fi del

ity to

the

10 K

ey

Com

pone

nts

grea

tly

impr

oves

out

com

es

20

09

2,45

9 Dr

ug C

ourts

in

ope

ratio

n

20th

Ann

iver

sary

of

Drug

Cou

rts

Fede

ral a

ppro

pria

tion

hits

al

l-tim

e hi

gh

of $

88.8

mill

ion.

Figu

re 1

Year To Date

1989 1

1990 1

1991 5

1992 10

1993 19

1994 44

1995 75

1996 139

1997 230

1998 347

1999 472

2000 665

2001 847

2002 1,048

2003 1,183

2004 1,621

2005 1,756

2006 1,926

2007 2,147

2008 2,326

2009 2,459

Visit any courtroom in America, and you willhear two words that call everyone to attention.As the judge enters the courtroom to take thebench, the court officer loudly proclaims: “AllRise!” These two words inspire a sense of aweand respect for our judicial process.

But what if the command, “All Rise!”represented a promise? — a promise that the

court will lighten theburden of people whoseproblems have become toodifficult to overcome alone?What if “All Rise!” became

a pledge by the court to look beyond the chaosand wreckage in peoples’ lives caused byaddiction and to their potential? What if “AllRise” offered the promise to provide thetreatment and other tools needed to helppeople permanently change lives?

When an addict arises out of addiction andcrime, we all rise. When the cycle of drug

addiction in a family isforever broken, we all rise.When a child is reunitedwith clean and soberparents, we all rise. Whenan addict never sees anotherpair of handcuffs or an

emergency room, we all rise. When the Courtsuccessfully guides an addicted offender tohealth and recovery, whether the charge is drugpossession, theft, forgery, burglary, childneglect, impaired driving or any number ofother offenses, we all rise.

“All Rise” is precisely the business underwayin 2,459 Drug Courts throughout the UnitedStates.

6


When an addict risesout of addiction andcrime, we all rise.

When a child is reunited with cleanand sober parents, we all rise.

Operational Drug Courts by Year

Drug Courts: Justice Done Right

All Rise” is preciselythe business under-way in 2,459 DrugCourts throughout the United States.

Table 1

7

A Drug Court is a special docket or calendarwithin the court system that is designed totreat addicted individuals and give them thetools they need to change their lives. TheDrug Court judge serves as the leader of aninter-disciplinary team of professionals, whichoften includes a court coordinator, prosecutingattorney, defense attorney, treatment providers,case managers, probation officers andrepresentatives from law enforcement.

Eligible participants for the program are drugand/or alcohol dependent and commonlycharged with drug-related offenses such aspossession of a controlled substance, or otheroffenses which are determined to have beencaused or influenced by their addiction suchas theft, burglary or forgery.

Most Drug Court programs are scheduled to be12 to 18 months in duration, although someparticipants may need substantially more timeto satisfy the criteria for program completion.To graduate, participants must demonstratecontinuous abstinence from drugs and alcoholfor a substantial period of time (often sixmonths or longer), satisfy treatment andsupervision conditions, pay applicable fines orfees, and complete community service or makerestitution to victims.

Participants typically undergo randomweekly drug and alcohol testing and attendregular status hearings in court, duringwhich the judge reviews their progress intreatment and may impose a range ofconsequences contingent upon theirperformance. These consequences mayinclude desired rewards (e.g., verbal praise,reduced supervision requirements, or tokengifts), modifications to the participant’streatment plan (e.g., transfer to a more

intensive modality of care) and punitivesanctions (e.g., writing assignments,community service, or brief jail detention).The consequences are typically administeredby the judge in open court, after the DrugCourt team has met in a non-adversarialsetting to review the case and reach atentative determination about theappropriate course of action. The variousteam members contribute information fromtheir perspectives about the participant’sprogress in the program, and may offerrecommendations for suitable responses;however, the judge is legally and ethicallyrequired to make the final decision aboutwhat consequences to impose after givingdue consideration to all of the relevantinformation and discussing the matter withthe participant in court.

Treatment plans vary according to participants’individual clinical needs. In addition tosubstance abuse treatment, services ofteninclude mental health treatment, familycounseling, vocational counseling, educationalassistance, housing assistance or help withobtaining medical or dental care. In addition,case managers or social workers may assistparticipants to access healthcare coverage,financial benefits or other social services towhich they are legally entitled.

What is a Drug Court?



8

• Campus Drug Courts for alcohol andother drug-involved college studentsfacing expulsion;

• Tribal Healing to Wellness Courts,which apply traditional Native-American communal practices toalcohol and other drug-involved triballaw offenders;

• Federal Reentry/Drug Courts forfederal alcohol and other drug-involved offenders released fromfederal custody on supervised release;

• Veterans Treatment Courts for ourmilitary veterans (and occasionalactive duty members) who are beforethe court due to addiction and/ormental illness.

The extraordinary success of Adult DrugCourts has produced a wide variety of othertypes of Drug Court programs. These directvariants of the Drug Court model include:

• Family Dependency Treatment Courtsfor alcohol and other drug-involvedparents in civil child abuse or neglectproceedings;

• Juvenile Drug Courts for alcohol andother drug-involved adolescentscharged with delinquency offenses;

• DWI Courts for repeat and/or highBlood Alcohol Content (BAC)offenders charged with driving underthe influence (DUI) or driving whileimpaired (DWI);

• Reentry Drug Courts for alcohol andother drug-involved parolees orinmates conditionally released fromcustody;

3 Meta-analysis is an advanced statistical procedure that yields a rigorous and conservative estimate of the average effects ofan intervention. Independent scientists systematically review the research literature, select only those studies that arescientifically defensible according to standardized criteria, and statistically average the effects of the intervention across thegood-quality studies (e.g., Lipsey & Wilson, 2002).


The Verdict Is In, Drug Courts Work: A Review of the Scientific Literature

and the quality of the evidence is beginningto catch up for Family DependencyTreatment Courts, Juvenile Drug Courts andDWI Court programs as well.

Adult Drug Courts Adult Drug Courts Reduce CrimeSeven meta-analyses3 conducted byindependent scientific teams all concludedthat Adult Drug Courts significantly reducecrime, typicallymeasured by fewer re-arrests for new offensesand technical violations(Aos et al., 2006;Downey & Roman,2010; Latimer et al.,2006; Lowenkamp et al., 2005; MacKenzie,2006; Shaffer, 2006; Wilson et al., 2006).Recidivism rates for Drug Court participantswere determined to be, on average, 8 to 26percentage points lower than for other justicesystem responses. The best Drug Courtsreduced crime by as much as 45 percent overother dispositions (Carey et al., 2008;Lowenkamp et al., 2005; Shaffer, 2006).

These effects were determined to be anythingbut fleeting. In well controlled, randomizedexperiments, reductions in crime wereproven to last at least three years(Gottfredson et al., 2005, 2006; Turner et al.,1999) and in the most far-reaching study todate, the effects lasted an astounding 14 years(Finigan et al., 2007). These researchers arestill following some of the cohorts todetermine just how long the positive benefitsmight persist.

The effectiveness of Drug Courts is not amatter of conjecture. It is the product ofmore than two decades of exhaustivescientific research. From their inception,Drug Courts embraced science unlike anyother criminal justice program. Theyendorsed best practices and evidence-basedprocedures; invited evaluators to measuretheir outcomes; and encouraged federalagencies, including the National Institute onDrug Abuse (NIDA), Bureau of Justice

Assistance (BJA),National Institute ofJustice (NIJ) andCenter for SubstanceAbuse Treatment(CSAT), to issue calls tothe scientificcommunity to closelyexamine the model andlearn what makes it

function and how it might be improved.Various leading researchers in the scientificcommunity answered those calls, firstskeptically and then with great interest, andmany have dedicated their careers tounderstanding what Drug Courts do, howthey do it, and why they work so well.

The result? More research has beenpublished on the effectsof Drug Courts thanvirtually all othercorrectional programscombined. Theresearch literature is, byfar, the most advancedfor Adult Drug Courts

9

The effectiveness ofDrug Courts is not amatter of conjecture.It is the product ofmore than twodecades of exhaustive scientific research.

More research hasbeen published onthe effects of DrugCourts than virtuallyall other correctionalprograms combined.

The best Drug Courts re-duced crime by as muchas 45 percent over otherdispositions.

4 The research organizations were The Urban Institute, Research Triangle Institute, and the Center for Court Innovation. 5 The MADCE compared outcomes at 18 and 24 months post-entry for 1,156 participants in 23 Adult Drug Courts located in

seven geographic regions around the country to those of a carefully matched comparison sample.


10

foster care placements and healthcare serviceutilization, studies have reported economicbenefits of Drug Courtsranging fromapproximately $2 to$27 for every $1invested (Carey et al.,2006a; Loman, 2004;Finigan et al., 2007;Barnoski & Aos, 2003).

The result has been net economic benefits tolocal communities ranging from approxi-mately $3,000 to $13,000 per Drug Courtparticipant (e.g., Aos et al., 2006; Carey et al.,2006a; Finigan et al., 2007; Loman, 2004;Barnoski & Aos, 2003; Logan et al., 2004).

Family Dependency TreatmentCourtsFamily Dependency TreatmentCourts Improve Treatment OutcomesPerhaps the best evidence on the effects ofFamily Dependency Treatment Courts(FDTCs) comes from a four-year, quasi-experimental study of four FDTCs located inthree states (Green et al., 2009). Outcomeswere compared to those of similarly situatedfamilies who were eligible for the FDTCs butwere not served due to limited programcapacity or a lack of appropriate referrals.

Findings revealed thatparents in the FDTCsattended an average oftwice the number ofsubstance abusetreatment sessions andwere twice as likely tocomplete treatment inthree of the four studysites. Moreover, their

Thanks to funding from NIJ and the excellentwork of several independent researchorganizations,4 the field now has nationaldata on the impact of Drug Courts on severalother outcomes in addition to crime. Recentfindings from the Multisite Adult Drug CourtEvaluation (MADCE)5 revealed that AdultDrug Courts also significantly reduced illicitdrug and alcohol use, improved familyrelationships, lowered family conflicts andincreased participants’ access to neededfinancial and social services (Kralstein, 2010;Rossman et al., 2009; Rempel et al., 2009).

Adult Drug Courts Save MoneyNo analysis is complete without aconsideration of cost-effectiveness. Even themost effective programs may not be palatableor feasible from a policy perspective if theyare cost-prohibitive or do not yield a favorablereturn on investment for taxpayers.Fortunately, Drug Courts have proven to behighly cost-effective (Belenko et al., 2005;U.S. Government Accountability Office,2005). A recent cost-related meta-analysisconducted by The Urban Institute found thatDrug Courts produced an average of $2.21 indirect benefits to the criminal justice systemfor every $1 invested — a 221% return oninvestment (Bhati et al., 2008). When DrugCourts targeted their services to the moreserious, higher-risk drug offenders, theaverage return on investment was determinedto be even higher: $3.36 for every $1 invested.

These savings reflected direct andmeasurable cost-offsets to the criminaljustice system resulting from reduced re-arrests, law enforcement contacts, courthearings and the use of jail or prison beds.When indirect cost-offsets were also takeninto account, such as savings from reduced

Cost-benefit studieshave reported neteconomic benefitsfrom Drug Court ashigh as $27 for every$1 invested.

Parents in the FamilyDependency Treat-ment Courts attendedan average of twicethe number of sub-stance abuse treat-ment sessions andwere twice as likely tocomplete treatment.

6 The evidence-based treatments were Multi-Systemic Therapy (MST) and contingency management (CM), alone and incombination. MST is a manualized intervention that trains parents, teachers and other caregivers to assist in managing thejuvenile’s behavior. CM involves providing gradually escalating payment vouchers for drug-negative urine specimens andother positive achievements.


(Crumpton et al., 2003).This amounted to morethan $1.5 million in totalcost savings for the county.These cost savings couldbe expected to translateinto better quality servicesfor larger numbers offamilies, more parentsrestored to health, andmore children returned to their homes.

Juvenile Drug CourtsPrior to about 2006, meta-analysesconcluded that Juvenile Drug Courts (JDCs)reduced delinquency by an average of threeto five percent (Aos et al., 2006; Shaffer,2006; Wilson et al., 2006). Althoughmarginally notable, this difference was rathersmall in magnitude. Fortunately, newerfindings are considerably more encouraging,which suggests the programs are improvingtheir operations with increasing experience.

Juvenile Drug Courts ReduceSubstance Abuse and DelinquencyIn a well-controlled experiment, Henggeleret al. (2006) randomly assigned juveniledrug-abusing or addicted offenders totraditional family court services, JDC, orJDC supplemented with additional evidence-based treatments.6 The results revealedgreatly lower rates of substance use anddelinquency for the JDC participants ascompared to the family court, and the effectswere further increased through the additionof the evidence-based treatments.

A recent large-scale study in Utah found thatparticipants in four JDCs recidivated at

dependent children were significantly morelikely to be reunited with their families in threeof the sites and spent significantly less time inout-of-home placements in two of the sites.Other studies have similarly reportedsignificantly higher rates of treatmentcompletion and family reunification for FDTCsover traditional dependency proceedings(Ashford, 2004; Boles et al., 2007).

Family Dependency TreatmentCourts Save MoneyEvaluators are just beginning to translatethese superior outcomes into dollar savings.A recent evaluation in Oregon (Carey et al.,

2010a; Carey et al.,2010b) found thatparents in two FDTCsattended significantlymore substance abusetreatment sessions,were significantly morelikely to completetreatment, and hadsignificantly fewercriminal arrests over a

four-year period than carefully matchedparents in traditional dependencyproceedings. In addition, their childrenspent considerably less time in foster care,were significantly more likely to be reunitedwith their families, and were returned to theirfamilies much sooner. These resultstranslated into an average net cost saving of$13,104 per participant over two years.

Another cost-effectiveness study in San Diegofound that a FDTC yielded a 58% reductionin foster-care costs for the county comparedto traditional dependency court proceedings

11

Children were signifi-cantly more likely tobe reunified with theirfamilies, spent signifi-cantly less time in fos-ter care, and werereturned to their fami-lies much sooner.

FDTC yielded a 58%reduction in foster-care costs forthe county comparedto traditional dependency courtproceedings.

7 Wait-list comparisons are generally considered to be the next best evaluation design after random assignment. Theoccurrence of a full census is unlikely to lead to the systematic exclusion of individuals who have more severe problems orpoorer prognoses, and therefore is unlikely to bias the results (e.g., Heck, 2006; Marlowe, 2009a).


12

research study (MacDonald et al., 2007).Findings have also been lackluster for DWIoffenders who were placed into traditionalDrug Court programs with no further effort totailor the services to their unique clinical orsupervisory needs (Bouffard et al., 2007;Bouffard et al., 2010). Far from anindictment of DWI Courts, these studiesreveal what happens when the fundamentaltenets of the model are not faithfully applied.i

DWI Courts Reduce Impaired DrivingResults have been more favorable whenestablished DWI Courts were examinedusing stronger research designs. A goodexample is a recent evaluation of a DWICourt in Waukesha, WI. The researchersfirst performed a process evaluation todocument the program’s fidelity to the 10Key Components (Hiller & Samuelson,2008). Subsequently, outcomes at 24months post-entry were compared to thoseof a wait-list sample of DWI offenders fromthe same county who were eligible andwilling to enter the DWI Court, but hadserved out their sentences before a slotbecame available (Hiller et al., 2009).7

Recidivism rates for new offenses were foundto be significantly lower for the DWI Courtparticipants than for the wait-list sample(29% vs. 45%, p = .05).

Positive findings were similarly reported in athree-county evaluation of DWI Courts inMichigan (Michigan State CourtAdministrative Office & NPC Research,2007). The comparison samples consisted ofmatched DWI offenders from the samecounties who would have been eligible forthe DWI Courts but had been arrested in theyear prior to the founding of the programs.

substantially lower rates than a matchedcomparison sample of juvenile drugprobationers (Hickert et al., 2010). At 30 months post-entry, 34% of the JDCparticipants had been arrested for a newjuvenile or adult offense compared to 48% ofthe comparison probationers (p < .05). Inaddition, the average time delay before thefirst new arrest was approximately a full yearlater for the JDC participants (p < .05). Finally,a multi-site study in Ohio found that JDCparticipants were significantly less likely thanmatched juvenile probationers to be arrestedfor a new offense at 28 months post-entry(56% vs. 75%, p < .05) (Shaffer et al., 2008).

Juvenile Drug Courts Save MoneyEvaluators are just beginning to measure thecost-effectiveness of JDCs. A JDC costevaluation in Maryland reported net economicsavings exceeding $5,000 per participant overtwo years (Pukstas, 2007). In that study, theJDC participants not only recidivated at asubstantially lower rate, but they also servedsignificantly less time in secure juveniledetention and residential facilities.

DWI CourtsResearch on DWI Courts has historically notbeen of the same caliber as for other types of

Drug Court programs(Marlowe et al., 2009).Mixed findings have beenattributable to deficienciesin the research designs aswell as to questionableintegrity of the DWI Courtprograms. For example,negative findings were

reported for a program that was hastilyassembled solely for purposes of conducting a

Participants in fourJDCs recidivated at asignificantly lowerrate than a matchedcomparison sample ofjuvenile probationers.


substantially better outcomes for the DWICourt participants; however, small samplesizes contributed to non-significant results insome of the analyses due to inadequatestatistical power.

These recent findings lend compellingsupport for the potentially positive effects ofDWI Courts. Considerably more high-qualityresearch is needed to confirm the effectivenessof these programs and to examine their cost-effectiveness and return on investment.

The DWI Court participants weresignificantly less likely in two of the three

counties to be arrestedfor a new offensewithin two years ofentry, and wereconsiderably less likelyto be arrested for a newDWI offense in one ofthe counties. In nearlyall of the comparisons,the trends favored

13

Recidivism rates fornew offenses werefound to be significantly lower forthe DWI Court partici-pants than for thewait-list sample (29% vs. 45%).

Before After

Drug Courts Reduce Crime Up To 50%


14

The 10 Key Components are Key

of the program (Carey et al., 2008;Festinger et al., 2002; Marlowe et al.,2003, 2004, 2006, 2007);

• provided evidence-based substance abusetreatment and case-management services(Carey et al., 2008; Heck, 2008;Henggeler et al., 2006; Kirchner &Goodman, 2007; Marinelli-Casey et al.,2008; Vito & Tewksbury, 1998);

• conducted random drug testing at leasttwice per week for the first severalmonths (Carey et al., 2008);

• administered gradually escalatingsanctions for infractions (Goldkamp etal., 2002; Harrell & Roman, 2001;Lindquist et al., 2006; NIJ, 2006); and

• provided contingent rewards forachievements (Lindquist et al., 2006;Marlowe et al., 2008; Farole & Cissner, 2007).

Watering Down the ModelThe truth is that not all Drug Courts work.Although most Drug Courts (78% by lastaccount) do reduce crime and produce otherpositive benefits, a minority (16%) may havelittle impact on crime and a small minority(6%) may actuallyincrease crime (Wilsonet al., 2006;Lowenkamp et al.,2005; Shaffer, 2006).Drug Courts that havebeen watered down orthat dropped coreingredients of theintervention modelhave suffered in termsof lower cost savings,

In 1996, a small group of Drug Courtprofessionals convened to outline theessential components of the Drug Courtmodel. Published early the following year,Defining Drug Courts: The Key Components(NADCP, 1997) [hereafter 10 KeyComponents or Key Components] quickly

became the core frameworknot only for Drug Courts,but for most types ofProblem-Solving Courtprograms. At the time,these visionaries had littlemore to go on than theirinstincts, personalobservations andprofessional experiences.The research literature wasstill equivocal about

whether Drug Courts worked at all and wasvirtually silent on the question of how theyworked, for whom and why.

Now, fourteen years after Defining DrugCourts: The 10 Key Components waspublished, science is finally catching up withprofessional experience. Research confirmsthat how well Drug Courts reduce crime andsave money depends largely on howfaithfully they adhere to the “10 KeyComponents”. Superior results and moreuniform outcomes are achieved, for example,by Drug Courtsii that:• held staff meetings and/or status hearings

with the judge, prosecutor, defensecounsel, treatment provider andcoordinator regularly in attendance(Carey et al., 2008, Carey et al., in press;Shaffer, 2006);

• scheduled status hearings on at least a bi-weekly basis during the first few months

Research confirmsthat how well DrugCourts reduce crimeand save money depends on howfaithfully they adhere to the “10 Key Components.”

Drug Courts that havewatered down ordropped core ingredients of the intervention have suffered in terms oflower cost savings,lower graduationrates and higher recidivism rates.

Defining Drug Courts:The 10 Key Components1. Drug Courts integrate alcohol and other

drug treatment services with justice systemcase processing.

2. Using a non-adversarial approach, prosecu-tion and defense counsel promote publicsafety while protecting participants’ dueprocess rights.

3. Eligible participants are identified early andpromptly placed in the Drug Court program.

4. Drug Courts provide access to a continuumof alcohol, drug, and other related treatmentand rehabilitation services.

5. Abstinence is monitored by frequent alcoholand other drug testing.

6. A coordinated strategy governs Drug Courtresponses to participants’ compliance.

7. Ongoing judicial interaction with each DrugCourt participant is essential.

8. Monitoring and evaluation measure theachievement of program goals and gaugeeffectiveness.

9. Continuing interdisciplinary education pro-motes effective Drug Court planning, imple-mentation, and operations.

10. Forging partnerships among Drug Courts,public agencies, and community-based or-ganizations generates local support and en-hances Drug Court program effectiveness.

(NADCP, 1997)

Keeping Fidelity to the Drug Court Model


considerable risk and in contraindication of thescientific facts.

Anecdotal CriticismsSome criticisms have been made against DrugCourts which relate to allegations of unfair orharmful practices by poor quality programs.For example, some Drug Courts have beenaccused by political advocacy groups ofincreasing arrests and incarceration rates intheir communities, a phenomenon known as“net-widening” (Drug Policy Alliance, 2011;Justice Policy Institute, 2011). There is not ashred of empirical evidence to support thisclaim. In fact, the lone citation that has beenoffered to support the assertion comes from anon-empirical law article written by a judge inDenver over a decade ago (Hoffman, 2000).In it, the judge – a vociferous critic of DrugCourts – alleged that arrests for drug offensesincreased in Denver at around the same timeas the advent of the Drug Court. He opinedthat the police must have been arresting more people because they now had a place to put them.

In fact, this anecdotal speculation wasdisproven as soon as it was offered. Studies inDenver published before 2001 proved that net-widening did not, in fact, occur; indeed,imprisonment for drug offenses declined afterthe Drug Court came into being (Meyer &Ritter, 2002). Drug Courts were created for thevery reason that drug-related crimes werealready on the rise. In fact, rising drug arrestsoften contribute to the creation of local DrugCourts, not the other way around.

Some Drug Courts have been alleged to denyparticipants their constitutional rights byhindering defense counsel representation andimpeding adequate evidentiary discovery(National Association of Criminal DefenseLawyers, 2009).

lower graduation rates and higher recidivismrates. In short, the Drug Court model workslargely as originally hypothesized.Practitioners or policymakers who dilute theintervention to service short-sighted aims,such as reducing the time commitment,lowering up-front investment costs, or beingexcessively punitive in order to cater tocertain political philosophies, do so at

15


16

ethnic, cultural and gender perspectives hasbegun the early work of synthesizing theresearch findings, developing a process fordrafting practice recommendations, andensuring feedback and buy-in from the DrugCourt field as a whole. The goal is to set basicminimum evidence-based practice standardsand to provide education and practice pointersfor the field which NADCP has always doneand which Drug Court professionals havealways welcomed.

Taking Drug Courts to Scale: The Future of Drug Courts Defining our best practices is critical as DrugCourts go to scale and address the full scopeof the drug/crime problem in this country.The appalling figures are now well known:one out of every 100 adult American citizensis behind bars with the burden bornedisproportionately by racial and ethnicminorities and the poor (Pew Center on theStates, 2008). Our prisons are overcrowdedwith nonviolent offenders charged withdrug-related offenses and our budgets arebuckling under the weight of enormouscorrectional expenditures, yet crime ratesand drug-use initiation rates are barelybudging or are merely shifting in character.

Drug Courts have been credited with helpingto “bend the curve” of incarcerationdownward, especially for racial minoritycitizens (Mauer, 2009). But Drug Courtsstill serve only about ten percent of theroughly 1.2 million adults arrested each yearin the U.S. who are at risk for substanceabuse or dependence and are eligible forparticipation (Bhati et al., 2008).

States like New York have made largeinvestments and now see the benefits oftaking the Drug Court model to scale,furnishing Drug Courts in every county. In a

Although such criticisms are entirelyunproven and anecdotal, it is incumbentupon the Drug Court field to determinewhether, and to what extent, they might bewarranted, and to take steps to reduce oreliminate them from Drug Court operationswherever necessary. Accomplishing thiscritical task requires institutionalization ofbest practice standards for the field, whichindicate not only which protocols improveoutcomes and save money, but also whichpractices impair results and waste costlyjudicial, treatment and supervision resources.

Best Practice StandardsScience is accomplishing considerably morethan substantiating the 10 Key Components.It is defining them in concrete terms, ineffect transforming them into best practicestandards. Armed with specific guidanceabout how to best implement the 10 KeyComponents, Drug Courts can be moreconfident about the quality of theiroperations, funders can make betterinformed decisions about which programs tosupport, researchers can measure programquality in their evaluations, and trainers canidentify areas needing further improvementand technical assistance.

Best practice standards reflect the hard-wonknowledge of the Drug Court field gainedfrom more than two decades of earnest laborand honest self-appraisal. As more programsproliferate, it is essential to benefit from thisinstitutional memory to avoid repeating pastmistakes or reinventing the wheel.

This is why NADCP is embarking on acarefully planned strategy to develop evidence-based practice standards for the Drug Courtfield. An expert working group with diverserepresentation from various professionaldisciplines, regions of the country, and racial,


Project H.O.P.E.But what about the other non-addicted and/orlow-risk substance-involved offenders, ofwhich there are many? Research suggests theymay be safely and effectively managed withoutthe necessity of sending them to intensiveDrug Court programs that apply the fullpanoply of services embodied in the 10 KeyComponents. For example, recent studieshave reported promising outcomes for whatare generically referred to as coerced-abstinence programs (Harrell & Roman,2001), such as Hawaii’s Project H.O.P.E.(Hawaii Opportunity Probation withEnforcement) (Hawkin & Kleiman, 2009).Coerced abstinence programs are lessintensive than Drug Courts because they donot rely on regular status hearings before ajudge, substance abuse/mental healthtreatment and positive reinforcement toachieve their desired effects. Participants inthese programs undergo frequent drug testing,enhanced probation supervision, and receiveescalating jail sanctions for infractions.Although participants may be referred forsubstance abuse treatment if they do notrespond to the sanctions regimen or if theyrequest it, treatment is not a core componentof the intervention and is not provided tomany participants.

Building a System of Justice for allDrug-Involved OffendersThe challenge now is to develop a fullcontinuum of evidence-based justice programsfor each jurisdiction, and to match drug oralcohol-involved offenders to the mosteffective and cost-efficient interventions giventheir clinical needs and prognosis for success.

three-year study, the New York State CourtSystem estimated that $254 million inincarceration costs were saved by diverting

18,000 non-violentdrug offenders intoDrug Courts (Rempelet al., 2003). Duringthe entire fifteen-yeartime period that DrugCourts have been inoperation throughoutthe state, New York haswitnessed historicreductions in crime

which led to widespread reform measures in2009. Due to effective alternatives toincarceration including Drug Courts, NewYork has closed two of its prisons and leftseveral others half empty (Tremmel, 2009).

Other states are following suit. Fromsouthern states like Alabama, Georgia andTexas to the midwest (e.g., Missouri) to thenortheast (e.g., Vermont and New Jersey),state leaders are expanding Drug Courts as asafe crime-reduction strategy and a sensiblebudget-control solution (e.g., Galloway,2011; Levin, 2006).

Drug Courts are not for EveryoneIt is not suggested that Drug Courts can, orshould, treat all drug-involved offenders.Research identifies that the “High Risk/HighNeed” population of offenders respondoptimally to the Drug Court model and yieldthe greatest returns on investment. Theseindividuals are (1) compulsively addicted todrugs and/or alcohol and (2) have failedother treatment or supervisory interventions(Carey et al., 2008; Lowenkamp et al., 2005;Fielding et al., 2002; Marlowe et al., 2006,2007; Festinger et al., 2002).

17

Due to effective alternatives to incar-ceration includingDrug Courts, NewYork has closed two of its prisons and leftseveral others halfempty.

NADCP is committed to conceptualizing,implementing and evaluating just such anevidence-based system of care for thecriminal justice system (Marlowe, 2009b). In collaboration with the developers andpractitioners of other proven models,NADCP is working to specify the parametersof a systemic model, develop procedures for

assessing individuals from the point of arrestand directing them to the most suitableinterventions, and adjusting the conditions oftreatment and supervision in response totheir performance. This work will continueuntil Drug Courts and their partners are ableto provide effective and cost-efficient servicesfor all Americans who need their help.

18


75% of Drug Court Graduates Do Not See Another Pair of Handcuffs

Before After

19

Number of Drug Courts inOperation

As of December 31,2009, there were 2,459operational DrugCourts in the UnitedStates. This representsa 6% increase in thetotal number of DrugCourts since the end of2008, and a 40%increase over the pastfive years (Figure 3).

State-Specific Growth Comparing 2008 to 2009, 56% (n = 30) of

U.S. states andterritories reported anincrease in theaggregate number ofDrug Courts in theirjurisdictions, totaling181 additional

programs in 2009. Another 24% (n = 13) ofjurisdictions reported a relatively smalldecrease in the aggregate number of DrugCourts, totaling 48 fewer programs, and 20%of jurisdictions (n = 11) reported no changein the number of Drug Courts.

The largest reportedgrowth in the number ofDrug Courts between 2008and 2009 was in thesouthern and mid-westernregions of the U.S.Alabama and Arizonareported the largestaggregate increase in DrugCourts in 2009, with 22 new programs each,followed respectively by Texas and Oklahoma.

Drug Court ModelsAs was described earlier, there are several typesor variants of the Drug Court model. Table 2breaks down the aggregate number of Drug

Part I. 2009 National Survey Results


As of December 31,2009, there were2,459 Drug Courts inthe United States.

The aggregate number of DrugCourts increased 40%in the past five years.

56% of U.S. statesand territories reported an increasein the number ofDrug Courts in 2009.

Alabama and Arizonareported the largestincrease in the number of DrugCourts in 2009, with 22 additionalprograms each.

Drug Court ChangeModels 12/31/05 12/31/06 12/31/07 12/31/08 12/31/09 2008 to 2009

Adult: 985 1,115 1,174 1,253 1,317 +64 (+5%)

Juvenile: 386 408 455 459 476 +17 (+4%)

Family: 196 229 301 328 322 -6 (-2%)

Designated DWI: 74 81 110 144 172 +28 (+19%)

Tribal: 65 67 72 79 89 +10 (+13%)

Federal District: 4 5 5 25 30 +5 (+20%)

Reentry: 44 20 24 30 29 -1 (-3%)

Veterans: N/A N/A N/A 4 19 +15 (+375%)

Campus: 1 1 6 4 5 +1 (+25%)

Total 1,756 1,926 2,147 2,326 2,459 +133 (+6%)

Comparison of Operational Drug Courts 2008 to 2009

Table 2

Tabl

e 3

Ope

rati

onal

Dru

g Co

urts

in t

he U

nite

d St

ates

(D

ecem

ber

31, 2

009)

Alab

ama

74

53

53

0

0

0

0

13

6

1

0

0

0

1

0

Alas

ka15

2

2

0

0

0

2

1

1

6

4

0

0

0

1

Arizo

na60

16

13

3

0

0

5

20

6

14

3

0

0

1

0

Arka

nsas

47

40

34

3

3

0

0

5

0

0

2

0

0

0

0

Calif

orni

a22

6

109

9

7

2

0

10

0

48

52

4

10

0

2

0

1

Colo

rado

50

20

20

0

0

0

1

10

12

2

4

1

0

0

1

Conn

ectic

ut5

3

3

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

1

0

Dela

war

e13

9

3

6

0

0

0

3

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

Dist

rict o

f Col

umbi

a3

1

0

0

1

0

0

1

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

Flor

ida

105

5

2

16

2

6

10

0

4

26

22

0

4

0

1

0

0

Geor

gia

69

30

18

1

9

2

1

11

11

0

16

0

0

0

1

Guam

3

1

1

0

0

0

1

1

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

Haw

aii

13

5

0

0

5

0

0

6

2

0

0

0

0

0

0

Idah

o47

28

28

0

0

0

7

7

4

3

4

0

0

1

0

Illin

ois

41

28

18

3

7

0

4

3

0

0

4

0

0

2

4

Indi

ana

40

26

10

6

10

0

14

4

3

0

0

0

6

1

0

Iow

a29

15

12

0

3

0

0

7

6

0

0

0

0

1

0

Kans

as12

8

6

2

0

0

0

2

0

1

0

0

0

1

0

Kent

ucky

113

8

9

22

7

60

0

0

20

4

0

0

0

0

0

0

Loui

sian

a58

29

29

0

0

0

9

19

2

0

5

0

3

0

0

Mai

ne11

7

7

0

0

0

0

0

2

1

0

0

0

1

0

Mar

ylan

d40

20

19

0

1

0

0

13

4

0

3

0

0

0

0

Mas

sach

uset

ts21

17

17

0

0

0

3

2

0

0

0

0

0

2

0

Mic

higa

n87

32

14

1

7

10

8

15

9

6

23

0

0

2

0

Min

neso

ta43

20

3

1

16

0

6

4

7

2

10

0

0

0

0

Mis

siss

ippi

35

21

16

1

4

0

21

12

0

1

0

0

0

1

0

Mis

sour

i11

0

71

4

1

0

30

0

35

14

11

0

9

0

3

1

1

Mon

tana

25

8

8

0

0

0

5

4

3

8

2

0

0

0

0

Neb

rask

a25

11

11

0

0

0

0

5

8

0

1

0

0

0

0

Nev

ada

43

20

0

0

0

20

4

5

2

6

6

1

2

0

1

New

Ham

pshi

re9

2

2

0

0

0

0

7

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

New

Jer

sey

27

21

21

0

0

0

0

3

3

0

0

0

0

0

0

New

Mex

ico

54

17

8

0

9

0

17

17

4

7

9

0

0

0

0

New

Yor

k18

1

100

5

3

0

47

0

90

23

55

0

0

0

0

1

2

Nor

th C

arol

ina

42

22

18

2

2

0

2

4

12

2

2

0

0

0

0

Nor

th D

akot

a13

5

0

0

5

0

0

6

0

1

0

1

0

0

0

Ohio

81

31

0

0

0

31

0

26

17

0

6

0

0

1

0

Okla

hom

a74

50

0

50

0

0

48

8

4

6

3

1

0

1

1

Oreg

on57

28

14

1

11

2

2

14

11

0

2

0

0

2

0

Penn

sylv

ania

51

23

19

4

0

0

2

9

2

0

11

0

1

3

2

Puer

to R

ico

9

9

9

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Rhod

e Is

land

10

4

0

0

4

0

0

4

1

0

0

0

1

0

0

Sout

h Ca

rolin

a27

16

14

0

2

0

0

11

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Sout

h Da

kota

6

1

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

4

1

0

0

0

0

Tenn

esse

e52

38

36

0

2

0

21

7

1

0

6

0

0

0

0

Texa

s98

50

0

0

0

50

6

16

10

1

8

1

8

2

2

Utah

49

25

25

0

0

0

1

9

9

0

5

0

0

1

0

Verm

ont

5

3

3

0

0

0

0

1

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

Virg

inia

29

15

5

5

5

0

7

9

3

0

1

0

0

1

0

Virg

in Is

land

s0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Was

hing

ton

49

16

4

12

0

0

0

9

11

8

3

0

0

1

1

Wes

t Virg

inia

21

16

2

0

14

0

16

4

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

Wis

cons

in30

22

0

21

1

0

1

1

0

2

4

0

0

0

1

Wyo

min

g22

12

12

0

0

0

11

7

0

2

1

0

0

0

0

TOTA

LS24

59 1

317

767

157

268

125

354

476

322 8

9

172 5

29

30

19

Tota

l Dru

g Court

s

Adult

Adult (Pro

bation

/Post-P

lea)

Adult

(Diversio

nary/P

re-Ple

a)

Adult

(Hybrid P

re/Pos

t-Plea

)

Adult

(Unknow

n Type

)

Adult

(Hybrid D

WI/Drug

)

JuvenileFam

ilyTr

ibal*

Desi

gnated D

WI

Campus*

Reentry D

rug*

Federal D

istr

ict

Vetera

n

Total Dru

g Courts

Adult

Adult (Probation/Post-P

lea)

Adult (Diversionary/P

re-Plea)

Adult (Hybrid Pre/Post-P

lea)Adult (U

nknown Type)

Adult (Hybrid DWI/Drug)

Juvenile

FamilyTrib

al*Designated DW

ICampus*Reentry

Dru

g*Federal D

istrict

Veteran

* Tr

ibal

dat

a w

as d

eriv

ed fr

om th

e Bu

reau

of J

ustic

e As

sist

ance

Dru

g Co

urt C

lear

ing

Hous

e (2

009)

* Ca

mpu

s da

ta w

as d

eriv

ed fr

om T

he C

entu

ry C

ounc

il*

Fede

ral R

eent

ry d

ata

was

der

ived

from

the

Adm

inis

trativ

e Of

fice

of th

e U.

S. C

ourts

20

21


Figu

re 2

Tota

l of

2,45

9 O

pera

tion

al D

rug

Cour

ts in

the

Uni

ted

Stat

es (

Dec

embe

r 20

09)

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Num

ber

of C

ourt

s

1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009

Year

A 40% growth of Drug Courtsover the past 5 years

Operational Drug Court Programs in the United States

Figure 3


22


criminal courts in Buffalo who were addictedto drugs or alcohol and/or suffering from asevere mental health disorder or traumaticbrain injury stemming from combat. Thismodel is now spreading rapidly across thenation (see Table 2).

Building upon the infrastructure that existswithin Drug Courts and Mental HealthCourts, Veterans Treatment Courts combinerigorous treatment and accountability forveterans facing incarceration. They promotesobriety, recovery and stability through acoordinated response with the understandingthat the bonds of military service and combatrun deep. Veterans Treatment Courts notonly allow veterans to go through thetreatment court process with other veteranswho are similarly situated and have commonpast experiences, but link them with VeteransAffairs services uniquely designed for theirdistinct needs that arise from that experience.In so doing, Veterans Treatment Courtsinvolve the U.S. Department of VeteransAffairs health care networks, the VeteransBenefits Administration, State Departments ofVeterans Affairs, volunteer veteran mentorsand veterans family support organizations.

Many veterans caught in the justice systemstruggle with addiction and/or mental illness,often leading to a loss of employment andhomelessness. For example, studies haverevealed that 81% of all justice-involvedveterans had a substance abuse problem priorto incarceration and 25% were identified asmentally ill (Tanielian & Jaycox, 2008). Leftuntreated, mental health disorders that arecommon among veterans, such as traumaticbrain injury (TBI) and post-traumatic stressdisorder (PTSD), can lead directly to futurehomelessness. In fact, 23% of justice-involvedveterans were homeless at some point duringthe year preceding their arrest (Mumula,

Courts by program model for the years 2005through 2009, and compares the numbers ofthe various models between 2008 and 2009.

In 2009, approximately 54% (1,317 out of2,459) of drug courts were Adult DrugCourts. The next most prevalent modelswere Juvenile Drug Courts (19% of drugcourts), Family Dependency TreatmentCourts (13%) and separately designatedDWI Courts (7%), respectively.

Adult Drug Courts and designated DWICourts had the largest growth in rawnumbers between 2008 and 2009. Thegreatest proportional growth was for VeteransTreatment Courts, which increased from onlyfour programs in 2008 to 19 programs in2009. As of May 2011, there are currently 74Veterans Treatment Courts in operation.

Veterans Treatment Courts on the RiseJudge Robert Russell (pictured below),presiding judge of the Buffalo Drug Courtand Buffalo Mental Health Court, created thenation’s first Veterans Treatment Court inearly 2008. This specialized veterans-onlydocket was designed to address the growingnumber of veterans appearing before the

23

8 This model may also be referred to as Deferred Entry of Judgment.9 The 2009 survey did not distinguish between post-plea/pre-adjudication models and post-adjudication models. The current

survey makes this distinction.


24

guilty to the charge(s) or stipulate to thefacts in the criminal complaint as acondition of entry.

There are two general sub-types of post-pleaDrug Courts. In post-plea/pre-adjudicationprograms,8 the guilty plea or stipulatedagreement is held in abeyance and is vacatedor withdrawn upon successful completion oftreatment. In addition, many of theseprograms may expunge the record of thearrest or conviction ifthe participant remainsarrest-free for anadditional waitingperiod. Although therecord is usually notliterally erased fromcriminal databases,record expungement ordinarily entitles theindividual to respond truthfully on anemployment application or similar documentthat the arrest or conviction did not occur(Festinger et al., 2005).

A second type of post-plea Drug Court followsa post-adjudication or term of probation model.The record of the conviction stands, butparticipants can avoid incarceration or reducetheir probation obligations. These programsmay also serve offenders who were previouslysentenced to probation and were subsequentlycharged with a drug-related technical violationor new offense.

As of December 31, 2009, the majority (58%)of Adult Drug Courts followed a post-pleamodel.9 An additional 12% of programs

2000). By identifying justice system-involvedveterans early and connecting them with themental health and substance abuse servicesthey have duly earned, Veterans TreatmentCourts not only go a long way toward healingthe silent wounds of war, but are rapidlybecoming a critical stop-gap for preventingfuture homelessness.

Dispositional Models of AdultDrug CourtFrom 1989 until approximately the mid-1990s, many Adult Drug Courts followed apre-plea dispositional model. Pursuant tothis model, participants enter the program aspart of a pre-trial diversion agreement with

the understandingthat the charges willbe dismissed uponsuccessfulcompletion oftreatment. Becauseno guilty plea isformally entered,the case resumesprocessing throughthe criminal justicesystem in the eventof an unsuccessfultermination.

As research indicated that Adult Drug Courtsshould be targeting more serious offenderpopulations (e.g., Marlowe et al., 2007), thefield began to shift toward serving recidivistand higher-risk participants. In so doing,many programs adopted a post-plea model inwhich the defendant is required to plead

As of December 31,2009, the majority(58%) of Adult DrugCourts followed apost-plea model.


criminal justice system and for participants.One advantage of the pre-plea model is fastercase processing, because the need forpreliminary hearings and evidentiarydiscovery may be reduced. Because thedefendant is not required to tender a plea,defense counsel are often more willing torecommend entry without extensivediscovery. On the other hand, pre-plea casesrun the risk of going “cold” if participantsare terminated from the program severalmonths after admission, because witnessesand evidence may no longer be readilyaccessible. Perhaps the biggest problem withpre-plea programs is that diversionopportunities are often unavailable by statuteor by prosecutorial policy for more serioustypes of offenders or offenses.

Post-plea models offer the advantage ofproviding coercive leverage over participantsto keep them engaged in treatment. Inaddition, prosecutors are more likely to offerpost-plea dispositions to more seriousoffenders because there is little risk of thecases going cold. On the other hand,defense attorneys may require additionaltime for discovery and preliminary motionsbefore advising their clients to tender a plea.This can delay clients’ entry into treatmentand reduce the effectiveness of the program.

Drug Court teams are advised to carefullyweigh the benefits and burdens of eachdispositional model before settling on thebest option or options to meet the needs oftheir community.

followed a pre-plea model and 20% servedboth populations together in a hybrid model.

Pre-plea or diversionary 157 ( 12%)

Post-plea or term of probation 767 ( 58%)

Hybrid pre/post plea 268 ( 20%)

Unknown 125 ( 10%)

1,317 (100%)

Which Model is Preferable?There is no one answer to the question ofwhich dispositional model is most effective.Comparing outcomes between models is, inmany ways, like comparing “apples tooranges” because the populations tend to bequite different. A probation-revocation DrugCourt, for example, is apt to be treating amuch more severe offender population thana pre-plea Drug Court.

There is some evidence to suggest thatapplying one consistent model may yieldbetter results than mixing populationstogether in a hybrid model (Shaffer 2006). Itis not clear why this might be the case, but itcould be that the hybrid programs did notdevelop separate policies and procedures todeal with the diverse needs of aheterogeneous population. Perhaps theresults would be better if hybrid programsdeveloped separate tracks to meet the needsof different types of offenders. More researchis needed to better understand this issue.

Putting the issue of effectiveness aside, thereare practical advantages and disadvantages toeach dispositional model for both the

25

26


27


Part II. 2008 National Survey Results Drug Court Capacity

How Many Counties Do Not Have a Drug Court?There are 3,010 counties within the statesand territories that responded to this survey.

Of those, 56% did nothave an Adult DrugCourt, 84% did nothave a Juvenile DrugCourt, and 87% did nothave a FamilyDependency TreatmentCourt. This indicatesthat a large proportionof otherwise eligibleindividuals do not haveaccess to these life-saving courts.

How Many People are BeingServed in Drug Courts Nationally?Based on national data, it was estimated thatthere were over 116,300 participants in DrugCourts throughout the U.S. states andterritories as of December 31, 2008.

There was substantial variability acrossjurisdictions in the size of the Drug Courtcensus, ranging from a high ofapproximately 20,000 participants in

California to a low ofonly ten participants inSouth Dakota. Theaverage census per U.S.state or territory was2,156 participants.With a standarddeviation (SD) of 886participants, this wouldsuggest that many

jurisdictions were serving betweenapproximately 1,200 and 3,000 participantsin their Drug Courts.

What Limits the Expansion of Drug Courts?Ninety-six percent of U.S. states andterritories reported that Drug Court capacitycould be appreciably expanded.

Respondents were asked to rank-order thefactors that were limiting Drug Courtcapacity in their jurisdiction. The vastmajority of respondents (80%) reported thatinsufficient state or federal funding was theprimary obstacle limiting the capacity oftheir Drug Courts.Among all respondents,the top three factors mostcommonly identifiedincluded insufficient statefunding, insufficientfederal funding and aninsufficient availability oftreatment slots.

Apathy or resistance by the judiciary wasrated as a primary obstacle to expansion byonly one respondent, and was included inthe top three obstacles by less than 10% ofrespondents. Thus, any concerns that statejudiciaries might be unwilling or unprepared to expandDrug Courts appear to beunwarranted. Theprimary factor limitingprogram expansion isfunding and not a lack of judicial interest.

As of 2008, 56% ofU.S. counties did nothave an Adult DrugCourt, 84% did nothave a Juvenile Drug Court and 87%did not have a Family DependencyTreatment Court.

As of December 31,2008, it was estimatedthat there were over 116,300 partici-pants in Drug Courtsthroughout the U.S.states and territories.

96% of U.S. statesand territories reported that DrugCourt capacity couldbe expanded.

The primary factorlimiting Drug Courtexpansion is fundingand not a lack of judicial interest.

28


Race Average (SD) Range

White or Caucasian 62% (14%) 1% - 98%

Black or African-American 21% (28%) 1% - 95%

American Indian or Alaskan Native 4% < 1% - 22%

Guamanian or Chamorro 3% 0% - 65%

National Drug Court PopulationThe melding of the criminal justice andtreatment systems helps to effectuate changefrom jurisdiction to jurisdiction for a myriadof individuals representing a diverse range ofracial, ethnic and gender backgrounds.However, some commentators havequestioned whether Drug Courts areproviding equivalent access to minoritycitizens. This is a critically important matterfor the courts, and one that the NADCP Boardof Directors has required the Drug Court fieldto investigate and address where necessary.

Representation of Racial MinoritiesRespondents were asked how many or what percentage of their jurisdiction’s Drug Court participants were of variousracial backgrounds.

Caucasians and African-Americans werereported to be the most prevalent racialgroups in Drug Courts (see Table 4). Onaverage, Caucasians were reported torepresent nearly two-thirds (62%) of DrugCourt participants nationwide. However,there was considerable variability acrossjurisdictions. In some Drug Courts, nearlyall of the participants were reported to beCaucasian, whereas in others, Caucasianswere reported to be virtually absent.

On average, African-Americans werereported to representapproximately one-fifth(21%) of Drug Courtparticipants nationwide.Again, however, therewas considerablevariability acrossprograms. In someDrug Courts, nearly all of the participantswere reported to be African-American,whereas in others, African-Americans werereported to be virtually absent.

Other racial groups each accounted for lessthan 5% of Drug Court participantsnationally, and were not represented in manyDrug Courts. Native-Americans and PacificIslanders were reported to be prevalent in asmall number of Drug Courts located inspecific geographic regions of the country.

Representation of Ethnic MinoritiesRespondents were asked how many or whatpercentage of theirjurisdiction’s DrugCourt participants wereof Spanish, Hispanic orLatino(a) ancestry.

On average, African-Americans were reported to represent21% of Drug Court participants nationwide.

On average, Caucasians were reported to representnearly two-thirds(62%) of Drug Court participants nationwide.

Drug Court Participants by Race

Table 4

29


On average, Spanish, Hispanic or Latino(a)persons were reported to represent 10% ofDrug Court participants nationwide.However, there was considerable variabilityacross jurisdictions. In some Drug Courts,

such as those in PuertoRico, nearly all of theparticipants werereported to be ofSpanish, Hispanic orLatino(a) ancestry,whereas in others,individuals with theseethnic backgrounds

were reported to be virtually absent (seeTable 5).

Proportionality of MinorityRepresentationRespondents were asked: “Do you thinkpeople of color are disproportionatelyrepresented in your state’s Drug Courts? Ifso, are they over or under-represented?”

The majority of respondents (58%; n = 28) reported that people of color wereproportionately represented in their DrugCourts. However, a substantial minority ofrespondents (42%; n = 20) reported thatpeople of color were disproportionatelyrepresented in their Drug Courts.

Racial and ethnic minorities were reported tobe both over-represented and under-represented in some of therespondents’ Drug Courts.Among the 20 respondentsthat reported adisproportionaterepresentation of minoritiesin their states, 44% (n = 7)reported that minoritieswere over-represented intheir Drug Courts and 56% (n = 9) reportedthat minorities were under-represented.10

Minority Representation asCompared to Other PopulationsRepresentation of African-Americans wasreportedly higher in Drug Courts than in thegeneral population. However, representationof Hispanic persons in Drug Courts wasslightly lower than in the general population(see Table 6).

Probationers are arguably the population ofoffenders that are most directly comparableto Drug Courts, because they are similarlyunder community correctional supervision.Minority representation was reportedly aboutthe same in Drug Courts as in probation andparole settings. African-Americansrepresented 21% of Drug Court participantsvs. 28% of probationers and parolees, and

On average, Spanish,Hispanic or Latino(a)persons were reportedto represent 10% ofDrug Court partici-pants nationwide.

People of color werereported to be pro-portionately repre-sented in 58% of therespondents’ DrugCourts.

Ethnicity Average (SD) Range

Spanish or Hispanic or Latino/Latina 10% (17%) 0% - 95%

Representation of Ethnic Minorities in Drug Court

Table 5

10 An additional four respondents did not answer this question.

Hispanics represented 10%of Drug Court participantsvs. 13% of probationersand parolees.

Importantly, representationof African-Americans injails and prisons wasnearly twice that of bothDrug Courts andprobation, and was alsosubstantially higher amongall arrestees for drug-related offenses.

On one hand, thesediscrepancies might beexplained by relevantdifferences in thepopulations. For example,minority arrestees might be

more likely to have thetypes of priorconvictions that couldexclude them fromeligibility for DrugCourts or probation.On the other hand,systemic differences inplea-bargaining,charging or sentencingpractices might behaving the practicaleffect of denying DrugCourt and other community-baseddispositions to otherwise needy and eligibleminority citizens. Further research is neededto determine whether racial or ethnicminority citizens are being denied theopportunity for Drug Court for reasons thatmay be unrelated to their legitimate clinicalneeds or legal eligibility.

30


Minority representa-tion was reportedlyabout the same inDrug Courts as in probation and parolesettings.

Representation ofAfrican-Americans injails and prisons wasnearly twice that ofboth Drug Courts andprobation, and wasalso substantiallyhigher among all arrestees for drug-related offenses.

Population Caucasian Black/African-American Spanish/Hispanic/Latino

Drug Courts 62% 21% 10%

General Population1 80% 14% 15%

Arrestees2

Any offense 69% 28% N.A.Drug offense 63% 35% N.A.

Prison Inmates3 34% 44% * 20%

Jail Inmates4 43% 39% * 16%

Probationers & Parolees5 56% 28% * 13%

Minority Representation in Drug Courts Compared to Other Populations

Table 6

1 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Population Estimates Program, 2008.2 Source: FBI Uniform Crime Reporting Data, 2008.3 Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Prisoners in 2008 (NCJ #228417). 4 Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Jail Inmates at Midyear 2007 (NCJ #221945).5 Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Probation and Parole in the United States, 2008 (NCJ #228230).* Excludes persons of Hispanic and Latino origin.

N.A. = Not available or reported.

Representation ofAfrican-Americanswas reportedly higherin Drug Courts than in the generalpopulation; however,representation of Hispanic citizens wasslightly lower in DrugCourts than in thegeneral population.

31


Drug Courts have beencredited with helpingto partially reduce thedisproportionateconfinement of racialminorities in thiscountry (Mauer, 2009).However, the currentfindings suggest thatfurther efforts may berequired to eliminatesentencing disparitiesfor minority citizens.

Primary Substances of AbuseAmong Drug Court ParticipantsRespondents were asked to rank-order theprimary, secondary and tertiary substances ofabuse among their urban, suburban, andrural Drug Court participants.

Across all settings, cocaine/crack, alcohol,marijuana and methamphetamine werereported to be the most commonly abusedsubstances among participants prior toentering the programs. Methamphetaminewas reported to be the primary substance ofabuse among nearly twice as many ruralDrug Court participants as among urban andsuburban participants. In contrast,cocaine/crack was reported to be the primarysubstance of abuse among a substantiallylarger proportion of urban Drug Courtparticipants than among rural or suburbanparticipants.

Urban Drug CourtsPrior to entering Drug Court, the primarysubstances of abuse among urbanparticipants were reported to becocaine/crack (27%) and alcohol (27%),

followed by cannabis(22%), methamphetamine(16%), illicit opiates (7%)and prescriptionmedications (2%) (see Figure 4).

Suburban Drug CourtsPrior to entering theprogram, the primarysubstances of abuse amongsuburban Drug Courtparticipants were reportedto be alcohol (33%),cannabis (20%),cocaine/crack (18%),methamphetamine (18%),illicit opiates (10%) andprescription medications(3%) (see Figure 5).

Rural Drug CourtsThe primary substances ofabuse among rural DrugCourt participants werereported to bemethamphetamine (30%)and alcohol (30%),followed by cannabis(14%), illicit opiates(12%), cocaine/crack (7%)and prescriptionmedications (7%) (see Figure 6).

Drug CourtGraduation and Retention RatesRespondents were asked how manyparticipants graduated from their Drug Courtsbetween January 1st and December 31st of2008. A total of 22,584 participants werereported to have successfully graduated from

Further research isneeded to determinewhether racial or ethnic minority citizens are being denied the opportu-nity for Drug Court forreasons that may beunrelated to their legitimate clinicalneeds or legal eligibility.

Cocaine/crack (27%),alcohol (27%),cannabis (22%) andmethamphetamine(16%) were reportedto be the primary substances of abuseamong participants inurban Drug Courts.

Alcohol (33%),cannabis (20%), co-caine/crack (18%)and methampheta-mine (18%) were re-ported to be theprimary substances ofabuse among partici-pants in suburbanDrug Courts.

Methamphetamine(30%), alcohol (30%),cannabis (14%) andheroin (12%) were reported to be the primary substances of abuse among participants in ruralDrug Courts.

■ Alcohol

■ Cocaine/Crack

■ Heroin

■ Marijuana

■ Methamphetamine

■ Prescription Drugs

2%

27%7%

22%

16%

27%

Primary Substances of Abuse Among Urban Drug Court Participants

Figure 4

■ Alcohol

■ Cocaine/Crack

■ Heroin

■ Marijuana

■ Methamphetamine

■ Prescription Drugs 33%

18%10%

20%

18%

3%

Primary Substances of Abuse Among Suburban Drug Court Participants

Figure 5


32

the respondents’ DrugCourts during thatcalendar year. However,given that data wereunavailable fromroughly one-quarter of

U.S. jurisdictions, the total number of DrugCourt graduates during calendar year 2008 islikely to have been much higher.

Respondents were further asked about theaverage graduation rate in their Drug Courts.Nationally, the average graduation rate in

2008 was 53%.However, this figurewas substantiallyinfluenced by a smallnumber of jurisdictionsthat were serving asmall census (< 500) of

participants statewide. Excluding these“statistical outliers”, the average graduation

rate was 57%. Most respondents reportedgraduation rates ranging from approximately40% to 65% in their Drug Courts.

Because retention figures on probation andparole are not limited to drug-abusing oraddicted offenders, one must to look for amore meaningful comparison group in orderto understand the impact of Drug Courts ontreatment retention.

California’s Proposition 3611 is arguably themost directly comparable treatmentdiversion initiative to Drug Courts.Proposition 36 was designed to providecommunity-based treatment and probationsupervision for a large proportion ofnonviolent drug-possession offenders as analternative to incarceration. Although thereare many similarities between Drug Courtsand Proposition 36, there are criticaldifferences as well. For example,

Figure 6

■ Alcohol

■ Cocaine/Crack

■ Heroin

■ Marijuana

■ Methamphetamine

■ Prescription Drugs30%

7%

12%

14%

30%

7%

Primary Substances of Abuse Among Rural Drug Court Participants

Over 22,584 participants success-fully graduated fromDrug Courts in 2008.


33

The average nationalgraduation rate forDrug Court in 2008was 57%.

11 CAL. PENAL CODE § 1210 et seq.

Proposition 36, as designed, does notinclude ongoing judicial supervision,frequent urine drug testing, jail or otherpunitive sanctions for infractions.

Statewide evaluations in California reportedthat approximately one quarter of the

participants in Proposition36 did not enroll intreatment, 50 percent ofthose who did enrolldropped out beforereceiving a minimallysufficient dosage of threemonths of services, and24% completed treatment(University of California,Los Angeles, 2007). Thus,compared to Proposition

36, Drug Courts more than doubledtreatment retention and completion rates.

Average Cost per Drug CourtParticipantRespondents were asked to provide theaverage cost per Drug Court participant intheir jurisdiction. In 2008, the average costper participant was reported to be $6,985 inthe respondents’ Drug Courts. The rangewas approximately $2,500 to $19,000.12

Notably, the average cost per participant wasunduly influenced by a few jurisdictions that

were serving a very smallnumber (< 500) ofparticipants statewide.Excluding these outliers,the average cost per DrugCourt participant was$5,718.

State Drug Court Legislation Sixty-five percent of U.S. states and territoriesreported having Drug Court authorizationlegislation. Importantly, variations inindividual stategovernments determinewhether or not suchauthorizing or enablinglegislation is necessaryfor Drug Courtimplementation andoperation. Some stateshave passed legislation specifically definingwhat Drug Courts are, or specifying certaincritical elements of the Drug Court structure(for example, defining eligibility criteria).Other states have passed legislation to createfunding mechanisms for Drug Courts, such asspecial fines, fees or assessments. Yet, manystates with thriving Drug Court programs havenot seen a need to pass legislation tospecifically authorize Drug Court operations.

State Drug Court AppropriationsFigure 7 depicts state funding appropriationsfor Drug Courts from 2003 to 2009. Here,appropriations aredefined to includespecifically designatedfunds in a state’sbudget either fromDrug Court-specificlegislation or fromother statutory appropriations. In thiscontext, appropriations do not include localgovernmental or private funding; federallyfunded discretionary or formula awards;block grants; client fees; or the in-kind usageof existing local resources. Moreover, it maynot include funds used for Drug Courts from

34


12 The standard deviation (SD) was approximately $4,089. Given the wide variation in costs between programs, it is difficultto characterize the average cost per participant in a typical Drug Court. Also, given that data were missing from more thanhalf of U.S. jurisdictions, it is difficult to know how representative these dollar figures are likely to be.

The average reportedcost per Drug Courtparticipant was$6,985; it was $5,718excluding a smallnumber of outliers.

Compared to Proposi-tion 36, another treat-ment diversioninitiative for drug-in-volved offenders,Drug Courts morethan doubled treat-ment retention andcompletion rates.

65% of U.S. statesand territories reported having DrugCourt authorizationlegislation.

State appropriationstotaled more than$243 million for DrugCourts for 2009.

35


the budgets of other state agencies, such ascorrections, substance abuse treatment, orthe administrative office of the courts.

As of December 31, 2008, state legislaturesappropriated a total of $243,136,053 forDrug Courts for 2009 activities. The totalfunding appropriation increased by nearly $63 million, or 35%, from 2007. Twenty-six

states (51%) reportedan increase in fundingfor Drug Courtsbetween 2007 and 2009budget cycles. Tenstates (20%) reported adecrease in fundingsince 2007, and three

states (6%) reported no change in funding.

States reporting the largest appropriations forDrug Courts in 2009 were New Jersey ($38.5million), California ($30 million), Oklahoma

($21 million), New York($17.5 million), Kentucky($15.6 million) andLouisiana ($14.8 million)(see Table 7).

Federal Drug CourtAppropriations Federal funding for DrugCourts increased by over250% from fiscal years2008 to 2010. In FY 2008,Drug Courts received $25.3 million,including $15.2 million for the Drug CourtDiscretionary GrantProgram at the Bureau ofJustice Assistance(Department of Justice)and $10.1 million for theDrug Treatment CourtInitiative at the Center for

Figure 7

$0

$50,000,000

$100,000,000

$150,000,000

$200,000,000

$250,000,000

2009200720042003

■ State Appropriations

Year

State Appropriations for Drug Court

State Drug Court appropriations increased by nearly$63 million (35%)from 2007 to 2009.

51% of U.S. states andterritories reported anincrease in fundingfor Drug Courts between 2007 and2009 budget cycles;20% reported a decrease in funding;and 6% reported no change.

Federal funding forDrug Courts in-creased over 250%from fiscal year 2008to fiscal year 2010.

36


Figure 8

$0

$20,000,000

$40,000,000

$60,000,000

$80,000,000

$100,000,000

FY 2010FY 2009

Federal Fiscal Year

FY 2008

■ Federal Appropriations

Federal Appropriations for Drug Court

Figure 9

0

$50,000,000

$100,000,000

$150,000,000

$200,000,000

$250,000,000

$300,000,000

$350,000,000

2009200720042003

■ Federal Appropriations

■ State Appropriations

Year

Combined Appropriations for Drug Court

37


Substance Abuse Treatment (Department ofHealth and Human Services). In FY 2009,federal funding increased by 152% to $63.8million dollars for Drug Courts throughappropriations of $40 million for the BJADrug Court Discretionary Grant Programand $23.8 million for the CSAT DrugTreatment Court Initiative.

In FY 2010, the BJA Drug CourtDiscretionary Grant Program appropriationincreased to $45 million and the CSAT DrugTreatment Court Initiative increased to $43.8 million, giving Drug Courts a historicalmark of $88.8 million in federal funding (seeFigure 8). In this very difficult economicenvironment, the continual increase infederal funding for Drug Courts is atestament to their life-saving, crime-reducingand budget-controlling contributions.

Other Problem-Solving CourtsThe most prevalent type of Problem-SolvingCourt is unquestionably the Drug Court(Berman & Feinblatt, 2005). However, agrowing number of jurisdictions havedeveloped other types of Problem-SolvingCourts designed to address a range of socialissues, in addition to drug addiction, thathave become prominent in the traditionalcourt systems, such as mental illness, truancy,homelessness, domestic violence, gamblingand community reentry from custody.

Because they address clinically differentpopulations or disorders, these latterprograms may be more likely to adapt oralter the Key Components of the Drug Courtmodel. Regardless, they employ many of thesame core principles and practices as DrugCourts, such as ongoing judicial supervision,application of graduated rewards andsanctions, and evidence-based treatment and

case management services where indicated.All Problem-Solving Courts share a commoncommitment to the core principles oftherapeutic jurisprudence, and recognize theimportant role of the court system inaddressing and resolving some of society’smajor ills. As the name suggests, they allseek to solve problems rather than merelyadjudicate controversies or punishmalfeasance. In this way, they all serve the needs of the communities within whichthey reside.

As of December 31, 2009, there were 1,189other13 Problem-SolvingCourts in the UnitedStates (see Table 9 andFigure 10). Thisrepresents a 12% increasein the number of otherProblem-Solving Courtsfrom 2007. Addingtogether the total numberof operational Drug Courts and other typesof Problem-Solving Courts, there were 3,648Problem-Solving Courts in the United Statesas of December 31, 2009 (see Figure 10).

Problem-Solving Court ModelsTable 8 reports the various models of Problem-Solving Courts in 2004, 2007, 2008 and 2009,and compares the prevalence of these modelsbetween 2008 and 2009. In 2009, the mostprevalent types of Problem-Solving Courtswere Truancy Courts, Mental Health Courtsand Domestic Violence Courts, respectively.Truancy Courts and Mental Health Courtsoutpaced other Problem-Solving Courts ingrowth between 2008 and 2009.

Child Support Courts and Parole ViolationCourts were reported to have decreasedsubstantially in numbers between 2008 and

13 Other than Drug Courts.

As of December 31,2008, there were1,189 Problem-Solv-ing Courts other thanDrug Courts in theUnited States.

State Bill Number None Current AppropriationsAlabama X $3.1 millionAlaska HB4, HB136, HB172, HB342, HB451 $2.3 millionArizona HB 2620 $1.0 millionArkansas Act 1022 of 2007 $1.5 millionCalifornia CDCI: California health and Safety Code Sections 11970.1-11970.4, DCP:

California Health and Safety Code Sections 11970.45, SAFG: Budget Act of 2009 [item 0250-101-0001,

Budget Act of 2009 (Stats. 2009, ch. 1, § 45.55.020)] $30.0 millionColorado X $0Connecticut CGS 51-181b $1.5 millionDelaware X IntegratedD.C. X IntegratedFlorida Section 397.334, Florida Statutes $1.4 millionGeorgia 15-1-15 $ 2.4 millionGuam X $498,374Hawaii Adult Drug Court Act 25 of the 1995 Special Legislative Session $6.1 millionIdaho [IC 19-5601] $7.0 millionIllinoisIndiana IC 12-12-14.5, IC 33-23-14 IntegratedIowa XKansas X $0Kentucky X $15.6 millionLouisiana La. R.S.: 13:5301-5304 $14.8 millionMaine L.D. 2014Sec. 1 4MRSA 421, 422, 423, Chapter 8 $1.5 millionMaryland X $6.3 millionMassachusetts X $0Michigan 2004-Act No. 224 $4.0 millionMinnesota X $7.0 millionMississippi MS Code §9-23-1 through -23 IntegratedMissouri Section 478.001-478.009 RSMO $5.8 millionMontana $1.3 millionNebraska LB454 $2.1 millionNevada NRS 176.0613, NRS 453.580 $0New Hampshire X IntegratedNew Jersey A1770, 2008 $38.5 millionNew Mexico Re-Entry Drug Court Statute 31-21-27 $10.0 millionNew York X $17.6 millionNorth Carolina N.C.G.S. 7A-790 $4.1 millionNorth Dakota N.D.C.C. 27-20.14, N.D.C.C. 39-06.1,

N.D.C.C. 39-06.1-11, N.D. Sup. Ct.Admin.R 36 $327,000Ohio XOklahoma Senate Bill 465 $21.0 millionOregon HB 2381 (2009), HB 2324 (2009), SB 265 (2009), ORS 3.450 $3.0 millionPennsylvania X $100,000Puerto Rico X $500,000Rhode Island X $1.6 millionSouth Carolina $2.2 millionSouth Dakota Senate Bill 109 $267,111Tennessee 16-22-100 $3.5 millionTexas HB 530 $680,000Utah HB 281 (2000 session), SB 135 (2005 session) $4.8 millionVermont X $375,000Virgin Islands X $0Virginia Code of Virginia § 18.2 – 254.1 $3.0 millionWashington HB 2967, SB 5342 $7.8 millionWest VirginiaWisconsin Statute 16.964 (12) $755,000Wyoming SFO 107 $9.2 million

38


Drug Court Legislation and State Appropriation by State

Table 7

39


2009. However, the “other” category ofProblem-Solving Court appears to haveincreased commensurately during that sametime period. This suggests that thesechanges might have reflected, in part,differences in how the programs were namedor tabulated, rather than large reductions inthe actual numbers of the programs.

As of December 31,2009, there were atotal of 3,648 DrugCourts and othertypes of Problem-Solving Courts in theUnited States.

Problem-Solving ChangeCourt 12/31/04 12/31/07 12/31/08 12/31/09 2008 to 2009

Truancy 131 304 291 352 +61 (+21%)

Mental Health 111 219 264 288 +24 (+9%)

Domestic Violence 141 185 215 206 -9 (-4%)

Child Support 45 154 113 46 -67 (-59%)*

Reentry 16 28 25 26 +1 (+4%)

Community 23 30 26 25 -1 (-4%)

Homeless 6 37 28 25 -3 (-11%)

Prostitution 4 4 6 8 +2 (+33%)

Gun 2 4 5 6 +1 (+20%)

Parole Violation 5 12 74 6 -68 (-92%)*

Gambling 0 2 1 1 No change

Integrated Tx 17 20 N/A N/A Not Reported

Other 43 58 118 200 +82(+69%) *

Total 527 1,037 1,166 1,189 + 23 (+2%)

Comparison of Problem-Solving Courts 2008 to 2009

Table 8

*Child Support Courts and Parole Violation Courts decreased substantially in numbers between 2008 and 2009; however the“other” category increased commensurately. This may have been the result, in part, of changes in how the programs werenamed or tabulated.

Tabl

e 9

Ope

rati

onal

Pro

blem

-Sol

ving

Cou

rts

in t

he U

nite

d St

ates

(D

ecem

ber

31, 2

009)

Tota

l Pro

blem

-Solv

ing C

ourts

Ree

ntry

Court

Gun

Com

munit

yM

enta

l Hea

lth

Dom

esti

c V

iole

nce

Prost

ituti

onPar

ole V

iola

tion

Hom

eles

s Truan

cyC

hild S

upport

Gam

bling C

ourts

Oth

er

Tota

l Pro

blem

-Solv

ing C

ourts

Ree

ntry

Court

GunC

omm

unity

Men

tal H

ealth

Dom

estic Vio

lence

Prost

ituti

on

Parole

Vio

lationH

omel

essTr

uancy

Child

Support

Gam

bling C

ourts

Oth

er

Alab

ama

16

0

1

0

7

8

0

0

0

0

0

0

0Al

aska

3

0

0

0

2

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1Ar

izona

12

0

0

0

5

5

0

0

2

0

0

0

0

Arka

nsas

1

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0Ca

lifor

nia

256

0

0

4

41

20

0

0

21

1

0

0

16

9Co

lora

do

10

0

0

0

3

0

1

0

0

5

0

0

1

Conn

ectic

ut

11

0

0

2

0

9

0

0

0

0

0

0

0De

law

are

8

1

3

0

3

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0Di

stric

t of C

olum

bia

4

0

0

1

1

1

1

0

0

0

0

0

0Fl

orid

a

112

7

0

3

21

31

0

3

0

22

25

0

0Ge

orgi

a

13

0

0

0

12

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0Gu

am

4

0

0

0

1

1

0

0

0

1

1

0

0

Haw

aii

4

1

0

0

1

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

Idah

o

1

9

0

0

0

10

4

0

0

0

4

0

0

1

Illin

ois

13

0

0

0

10

2

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

Indi

ana

4

0

0

1

3

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Iow

a

2

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

1

0

0

Kans

as

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0Ke

ntuc

ky

1

45

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

1

44

0

0

0

Loui

sian

a

2

1

0

0

1

1

1

0

1

0

9

8

0

0

Mai

ne

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Mar

ylan

d

1

0

0

0

0

3

0

0

0

0

7

0

0

0

Mas

sach

uset

ts

3

0

1

0

2

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0M

ichi

gan

33

0

0

0

12

6

1

1

0

4

5

0

4M

inne

sota

6

0

0

2

2

1

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

Mis

siss

ippi

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Mis

sour

i

1

0

0

0

0

6

2

0

0

0

0

2

0

0

Mon

tana

2

0

0

0

2

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0N

ebra

ska

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1N

evad

a

7

0

0

0

3

0

1

0

0

0

1

0

2N

ew H

amps

hire

2

0

0

0

2

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

New

Jer

sey

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

New

Mex

ico

9

0

0

0

5

2

0

0

1

1

0

0

0N

ew Y

ork

1

35

0

0

7

26

92

0

0

0

0

0

1

9

Nor

th C

arol

ina

16

0

0

1

5

0

0

0

0

10

0

0

0

Nor

th D

akot

a

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

Ohio

4

9

7

0

0

33

4

0

0

0

0

2

0

3

Okla

hom

a

1

3

0

0

0

13

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Oreg

on

14

0

0

1

9

4

0

0

0

0

0

0

0Pe

nnsy

lvan

ia

25

1

1

1

14

2

1

0

0

1

0

0

4

Puer

to R

ico

3

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

2

Rhod

e Is

land

143

1

0

0

1

2

0

0

0

139

0

0

0So

uth

Caro

lina

5

0

0

0

5

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Sout

h Da

kota

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0Te

nnes

see

3

0

0

0

2

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Texa

s

1

4

8

0

0

4

0

2

0

0

0

0

0

0

Utah

4

0

0

0

3

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

Verm

ont

3

0

0

0

1

1

0

0

0

1

0

0

0Vi

rgin

ia

1

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0Vi

rgin

Isla

nds

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0W

ashi

ngto

n

15

0

0

1

9

4

0

0

0

0

0

0

1W

est V

irgin

ia

1

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Wis

cons

in

2

0

0

0

1

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Wyo

min

g

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

TOTA

LS

1189

26

6 2

5 2

88 2

06 8 6

25 3

52 4

6

1 2

00


40

Figu

re 1

0

Tota

l of

3,64

8 Pr

oble

m-S

olvi

ng C

ourt

s in

the

Uni

ted

Stat

es (

Dec

embe

r 20

09)


41

42


Before After

Although the current survey did not captureinternational Drug Court activity, interest inDrug Courts and Problem-Solving Courts isnot confined to the United States. The firstDrug Court to be launched outside of theUnited States was in Toronto, Canada, in1998. Just thirteen years later, DrugTreatment Courts, as they are generallyknown around the globe, now number over30 and are located in fifteen countries,including Australia, Belgium, Bermuda,Brazil, Canada, Chile, Cayman Islands,Ireland, Jamaica, Mexico, New Zealand,Norway, Scotland, Suriname and the UnitedKingdom. In addition, several countrieshave implemented Community Courts andDomestic Violence Courts.

A recent study conducted by AmericanUniversity on behalf of the Inter-AmericanDrug Abuse Control Commission (CICAD)of the Organization of American States(OAS) analyzed survey responses from Drug Treatment Court officials in eleven

countries in addition to the U.S.14 (Cooper etal., 2010). These eleven countries reportedhaving collectively enrolled more than 3,800participants, of which over 500 hadsuccessfully graduated by the time of thesurvey.

Because many international Drug TreatmentCourts are still in their formative years,conventional efforts to evaluate theiroutcomes are still in the beginning stages.However, the large majority of respondentsto the CICAD survey reported highlypromising observations. In particular, it wasreported that Drug Treatment Courtsappeared to be reducing recidivism betterthan the traditional criminal justice systemin virtually all of the countries, andapproximately half of the respondentsreported achieving noteworthy cost savings.

For more information about InternationalDrug Treatment Courts, please visitwww.internationaldtc.org.

International Drug Court and Problem-Solving Court Activity

14 The survey respondents were Belgium, Bermuda, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Ireland, Jamaica, Mexico, Norway, Suriname and theUnited Kingdom.

Drug Courts Break The Cycle Of Addiction and Crime

43


Brief descriptions of Drug Courts and otherProblem-Solving Courts, as found in thescientific and scholastic literature, arepresented below.

• Adult Drug Court: A specially designedcriminal court calendar or docket, thepurposes of which are to achieve a reductionin recidivism and substance abuse amongnonviolentiii substance abusing offendersand increase the offenders’ likelihood ofsuccessful habilitation. Interventionsinclude early, continuous and intensivejudicially supervised treatment, mandatoryperiodic drug testing, communitysupervision, and the use of appropriatesanctions, incentives and habilitationservices (Bureau of Justice Assistance, 2005).

• Campus Drug Court: Pioneered at ColoradoState University in 2001, Campus DrugCourts (a.k.a. Back on TRAC) adopt theintegrated public health-public safetyprinciples and components of the successfulDrug Court model, and apply them to thecollege environment. These programsspecifically target college students whoseexcessive use of drugs or alcohol havecreated serious consequences for themselvesor others, and are jeopardizing their abilityto complete their college education. Theprograms hold students to a high level ofaccountability while providing long-term,holistic treatment and rigorous compliancemonitoring. They unite campus leaders,student development practitioners,treatment providers and health professionalswith their governmental, judicial andtreatment counterparts in the surroundingcommunity. This partnership can then serveas a hub for comprehensive

campus/community strategies for dealingwith underage and excessive drinking, aswell as illicit drug use (Monchick &Gehring, 2006).

• Community Court: Community Courtsprimarily address “quality of life” crimes,such as petty theft, turnstile jumping,vandalism, loitering and prostitution. Withcommunity boards and the local police aspartners, Community Courts have thebifurcated goal of solving the problems ofthe defendants appearing before the court,while using the leverage of the court toencourage the offenders to give back to theircommunity in compensation for the damagethey and others have caused (Lee, 2000).

• Domestic Violence Court: DomesticViolence Courts are designed to addresstraditional problems confronted in domesticviolence cases (e.g., withdrawn charges byvictims, threats to victims, lack of defendantaccountability, and high recidivism). Theyapply intense judicial scrutiny of thedefendant and close cooperation between thejudiciary and social services. A designatedjudge works with the prosecution, assignedvictim advocates, social services, and thedefense to protect victims from all forms ofintimidation by the defendant or his or herfamily or associates throughout the entiretyof the judicial process; provide victims withhousing and job training, where needed; andcontinuously monitor defendants in terms ofcompliance with protective orders, substanceabuse treatment and other services. Closecollaboration with defense counsel ensurescompliance with due process safeguards andprotects defendants’ rights. One variant ofthis model is the Integrated Domestic

Operational Descriptions of Drug Courts and OtherProblem-Solving Courts

Violence Court, in which a single judgehandles multiple cases relating to one family,which might include criminal actions,protective orders, custody disputes,visitation issues or divorce proceedings(Mazur & Aldrich, 2003).

• DWI Court: A DWI Court is a post-conviction court docket dedicated tochanging the behavior of the alcohol or drug-dependent repeat offender or high-BACoffender arrested for Driving While Impaired(DWI). The goal of the DWI court is toprotect public safety while addressing the rootcauses of impaired driving. DWI Courtsutilize a team of criminal justice professionals(including prosecutors, defense attorneys,probation officers and law enforcement) alongwith substance abuse treatment professionalsto systematically change participant behavior.Like Drug Courts, DWI Courts involveextensive interactions between the judge andthe offenders to hold the offendersaccountable for their compliance with court,supervision and treatment conditions(Huddleston, et al., 2004).

• Family Dependency Treatment Court: FamilyDependency Treatment Court is a juvenile orfamily court docket for cases of child abuse orneglect in which parental substance abuse is acontributing factor. Judges, attorneys, childprotection services, and treatment personnelunite with the goal of providing safe,nurturing, and permanent homes for childrenwhile simultaneously providing parents withthe necessary support and services they needto become drug and alcohol abstinent.Family Dependency Treatment Courts aidparents or guardians in regaining control oftheir lives and promote long term stabilizedrecovery to enhance the possibility of familyreunification within mandatory legaltimeframes (Huddleston, et al., 2005).

• Federal Reentry/Drug Court: FederalReentry/Drug Court is a post-incarceration,cooperative effort of the U.S. District Courts,U.S. Probation Office, Federal PublicDefender and U.S. Attorney’s Office. Theyprovide a blend of treatment and sanctionalternatives to address re-integration into thecommunity for nonviolent, substance-abusingoffenders released from federal prison. Thesecourts typically include early release from theU.S. Bureau of Prisons with a strictsupervised-release regimen. They incorporatethe Key Components of Drug Courts in avoluntary, but contractual, program of intensejudicial supervision and drug testing lasting aminimum of 12 to 18 months. Each programwields court-ordered sanctions for violationsof the offender’s contract for participation aswell as incentives for client success(Huddleston, et al., 2008).

• Gambling Court: Gambling Courts operateunder the same protocols and guidelinesutilized within the Drug Court model, withindividuals who are suffering from apathological or compulsive gamblingdisorder and as a result face criminalcharges. Participants enroll in a contract-based, judicially supervised gamblingrecovery program and are exposed to anarray of services including GamblersAnonymous (GA), extensivepsychotherapeutic intervention, debtcounseling, group and one-on-onecounseling and, if necessary, due to the highrates of co-morbidity, drug or alcoholtreatment. Participation by family membersor domestic partners is encouraged throughdirect participation in counseling withoffenders and the availability of supportprograms such as GAM-ANON. Participantsare subject to the same reporting and courtresponse components as Drug Courtparticipants (Huddleston, et al., 2005).


44

• Gun Court: (NEW DEFINITION) Gun Courtsare typically designed for youths and youngadults who have committed gun offensesthat have not resulted in serious physicalinjury. Gun Court focuses on educatingdefendants about gun safety and provides aninfrastructure for direct and immediateresponses to defendants who violate courtorders. By consolidating all gun cases intoone court docket, the assets needed for aprompt adjudication of these offenses andthe coordination of efforts by numerousagencies and non-profit organizations inreducing the number of illegal guns on thestreets are improved.

• Homeless Court: (NEW DEFINITION)Homeless Courts help homeless peoplecharged with summary or nuisance offensessecure housing and obtain social servicesneeded for stabilization. Participation inservices substitutes for fines and custody.These services include substance abuse andmental health treatment, health care, life-skills, literacy classes, and vocational training.

• Juvenile Drug Court: A Juvenile Drug Courtis a specialized docket within the juvenile orfamily court system, to which selecteddelinquency cases, and in some instancesstatus offenders, are referred for handling bya designated judge. The youths referred tothis docket are identified as having problemswith alcohol and/or other drugs. Thejuvenile Drug Court judge maintains closeoversight of each case through regular statushearings with the parties and theirguardians. The judge both leads and worksas a member of a team comprised ofrepresentatives from treatment, juvenilejustice, social and mental health services,school and vocational training programs, lawenforcement, probation, the prosecution,and the defense. Over the course of a year

or more, the team meets frequently (oftenweekly), determining how best to addressthe substance abuse and related problems ofthe youth and his or her family that havebrought the youth into contact with thejustice system (National Drug CourtInstitute & National Council of Juvenile andFamily Court Judges, 2003).

• Mental Health Court: Modeled after DrugCourts and developed in response to theoverrepresentation of people with mentalillnesses in the criminal justice system,Mental Health Courts divert selectdefendants with mental illnesses intojudicially supervised, community-basedtreatment. Defendants are invited toparticipate following a specialized screeningand assessment, and they may choose todecline participation. For those who agreeto the terms and conditions of community-based supervision, a team of court andmental health professionals work together todevelop treatment plans and supervisesparticipants in the community. Participantsappear at regular status hearings duringwhich incentives are offered to rewardadherence to court conditions, sanctions fornon-adherence are handed down, andtreatment plans and other conditions areperiodically reviewed for appropriateness(Council of State Governments, 2005).

• Reentry Drug Court: Reentry Drug Courtsutilize the Drug Court model, as defined inthe 10 Key Components, to facilitate thereintegration of drug-involved offenders intothe community upon their release from localor state correctional facilities. These aredistinct from "Reentry Courts" (see below)which do not necessarily utilize the DrugCourt model or focus on drug-addictedoffenders, but often do work with similarpopulations. The offender is involved in


45

regular judicial monitoring, intensivetreatment, community supervision, and drugtesting. Participants are provided withspecialized ancillary services needed forsuccessful reentry into the community(Tauber & Huddleston, 1999).

• Reentry Court: (NEW DEFINITION) ReentryCourts seek to stabilize returning paroleesduring the initial phases of their communityreintegration by helping them to find jobs,secure housing, remain drug-free andassume familial and personal responsibilities.Following graduation, participants aretransferred to traditional parole supervisionwhere they may continue to receive casemanagement services voluntarily throughthe Reentry Court. The concept of theReentry Court necessitates considerablecooperation between corrections and localjudiciaries, because it requires thecoordination of the work of prisons inpreparing offenders for release and activelyinvolving community corrections agenciesand various community resources intransitioning offenders back into thecommunity through active judicial oversight(Bureau of Justice Assistance, 2010;Hamilton, 2010).

• Tribal Healing to Wellness Court: A TribalHealing to Wellness Court is not simply atribal court that handles alcohol or otherdrug abuse cases. It is, rather, a componentof the tribal justice system that incorporatesand adapts the wellness concept to meet thespecific substance abuse needs of each tribalcommunity. It provides an opportunity foreach Native American community to addressthe devastation of alcohol or other drugabuse by establishing more structure and ahigher level of accountability for these casesthrough a system of comprehensivesupervision, drug testing, treatment services,

immediate sanctions and incentives, team-based case management, and communitysupport. The team includes not only tribaljudges, advocates, prosecutors, policeofficers, educators, and substance abuse andmental health professionals, but also tribalelders and traditional healers. The conceptborrows from traditional problem-solvingmethods utilized since time immemorial,and restores the person to his or her rightfulplace as a contributing member of the tribalcommunity. The programs utilize the uniquestrengths and history of each tribe, andrealign existing resources available to thecommunity in an atmosphere ofcommunication, cooperation andcollaboration (Native American AllianceFoundation, 2006; Tribal Law & PolicyInstitute, 2003).

• Truancy Court: Truancy Courts aredesigned to assist school-aged children toovercome the underlying causes of truancyby reinforcing and combining efforts fromthe school, courts, mental health providers,families, and the community. Guidancecounselors submit reports on the child’sweekly progress throughout the school yearwhich the court uses to enable specialtesting, counseling, or other necessaryservices. Truancy Court is often held on theschool grounds and results in the ultimatedismissal of truancy petitions if the child canbe helped to attend school regularly. Manycourts have reorganized to form specialtruancy court dockets within the juvenile orfamily court. Consolidation of truancy casesresults in speedier court dates and moreconsistent dispositions and makes courtpersonnel more attuned to the needs oftruant youths and their families. Communityprograms bring together the schools, lawenforcement, social service providers, mentaland physical health care providers and


46

others to help stabilize families and reengageyouth in their education (National Centerfor School Engagement, n.d.; NationalTruancy Prevention Association, 2005).

• Veterans Treatment Court: (NEWDEFINITION) Veterans Treatment Courts use ahybrid integration of Drug Court and MentalHealth Court principles to serve militaryveterans, and sometimes active-dutypersonnel. They promote sobriety, recovery,

and stability through a coordinated responsethat involves collaboration with thetraditional partners found in Drug Courtsand Mental Health Courts, as well as theDepartment of Veterans Affairs healthcarenetworks, Veterans Benefits Administration,State Departments of Veterans Affairs,volunteer veteran mentors, andorganizations that support veterans andveterans’ families (Office of National DrugControl Policy, 2010).


47

State Name Phone Email

Alabama Cheryl Plato-Bryant 866-954-9411, X5127 [email protected] Michelle Bartley 907-264-8250 [email protected] Clifford Ford 602-452-3558 [email protected] Carol Roddy 501-682-9400 [email protected] Nancy Taylor 415-865-7607 [email protected] Shane Bahr 303-837-3618 [email protected] Kimberly Joyner 860-263-2734, X3054 [email protected] Susan Hearn 302-255-0694 [email protected] of Columbia Terrence Walton 202-220-5510 [email protected] Jennifer Grandal 850-922-5101 [email protected] Marla Moore 404-656-5171 [email protected] Jeannette Quintanilla 671-475-3373 [email protected] Hawaii Ronald Ibarra 808-443-2210 [email protected] Norma Jaeger 208-947-7406 [email protected] Janet Leone 309-558-3710 [email protected] Mary Kay Hudson 317-234-0106 [email protected] John Goerdt 515-242-0193 [email protected] Jared Harsin 785-233-8200, X4221 [email protected] Connie Payne 502-573-2350 [email protected] Julia Spear 504-568-2025 [email protected] Lindsay Camire 207-287-7405 [email protected] Gray Barton 410-260-3617 [email protected] Kerin Raymond 978-772-1846 [email protected] Richard Woods, Jr. 517-373-5623 [email protected] James Eberspacher 651-297-7607 [email protected] Joey Craft 601-576-4631 [email protected] Rick Morrisey 573-526-8825 [email protected] Jeffrey Kushner 406-841-2949 [email protected] Scott Carlson 402-471-4415 [email protected] Vicki Elefante 775-687-9807 [email protected] Hampshire Raymond Bilodeau 603-271-6418 [email protected] Jersey Carol Venditto 609-292-3488 [email protected] Mexico Peter Bochert 505-827-4834 [email protected] York Frank Jordan 315-466-7167 [email protected] Carolina Kirstin Frescoln 919-890-1207 [email protected] Dakota Marilyn Moe 701-328-2198 [email protected] Melissa Knopp 614-387-9425 [email protected] Jack Kelly 405-522-8993 [email protected] Oregon Janet Holcomb 541-766-6843 [email protected] Karen Blackburn 215-560-6300, X6338 [email protected] Rico Josephine Vivoni 787-641-6283 [email protected] Rhode Island Matthew Weldon 401-222-6832 [email protected] Carolina Adriane Radeker 803-734-1822 [email protected] Dakota Michael Pisciotta 605-347-7648 [email protected] Marie Crosson 615-253-2037 [email protected] Scott Hutchinson 512-463-1919 [email protected] Richard Schwermer 801-578-3816 [email protected] Karen Gennette 802-747-8659 [email protected] Islands Darryl Donohue 340-693-6412 [email protected] Virginia Anna Powers 804-786-3321 [email protected] Earl Long 360-725-9985 [email protected] Virginia Linda Artimez 304-541-1906 [email protected] Erin Slattengren 608-261-0684 [email protected] Wyoming Enid White 307-777-6885 [email protected]

Primary State Points of Contact Survey Respondents (December 2009)

Table 10


48

Center for Court Innovation –(www.problem-solvingcourts.org)

Council of State Governments –(www.consensusproject.org)

Children and Family Futures –(www.cffutures.org)

Justice Management Institute –(www.jmijustice.org)

Justice Programs Office of the School ofPublic Affairs at American University –(www.spa.american.edu/justice/)

Justice for Vets – (www.justiceforvets.org)

JBS International, Inc.–(www.jbsinternational.com)

National Association of Drug CourtProfessionals – ( www.allrise.org)

National Center for DWI Courts –(www.DWIcourts.org)

National Center for State Courts –(www.ncsconline.org)

National Council of Juvenile and FamilyCourt Judges – (www.ncjfcj.org)

National Drug Court Institute –(www.ndci.org)

The National GAINS Center –(www.gainscenter.samhsa.gov)

The National Judicial College –(www.judges.org)

Tribal Law and Policy Institute –(www.tlpi.org)

Resource Organizations

The following organizations serve in an official capacity as a resource for Drug Courts andother Problem-Solving Courts. This list represents any national organization that receivesfederal funding for such activities.


49

Aos, S., Miller, M., & Drake, E. (2006). Evidence-based public policy options to reduce futureprison construction, criminal justice costs, and crime rates. Olympia, WA: Washington StateInstitute for Public Policy.

Ashford, J. (2004). Treating substance abusing parents: A study of the Pima County FamilyDrug Court approach. Juvenile & Family Court Journal, 55, 27-37.

Barnoski, R,. & Aos, S. (2003). Washington State’s Drug Courts for adult defendants: Outcomeevaluation and cost-benefit analysis. Olympia, WA: Washington State Institute for Public Policy.

Belenko, S., Patapis, N., & French, M. T. (2005). Economic benefits of drug treatment: A criticalreview of the evidence for policy makers. Missouri Foundation for Health, National RuralAlcohol & Drug Abuse Network.

Berman, G. & Feinblatt, J. (2005). Good courts: The case for problem-solving justice. New York,NY: The New Press.

Bhati, A. S., Roman, J. K., & Chalfin, A. (2008). To treat or not to treat: Evidence on the prospectsof expanding treatment to drug-involved offenders. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.

Boles, S., Young, N. K., Moore, T., & DiPirro-Beard, S. (2007). The Sacramento DependencyDrug Court: Development and outcomes. Child Maltreatment, 12, 161-171.

Bouffard, J. A., & Richardson, K. A. (2007). The effectiveness of Drug Court programming forspecific kinds of offenders: Methamphetamine and DWI offenders versus other drug-involved offenders. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 18, 274-293.

Bouffard, J. A., Richardson, K. A., & Franklin, T. (2010). Drug Courts for DWI offenders? Theeffectiveness of two hybrid Drug Courts on DWI offenders. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38,25-33.

Breckenridge, J. F., Winfree, L. T., Maupin, J. R., & Clason, D. L. (2000). Drunk drivers, DWI“Drug Court” treatment, and recidivism: Who fails? Justice Research & Policy, 2, 87-105.

Bureau of Justice Assistance. (2005). Drug Court discretionary grant program: FY 2005 resourceguide for Drug Court applicants. Washington, DC: Author.

Bureau of Justice Assistance. (2010). Second Chance Act State, Local, and Tribal Reentry CourtsFY 2010 Competitive Grant Announcement. Washington, DC: Author.

Carey, S. M., Finigan, M., Crumpton, D., & Waller, M. (2006a). 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.

Carey, S. M., Waller, M., & Marchand, G. (2006b). Clackamas County juvenile Drug Courtenhancement: Process, outcome/impact and cost evaluation: Final report. Portland, OR: NPCResearch. Retrieved from www.npcresearch.com.

Carey, S. M., Finigan, M. W., & Pukstas, K. (2008). Exploring the key components of DrugCourts: A comparative study of 18 adult Drug Courts on practices, outcomes and costs.Portland, OR: NPC Research. Retrieved from www.npcresearch.com.

References


50

Carey, S. M., Sanders, M. B., Waller, M. S., Burrus, S. W. M., & Aborn, J. (2010a). MarionCounty Fostering Attachment Treatment Court Process, Outcome and Cost Evaluation (FamilyDrug Court). Submitted to the Oregon Criminal Justice Commission and the Office ofJustice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance.

Carey, S. M., Sanders, M. B., Waller, M. S., Burrus, S. W. M., & Aborn, J. (2010b). JacksonCounty Community Family Court Process, Outcome and Cost Evaluation – Final Report.Submitted to the Oregon Criminal Justice Commission and the Office of Justice Programs,U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance.

Carey S. M., Waller, M., & Weller, J. (in press). California Drug Court cost study - Phase III:Statewide costs and promising practices, final report. Portland, OR: NPC Research.

Cissner, A. B. (2009). The Drug Court model and persistent DWI: An evaluation of the Erie andNiagara DWI/Drug Courts. New York, NY: Center for Court Innovation.

Cooper, C. S., Franklin, B., & Mease, T. (2010, April). Establishing drug treatment courts:Strategies, experiences and preliminary outcomes. Washington, DC: American University,School of Public Affairs, Justice Programs office. Retrieved from www.oas.org.

Crumpton, D., Worcel, S. D., & Finigan, M. W. (2003). Analysis of foster care costs from theFamily Treatment Drug Court Retrospective Study: San Diego County. Portland, OR: NPCResearch. Retrieved from www.npcresearch.com.

Council of State Governments. (2005). What is a mental health court? New York, NY: Author.

Downey, P. M., & Roman, J. K. (2010). A Bayesian meta-analysis of drug court cost-effectiveness.Washington DC: The Urban Institute.

Drug Policy Alliance. (2011). Drug courts not the answer: Toward a health-centered approach todrug use. Los Angeles: Author.

Farole, D. J., & Cissner, A. B. (2007). Seeing eye to eye: Participant and staff perspectives onDrug Courts. In G. Berman, M. Rempel & R. V. Wolf (Eds.), Documenting Results: Researchon Problem-Solving Justice (pp. 51-73). New York: Center for Court Innovation.

Festinger, D. S., DeMatteo, D. S., Marlowe, D. B., & Lee, P. A. (2005). Expungement of arrestrecords in drug court: Do clients know what they’re missing? Drug Court Review, 5 (1), 1-21.

Festinger, D. S., Marlowe, D. B., Lee, P. A., Kirby, K. C., Bovasso, G., & McLellan, A. T. (2002).Status hearings in Drug Court: When more is less and less is more. Drug & AlcoholDependence, 68, 151-157.

Fielding, J. E., Tye, G., Ogawa, P. L., Imam, I. J., & Long, A. M. (2002). Los Angeles CountyDrug Court programs: Initial results. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 23, 217-224.

Finigan, M., Carey, S. M., & Cox, A. (2007). The impact of a mature Drug Court over 10 yearsof operation: Recidivism and costs. Portland, OR: NPC Research. Available atwww.npcresearch.com.

Galloway, J. (2011, Jan. 10). Gov. Nathan Deal: “Drug addiction draining our treasury.”Atlanta Journal-Constitution. At http://blogs.ajc.com/political-insider-jim-galloway/2011/01/10/nathan-deal-drug-addiction- draining-our-treasury/ (retrieved1/20/2011).

Glaze, L. E., & Bonczar, T. P. (2007). Probation and parole in the United States, 2006 [NCJ220218]. Washington DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.


51

Goldkamp, J. S., White, M. D., & Robinson, J. B. (2002). An honest chance: Perspectives onDrug Courts. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 6, 369-372.

Gottfredson, D. C., Kearley, B. W., Najaka, S. S., & Rocha, C. M. (2005). The Baltimore City DrugTreatment Court: 3-year outcome study. Evaluation Review, 29, 42-64.

Gottfredson, D. C., Najaka, S. S., Kearley, B. W., & Rocha, C. M. (2006). Long-term effects ofparticipation in the Baltimore City drug treatment court: Results from an experimentalstudy. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 2, 67-98.

Green, B. L., Furrer, C. J., Worcel., S. D., Burrus, S. W. M., & Finigan, M. W. (2009). Buildingthe evidence base for Family Drug Treatment Courts: Results from recent outcome studies.Drug Court Review, 6, 53-82.

Hamilton, Z. (2010). Do Reentry Courts reduce recidivism? Results from the Harlem ParoleReentry Court. New York: Center for Court Innovation. Retrieved fromhttp://www.courtinnovation.org/_uploads/documents/Reentry_Evaluation.pdf.

Harrell, A., & Roman, J. (2001). Reducing drug use and crime among offenders: The impactof graduated sanctions. Journal of Drug Issues, 31, 207-232.

Hawken, A., & Kleiman, M. (2009). Managing drug involved probationers with swift andcertain sanctions: Evaluating Hawaii’s HOPE [NCJRS no. 229023]. Washington DC:National Institute of Justice. Retrieved fromhttp://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/229023.pdf.

Heck, C. (2006). Local Drug Court research: Navigating performance measures and processevaluations. Alexandria, VA: National Drug Court Institute. Available at www.ALLRISE.org.

Heck, C. (2008). MRT: Critical component of a local Drug Court program. CognitiveBehavioral Treatment Review, 17(1), 1-2.

Henggeler, S. W., Halliday-Boykins, C. A., Cunningham, P. B., Randall, J., Shapiro, S. B., &Chapman, J. E. (2006). Juvenile Drug Court: Enhancing outcomes by integrating evidence-based treatments. Journal of Consulting & Clinical Psychology, 74, 42-54.

Hickert, A. O., Becker, E. E., & Prospero, M. (2010). Evaluation of Utah juvenile Drug Courts:Final report. Utah Criminal Justice Center, University of Utah.

Hiller, M. L., & Samuelson, B. (2008). Waukesha County alcohol treatment court: Animplementation evaluation. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University, Dept. of Criminal Justice.

Hiller, M., Saum, C., Taylor, L., Watson, C., Hayes, W., & Samuelson, B. (2009). WaukeshaAlcohol Treatment Court (WATC): Process and outcomes. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University,Dept. of Criminal Justice.

Hoffman, M. B. (2000). The Drug Court scandal. North Carolina Law Review, 78, 1437-1534.

Huddleston, C. W., Freeman-Wilson, K., & Boone, D. L. (2004). Painting the Current Picture:A National Report Card on Drug Courts and Other Problem-Solving Court Programs in theUnited States. Alexandria, VA: National Drug Court Institute.

Huddleston, C. W., Freeman-Wilson, K., Marlowe, D. B., & Roussell, A. (2005). Painting theCurrent Picture: A National Report Card on Drug Courts and Other Problem-Solving CourtPrograms in the United States. Alexandria, VA: National Drug Court Institute.


52

Huddleston, C. W., Marlowe, D. B., & Casebolt, R. (2008). Painting the Current Picture: ANational Report Card on Drug Courts and Other Problem-Solving Court Programs in the UnitedStates. Alexandria, VA: National Drug Court Institute.

Justice Policy Institute. (2011). Addicted to courts: How a growing dependence on drug courtsimpacts people and communities. Washington DC: Author.

Kirchner, R. A., & Goodman, E. (2007). Effectiveness and impact of Thurston County,Washington Drug Court program. Cognitive Behavioral Treatment Review, 16(2), 1-4.

Kralstein, D. (2010). The impact on drug use and other psychosocial outcomes: Results from NIJ’sMultisite Adult Drug Court Evaluation. Presentation at the 16th Annual Training Conferenceof the National Association of Drug Court Professionals, Boston, MA.

Latimer, J., Morton-Bourgon, K., & Chretien, J. (2006). A meta-analytic examination of drugtreatment courts: Do they reduce recidivism? Canada Dept. of Justice, Research & StatisticsDivision.

Lee, E. (2000). Community courts: An evolving model. Washington, DC: Bureau of JusticeAssistance.

Levin, M. (2006). Drug Courts: The right prescription for Texas. Austin, TX: Texas Public PolicyFoundation, Center for Effective Justice.

Lindquist, C. H., Krebs, C. P., & Lattimore, P. K. (2006). Sanctions and rewards in Drug Courtprograms: Implementation, perceived efficacy, and decision making. Journal of Drug Issues,36, 119-146.

Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Logan, T. K., Hoyt, W., McCollister, K. E., French, M. T., Leukefeld, C., & Minton, L. (2004).Economic evaluation of Drug Court: Methodology, results, and policy implications.Evaluation & Program Planning, 27, 381-396.

Loman, L. A. (2004). A cost-benefit analysis of the St. Louis City Adult Felony Drug Court. St.Louis, MO: Institute of Applied Research.

Lowenkamp, C. T., Holsinger, A. M., & Latessa, E. J. (2005). Are Drug Courts effective? Ameta-analytic review. Journal of Community Corrections, Fall, 5-28.

MacDonald, J. M., Morral, A. R., Raymond, B., & Eibner, C. (2007). The efficacy of the RioHondo DUI Court: A 2-year field experiment. Evaluation Review, 31, 4-23.

MacKenzie, D. L. (2006). What works in corrections: Reducing the criminal activities of offendersand delinquents. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Marinelli-Casey, P., Gonzales, R., Hillhouse, M., Ang, A., Zweben, J., Cohen, J., Hora, P. F., &Rawson, R. A. (2008). Drug Court treatment for methamphetamine dependence: Treatmentresponse and post-treatment outcomes. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 34, 242-248.

Marlowe, D. B. (2009a). Introductory handbook for DWI Court program evaluations. Alexandria,VA: National Drug Court Institute & National Center for DWI Courts. Available atwww.ALLRISE.org.

Marlowe, D. B. (2009b). Evidence-based sentencing for drug offenders: An analysis ofprognostic risks and criminogenic needs. Chapman Journal of Criminal Justice, 1, 167-201.


53

Marlowe, D. B., Festinger, D. S., & Lee, P. A. (2003). The role of judicial status hearings inDrug Court. Offender Substance Abuse Report, 3, 33-34, 44-46.

Marlowe, D. B., Festinger, D. S., Arabia, P. L., Croft, J. R., Patapis, N. S., & Dugosh, K. L.(2009). A systematic review of DWI court program evaluations. Drug Court Review, 6, 1-52.

Marlowe, D. B., Festinger, D. S., Dugosh, K. L., Arabia, P. L., & Kirby, K. C. (2008). Aneffectiveness trial of contingency management in a felony pre-adjudication Drug Court.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 41, 565-577.

Marlowe, D. B., Festinger, D. S., Dugosh, K. L., Lee, P. A., & Benasutti, K. M. (2007).Adapting judicial supervision to the risk level of drug offenders: Discharge and six-monthoutcomes from a prospective matching study. Drug & Alcohol Dependence, 88S, 4-13.

Marlowe, D. B., Festinger, D. S., & Lee, P. A. (2004). The judge is a key component of DrugCourt. Drug Court Review, 4 (2), 1-34.

Marlowe, D. B., Festinger, D. S., Lee, P. A., Dugosh, K. L., & Benasutti, K. M. (2006).Matching judicial supervision to clients’ risk status in Drug Court. Crime & Delinquency, 52,52-76.

Mauer, M. (2009). The changing racial dynamics of the War on Drugs. Washington, DC: TheSentencing Project.

Mazur, R., & Aldrich, L. (2003). What makes a domestic violence court work? Lessons fromNew York. American Bar Association Journal, 42(2), 5-9, 41-42.

Meyer, W. G., & Ritter, A. W. (2002). Drug courts work. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 14, 179-185.

Michigan State Court Administrative Office, & NPC, Research. (2007). Michigan DUI Courtsoutcome evaluation: Final Report. Portland, OR & Lansing, MI: Authors. Retrieved fromhttp://www.npcresearch.com/Files/MI_DUI_Outcome_Evaluation_FINAL.pdf.

Monchick, R. and Gehring, D. (2006, February). Back on TRAC: Treatment, responsibility, &accountability on campus. Paper presented at the 27th Annual National Conference on Law andHigher Education, Clearwater Beach, FL.

Mumula, C. J. (2000). Veterans in Jails or Prisons. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Native American Alliance Foundation. (n.d.). Tribal healing to wellness court. RetrievedSeptember 22, 2006 from http://www.native-alliance.org/tdc.html.

National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. (2009). America’s Problem-Solving Courts:The criminal costs of treatment and the case for reform. Washington DC: Author.

National Association of Drug Court Professionals. (1997). Defining Drug Courts: The keycomponents. Washington, DC: Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Dept. of Justice.

National Center for School Engagement. (n.d.). Truancy. Retrieved September 22, 2006 fromhttp://www.schoolengagement.org/index.cfm/Truancy.

National Drug Court Institute & National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges. (2003).Juvenile Drug Courts: Strategies in practice. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Assistance.

National Institute of Justice. (2006). Drug Courts: The second decade [NCJ 211081].Washington DC: Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Dept. of Justice.


54

National Truancy Prevention Association. (2005). Retrieved fromhttp://www.truancypreventionassociation.com.

National Youth Court Center. (2006). National Listing of Youth Courts. Retrieved August 23,2006, from http://www.youthcourt.net/national_listing/overview.htm.

Office of National Drug Control Policy. (2010). National Drug Control Strategy 2010. [NCJ229210]. Washington, DC: Executive Office of the President.

Pew Center on the States. (2008). One in 100: Behind Bars in America 2008.

Pukstas K (2007). Encouraging evidence of effectiveness and cost efficiency from a Marylandjuvenile Drug Court. Presentation at American Society of Criminology. Portland, OR: NPCResearch. Available at www.npcresearch.com.

Rempel, M., & Green, M. (2009). Do Drug Courts reduce crime and produce psychosocialbenefits? Presentation at the 2009 Annual Conference of the American Society ofCriminology, Philadelphia, PA.

Rempel, M., Fox-Kralstein, D., Cissner, A., Cohen, R., Labriola, M., Farole, D., Bader, A., &Magnani, M. (2003). The New York State adult drug court evaluation: Policies, participants,and impacts. New York, NY: Center for Court Innovation.

Rossman, S. B., Green, M., & Rempel, M. (2009). Substance abuse findings from the Multi-SiteAdult Drug Court Evaluation (MADCE). Presentation at the 2009 Annual Conference of theAmerican Society of Criminology, Philadelphia, PA.

Salvatore S., Henderson, J. S., Hiller, M. L., White, E., & Samuelson, B. (2010). Anobservational study of team meetings and status hearings in a juvenile Drug Court. DrugCourt Review, VII (1), 95-124.

Saum, C. A., & Hiller, M. L. (2008). Should violent offenders be excluded from drug courtparticipation? An examination of the recidivism of violent and nonviolent drug court participantsCriminal Justice Review, 33, 291-307.

Saum, C. A., Scarpitti, F. R., & Robbins, C. A. (2001). Violent offenders in drug court. Journalof Drug Issues, 31, 107-128.

Schaeffer, C. M., Henggeler, S. W., Chapman, J. E., Halliday-Boykins, C. A., Cunningham, P. B.,Randall, J., & Shapiro, S. B. (2010). Mechanisms of effectiveness in juvenile Drug Court:Altering risk processes associated with delinquency and substance abuse. Drug CourtReview, VII(1), 57-94.

Shaffer, D. K. (2006). Reconsidering Drug Court effectiveness: A meta-analytic review [DoctoralDissertation]. Reno: Dept. of Criminal Justice, University of Nevada.

Shaffer, D. K., Listwan, S. J., Latessa, E. J. & Lowenkamp, C. T. (2008). Examining thedifferential impact of Drug Court services by court type: Findings from Ohio. Drug CourtReview, 6, 33-66.

Tanielian, T.L., & Jaycox, L.H. (Eds.). (2008). Invisible wounds of war: Psychological andcognitive injuries, their consequences, and services to assist recovery. Santa Monica, CA: RANDCorporation.

Tauber, J., & Huddleston, C. W. (1999). Reentry Drug Courts: Closing the gap. Alexandria,VA: National Drug Court Institute.


55

Turner, S., Greenwood, P. Fain, T., & Deschenes, E. (1999). Perceptions of Drug Court: Howoffenders view ease of program completion, strengths and weaknesses, and the impact on theirlives. National Drug Court Institute Review, 2, 61-85.

Tremmel, P. (2009). Report: New York Offers Model for Cutting Crime and Costs in Illinois.Retrieved from http://www.northwestern.edu/newscenter/stories/2009/06/crrimestudy.html.

University of California, Los Angeles. (2007). Evaluation of the Substance Abuse and CrimePrevention Act: Final Report. UCLA Integrated Substance Abuse Programs.

U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2005). Adult Drug Courts: Evidence indicatesrecidivism reductions and mixed results for other outcomes [No. GAO-05-219]. Washington,DC: Author.

Vito, G. F., & Tewksbury, R. A. (1998). The impact of treatment: The Jefferson County(Kentucky) Drug Court program. Federal Probation, 62, 46-51.

Wilson, D. B., Mitchell, O., & MacKenzie, D. L. (2006). A systematic review of Drug Courteffects on recidivism. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 2, 459-487.


56

Endnotesi Negative results for DWI Courts have also been reported when participants were followed

for too short a time to allow recidivism events to occur and be detected by law enforcement(e.g., Cissner, 2009). Recidivism tends to be low during the first several months after arrest,especially when offenders are under the supervision of a DWI Court or probationdepartment. It is exceedingly difficult to discern differences in outcomes under theseconditions due to what is called a statistical floor effect. Finally, sample sizes in manyevaluations have been too small to detect significant effects. With only 30 or so participantsper group, some studies were only capable of detecting large effects (e.g., Breckenridge etal., 2000), whereas medium effects were more likely to be encountered but were stillclinically meaningful and important.

ii Most of the research on best practices in Drug Courts has focused on Adult Drug Courts.Research on best practices is still in its infancy for other types of Drug Court programs, butearly lessons are beginning to emerge. In JDCs, for example, it appears important not onlyfor youths to attend status hearings, but their parents or guardians as well. Results of onecorrelational study revealed that the more often caregivers attended status hearings, the lessoften the juveniles were late to or absent from treatment, were tardy or absent from school,provided positive drug tests, or received sanctions for behavioral infractions (Salvatore et al.,2010). Evidence from other studies suggests JDCs may achieve their effects largely byteaching parents and caregivers how to more effectively supervise their teens and applyappropriate discipline (Schaeffer et al., 2010). Status hearings might serve these goals bygiving parents the opportunity to observe the judge and other team members responding totransgressions, rewarding progress and de-escalating confrontational interactions.

iii The authorization language in the Omnibus Crime Bill, and in some state statutes, prohibitsthe inclusion of violent offenders in Drug Courts, although the definition of “violence”varies across jurisdictions. Research, however, demonstrates that otherwise eligible violentoffenders perform equally as well, and sometimes better, in Drug Courts than nonviolentoffenders (Carey et al., 2008; Saum & Hiller, 2008; Saum et al., 2001). Furthermore, sincehigh risk/high need populations have been determined to be the most appropriately suitedpopulation for Drug Courts, individuals with charges or convictions involving violence areincreasingly being considered as potentially eligible Drug Court participants, especiallywhen the Drug Court can provide more accountability and stricter oversight than alternativedispositions for these individuals.


57

Notes

58


About the Office of National Drug Control Policy (www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov)The White House Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), a component of the ExecutiveOffice of the President, was established by the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988. The principal purposeof ONDCP is to establish policies, priorities, and objectives for the Nation’s drug control program.The goals of the program are to reduce illicit drug use, manufacturing, and trafficking, drug-relatedcrime and violence, and drug related health consequences. To achieve these goals, the Director ofONDCP is charged with producing the National Drug Control Strategy. The Strategy directs theNation’s anti-drug efforts and establishes a program, a budget, and guidelines for cooperation amongFederal, State, and local entities. By law, the Director of ONDCP also evaluates, coordinates, andoversees both the international and domestic anti-drug efforts of executive branch agencies andensures that such efforts sustain and complement State and local anti-drug activities. The Directoradvises the President regarding changes in the organization, management, budgeting, and personnelof Federal Agencies that could affect the Nation’s anti-drug efforts and regarding Federal agencycompliance with their obligations under the Strategy.

About the Bureau of Justice Assistance (www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bja)The Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice,supports law enforcement, courts, corrections, treatment, victim services, technology, and preventioninitiatives that strengthen the nation’s criminal justice system. BJA provides leadership, services, andfunding to America’s communities by emphasizing local control; building relationships in the field;developing collaborations and partnerships; promoting capacity building through planning;streamlining the administration of grants; increasing training and technical assistance; creatingaccountability of projects; encouraging innovation; and ultimately communicating the value ofjustice efforts to decision makers at every level.

About the National Association of Drug Court Professionals (www.nadcp.org)The National Association of Drug Court Professionals (NADCP) was established in 1994 as the premiernational membership and advocacy organization for drug courts. Representing over 25,000 drug courtprofessionals and community leaders, NADCP provides a strong and unified voice to our nation’sleadership. By impacting policy and legislation, NADCP creates a vision of a reformed criminal justicesystem. NADCP’s mission is to reduce substance abuse, crime, and recidivism by promoting andadvocating for the establishment and funding of drug courts and providing for the collection anddissemination of information, technical assistance, and mutual support to association members.

About the National Drug Court Institute (www.ndci.org)The National Drug Court Institute (NDCI) is the educational, research and scholarship arm of theNational Association of Drug Court Professionals (NADCP), and is funded by the White HouseOffice of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP); the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), U.S.Department of Justice; and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), U.S.Department of Transportation. In addition to staging over 130 state of the art training events eachyear, NDCI provides on-site technical assistance and relevant research and scholastic information todrug courts throughout the nation.

PAINTING THE CURRENT PICTURE:A NATIONAL REPORT ON DRUG COURTS

AND OTHER PROBLEM-SOLVING COURT

PROGRAMS IN THE UNITED STATES

West Huddleston


1029 N. Royal Street, Suite 201Alexandria, VA 22314

(703) 575-94001-877-507-3229

(703) 575-9402 Faxwww.ndci.org

JULY 2011

a national report on drug courts - ndci.org

Documents