U.S. D

epartment of Justice

Office of Justice Program

s

National Institute ofJustice

Michael J. R

ussell,Acting D

irector D

ecember 1993

Assessin

g th

e Imp

act o

f Dad

e Cou

ntv

's

The extraordinary

growth in the drug-

related criminal caseload during the 1980's

and the perceived impact of illicit drugs on

public safety in Dade C

ounty prompted

Florida's Eleventh Judicial C

ircuit to im

plement a court-based

drug abuse treat-m

ent approach. The innovation w

as guided

P'y the notion that an effective and flexible

, ,im

grarn of court-superviseddrug treat-m

ent could reduce demand for illicit drugs

and hence involvement in crim

e and reinvolvem

ent in the court system by

substance abusers.

by John S. Goldkarnp and D

oris Weiland

What has com

e to be known as the "M

iami

Drug C

ourt model" has tw

o principal com-

ponents-a nontraditional role for officials

in the courtroom and a specially adapted

program of "outpatient" drug abuse treat-

ment.' O

ther diversion approachesrefer drug defendants to treatm

ent programs, but

the courtroom-based

team approach-and

particularly the centraljudicial role---dis-tinguishes D

ade County's initiative.

Research questions

The em

pirical assessmentof the D

rug C

ourt initiative had three basic purposes:

To exam

ine the program's im

pact in the E

leventh Judicial Circuit.

To serve as a factual basis for inform

ing the C

ircuit Court and participating agen-

cies on ways to im

prove or reshape, if nec-essary, the program

in its next phases.

Felo

ny D

rug C

ou

rt

issuesand Findings

Discussed in this E

valuahahonBulk-

tin. Florida's Eleventh Judicial

Circuit in 1989

adopted a court-based approach to treatm

ent for felony drug abuse in D

ade County

(Miam

i).This research study as-

sessed the program.

Key issues: T

he treatment approach,

helping defendants function more

normally in society,can conflict w

ith the crim

inaljustice approach,for re-ducing crim

e and improving

public safety. M

easuring a program's suc-

cess is thus a policy issue for public officials to decide. E

stablishingclear

expectations and criteria for program

outcomes should be done before a

program is im

plemented and should

be modified, if necessary, on the

basis of program experience.

Majorpndings. T

he researchers focused on defendants over an 18-m

onthperiod and com

pared them

to similar defendants not in the pro-

gram. T

hey found the Drug C

ourt defendants had:

+ Fewer cases dropped.

+ Low

er incarceration rates.

+ Less frequent rearrests.

+ Longer tim

es to rearrest.

+ Higher failure-to-appearrates,

caused mainly by the m

ore frequent appearancesrequired of D

rug C

ourt defendants.

Strengthsof the Dade C

ounty Drug

Court system

included strong support

To share w

ith the comm

unity of A

merican courts lessons other court

systems could draw

from study of the

Miam

i Model.

for the Drug C

ourt from all participants

in the criminaljustice system

, an active judicial role, specially designed treat-m

ent programs, and a flexible approach

to program participants' problem

behavior.

Key challenges for a drug court

program identified by the researchers

confront the Dade C

ounty program

and have implicationsfor other

jurisdictions:

+ Need for fast, accurate inform

ation about defendants.

+ A clearly defined target population

for the program, w

hich should avoid net w

idening and help set the basis for screening criteria.

+ Need for different treatm

ent plans for different levels and types of drug abuse.

A B

rief Xistory of

the Miam

iDrug C

oufi

Since 1989,w

hen the Drug C

ourt first visits or as

mm

y days

r opened, d

efe

nh

ts have been referred to achieve 7 consecutivenegaril

primarily to the D

AW

(diversion and tests. In phase

the numkr of req

us~

u

rreament progrm

), an outpatient pro-visits w

as genemlly reduced to e

e

or

gram w

ith centers in four locations in even tw

o per week, w

ith a mine test at

Dade C

ounty. There w

as also an option each visit. D

uring phaw 111, a~

end

ance

for defendants who lived in other juris-

requ

i~m

entsm

ight continueto be The dictions to participate in @

am

en

tpra-sam

e or, given a client's progess and gram

s outside Dade C

ounty aslong as

work scheduleor school obligations,

regular reports were m

ade to the court. relaxed som

ewhat.

The D

rug Court w

as initially designed l'hree consecutive un:

l failures to accept defendm

ts charged with

to keep roquirsdclinic ilyt~

uu~unenls

at third-degree felony drug possession

any time w

ould result in the client's

offenses and no prior convictions. placem

ent in "p

hw

V"-infom

d suspension. A

client rewin

g after

The D

AT

P drug abuse rream

ent pro-such an absence

would be reinsm

ted in gram

required panicipation

whatever

he or had been in. If

drug-invo'ved felony defendant' "'"8 a client failed to appear f

ar

consecu-w

hich the defendant would proceed

cive days, DA

TP

was required in

from detoxification (phase I), to coun-

compliance

Slateregulations to seling (phase 111, to educationdl/voca-

close C

lienlswere

assessment and E

Gning (phase

comm

only after such an en-

'''), and then ''

graduation (phase lV)'

tended absence, hilt they were required

Phase I was intended to require a m

ini-la start over in phase 1.

mum

of 12consecutive days of clinic

-T

o accomplish these research aim

s, data collection for the assessm

ent focused on these areas of inquiry:

The im

pact of Drug C

ourt on criminal

processing, including its identification and enrollm

ent of defendants who other-

wise w

ould have been adjudicated in the norm

al fashion.

Com

parison of Drug C

ourt defendant case outcom

es with those of defendants

who faced charges of sim

ilar severity both before the D

rug Court initiative (during the

summ

er of 1987)and at the time of the

study (August and Septem

ber 1990).

Performance of D

rug Court defendants,

including treatment program

outcomes.

Public safety implications of the D

rug C

ourt program.

Research design. U

se of an experimental

design to study the impact of the D

rug C

ourt was precluded for practical reasons.

qu

id

ve urine

.,

The court had already been in operation al-

most 2 years, and random

allocation of de-fendants to treatm

ent and experimental

groups would have too greatly disrupted

the ongoing program. Instead, researchers

designed a next best approach that focused on (nonequivalent)com

parison groups of relevant felony defendants to help gauge the effect of the program

. These included

contemporaneous and historically anteced-

ent samples of noneligible felony drug

cases and nondrug cases.l

The initial and principal sam

ple was a co-

hort of defendants admitted to the D

rug C

ourt program in A

ugust and September

1990.This group is identified as S

ample I

(n = 326) in exhibit I. Selection of the

sample period w

as guided by two con-

cerns: a) to ensure that the study would

fairly examine the program

at a stage som

etime after its im

plementation

"in-fancy"; and b) to perm

it use of a sufficient

observation or followup period (1 8

months) for study of defendant perfor-

mance from

the point of admission to

the program.

Defining and m

easuring "success":a policy concern

The E

leventh Circuit's D

rug Court is a hy-

brid combining elem

ents of both crirnina! justice and drug treatm

ent approaches to address an im

portant portion of the drug-involved population am

ong criminal

offenders (defendants in this case). Key

elements include the special role for judge

and criminal courtroom

personnel, the fun-dam

ental treatment orientation, and the

diversion-like framew

ork.

This attem

pt to integrate disparate ele-m

ents has meant joining tw

o perspectives accustom

ed to different methods and

sometim

es competing aim

s regarding drug involvem

ent and its reduction. The result-

ing uneasy marriage of crim

inaljustice and drug treatm

ent goals embodied in the D

ade C

ounty initiative complicated design of an

empirical assessm

ent.

Adapting the courtroom

setting to assist the aim

s of treatment is not necessarily

compatible w

ith the usually more form

at and adversarial aim

s and procedures of crim

inaljustice. From the view

point of drug abuse treatm

ent, the drug court seeks to reduce drug abuse so that defendants can function norm

ally in society. From the

criminal court perspective, the program

tries to reduce the im

pact of the drug caseload on case processing resources di-verting the flow

of cases,reducing drug crim

e among participants, and thus im

-proving public safety.

In contrast, a treatment perspective w

ould probably not view

a "three striker" ap-proach to program

compliance as realistic.

Indeed, treatment staff w

ould understand that, to the extent that serious drug abusers are encouraged to enter the program

, the road to progress ir likely to be very diffi-cult, w

ith initial failures routinely to be ex-pected. T

hir difference in perspectives translates into differences in expectations fi about the perfom

lance of drug court

PExhibit 1. D

efendant-Based S

ampling S

trategy for Evaluation

of Dade C

ounty Felony "Drug C

ourt"

Potential P

opulation

kdawea

wefarw

ants

Relevan

Felony 2&

(6

Sum

mary of S

amples

I Drug C

ourt In DA

TP

(100%, n=326)

II AssignedJN

ot-In DA

TP

(100% n=89)

Ill Drug C

aseINot A

ssigned (10%

, n=199) IV

Non-D

rugC

aseINot E

ligible (5%

, n=185) V

1987 F

3 & F

2 Drug

(n=302) V

I 1987 F

3 & F

2 Non-D

rug (n=536)

Dlug

Defen.-

-

As

we

d'

In Drug

Court

5% S

ample

Pre-D

rug Court

Sam

ple 1987

F3 &

F2

F3 &

F2

Cases

(n=838) Including F

ollow-up

0th

~Cases Mot

No

te 1: Th

~scategory lncludes flve defendants

ad

m~

ttedafter the

from A

ug.-Sepf. 1990

sample p

er~

odand not Included

~nthe counts below

No

te 2: One defendantw

as admttted after the sam

ple pe

r~o

d

Aug.-Sept.

1990 N

ote 3: N

o treatment f~

lescould be found for f~

veof these

defendants reduclngthe flnal sam

ple to 326 cases Note

that the sample Includes both defendants

w~

thftltngs enterlng D

ru C

ourt and those ad

m~

ttedto treatm

ent ~n

August and le

pte

mb

er 1990

100% S

ample

No

te 4: Includessix defendants

not shown as assigned

but later determ

inedto have been targeted.

defendants and, as a result, into potentially different w

ays to measure outcom

es.

Measurem

ent of a drug program's out-

comes is, therefore, a problem

because there are a num

ber of ways to m

easure "success," all of w

hich could be valid depending on the perspective adopted. In fact, this issue-the

definition and meas-

urement of success-represents

a major

policy task faced by officials designing and operating drug court program

s. For purposes of this study, program

outcomes

were defined as "favorable" or "unfavor-

able" after discussion and debate by m

embers of the judicial w

orking group guiding the research process. T

his ap-proach w

as critical to the assessment so

that the research could avoid making

policy assumptions that m

ay not have been intended by site officials.

The D

ade County D

rug Court diversion

and treatment program

(DA

V) w

as planned to require defendant progress through three phases to an eventual favor-able outcom

e, graduation in about 1 year. Program

outcomes w

ere cataloged by re-view

ing both the treatment agency files

and the criminaljustice data m

aintained by the court system

.Wsing these sources,the

specific program outcom

es recorded for the Sam

ple I group at the end of the 18-m

onth observation period (which began

at the point of entry into treatment) in-

cluded the following types:

Unfavorable D

ropped out T

erminated

Cases still active

With no alias capiases (bench w

anants) W

ith alias capiases

Transferred

Other jurisdiction

Other local agency

Other D

ied

Charges dropped W

ithin 35 days

Graduation im

plied N

olle prossed (ceased prosecution) N

olle prossed, tracking

Exhibit 2

. Program

Outcom

es for Drug C

ourt Defendants

Adm

itted to

Treatment, A

ugust-Septem

ber 1990

Percen

t of D

rug

Co

urt

Defen

dan

ts

Unfavorable

Favorable

Transferredlother

Charges

Cases S

tillActive

Dropped

35 Days

Pro

gram

Ou

tcom

es (n

=326)

Sealed Sealed, tracking Probation only

As a first step in organizing these program

outcom

es, exhibit 2 shows 34 percent of

defendant outcomes as clearly "favorable,"

23 percent as clearly "unfavorable," and 43 percent as falling into the other categories w

hose classification was not self-evident.

To illustrate the role of policy assum

ptions in the m

easurement of success,this rough

grouping of favorable and unfavorable out-com

es could be further collapsed into more

narrowly defined categories (referred

to in this report as version 2) by applying the follow

ing assumptions:

The sm

all number of defendants w

ho w

ere transferred to other jurisdictions re-m

ained the responsibility of the Drug

Court. H

owever, one could argue that they

should also be excluded from evaluation of

treatment program

outcomes because they

became the responsibility of other agencies

or jurisdictions and, therefore, were not ap-

propriate tests of the impact of the D

rug C

ourt in Dade C

ounty.

Defendants w

ho had active or open cases at the end of 18 m

onths either should be counted as provisionally having re-corded favorable outcom

es (as long as they did not record alias capiases),or be

counted provisionally as having unfavor-able outcom

es, if they absconded from

the program and did not retum

to active participation.

Defendants w

ho dropped out because their charges w

ere dropped within 35 days

should be excluded from the analysis of

outcomes because they did not participate

in the program for a m

eaningful period of tim

e (i.e., they were "false starts").

Even this classification of program

out-com

es, however, could be further refined

by adopting yet another assumption from

the drug treatm

ent perspective:

Because som

e minim

um period of par-

ticipation should be required before it is reasonable to evaluate the im

pact of the program

on defendant behavior, all per-sons dropping out w

ithin the first 3 weeks

of admission (notjust those w

ith charges dropped)should be excluded from

out-com

e measures. T

his is tantamount to ar-

guing that it is inappropriate to evaluate the im

pact of an antibiotic if the patient does not take the m

edication for a sufficient period as

prescribed.

Exhibit 3 excludes these "false start" cat-

egories to contrast the outcomes of only

the "relevant" defendant categories: of these, 40 percent had unfavorable out-

C( com

es, and 60 percent had favorableout-

comes. O

ther working definitions of

fi'favo

rable"

and "unfavorable" outcomes

Impact on crim

inal processing. Monthly

many m

ore of their cases were dropped

-could be em

ployed; the important point is

admissions to the D

AT

P were equivalent

or dismissed (including cases m

arked that such decisions m

ust be determined as

to about 7 percent of third-and second-"no action").

a policy matter by relevant court and

degree felony filings during the months

Low

er incarceration rates. During the

agency officials. ~

tud

ied.~

study period, far few

er Drug C

ourt defend-C

ase outcomesand duration. A

s ex-ants than other felony drug and nondrug

Selected findings

pected, "diversion" types of outcomes

defendants were sentenced to incarceration

Length of participationlretention

in treatm

ent. The m

edian length of time

spent by Drug C

ourt defendants in the D

AT

P program, m

easured from the date of

the intake interview to the last day in treat-

ment, w

as 331 days-almost

11 months-

excluding defendants whose charges w

ere dropped. E

xhibit 4 displays the median

time in the program

for Drug C

ourt defen-

(diverted, nolle prossed, case sealed)were

much m

ore frequently recorded for Drug

Court defendants. A

lso as expected,Drug

Court cases took longer to com

plete than those of other felony defendant groups. N

early one-third of Drug C

ourt cases were

still open (unadjudicated) by the end of the 18-m

onth observation period. Tw

o phe-nom

ena largely explain this finding:

for terms of m

ore than a year.

Few

er rearrests. Drug C

ourt defendants generated som

ewhat low

er rates of re-offending, as indicated by rearrests, than non-drug felony defendants in 1990. T

hey accounted for notably low

er rates of re-offending than other felony 2 and 3 drug defendants w

hose cases were not handled

by the Drug C

ourt. (See exhibit 5.)

dants for each of three categories of ver-D

efendants who w

ere permitted to stay

in treatment m

uch longer than origin-A

t the same tim

e, when com

pared tosion 2 program

outcomes: unfavorable,

ally planned. felony drug defendants in 1987,2

years be-favorable, transferred/dropped/other.

fore the Drug C

ourt was im

plemented, the

As now

would be expected by definition,

Defendantsw

ho absconded from the

1990D

rug Court defendants show

ed much

length of program participation (retention

program, leaving their cases indefinitely in

lower rates of rearrest,even after research-

"active" status.in treatm

ent) and program outcom

es ers controlled for possible differences in

closely corresponded. Defendants w

ith un-It w

as difficult to determine w

hether the sam

ple composition.

favorable outcomes had m

edian program

(?stays (225 days) less than tw

o-thirds the length of defendants w

ith favorable out-com

es (364 days). Defendants w

ith the other outcom

es, by definition, showed the

shortest median program

participation, about 19 days.

Drug C

ourt's longer completion tim

es con-tributed to greater use of court resources than norm

al processing would.

How

ever, greater proportions of other felony defendant groups in 1987 and 1990 apparently m

oved more quickly out of the

criminaljustice system

, in part because

Exhibit 3. P

rogram O

utcomes (V

ersion 2) for Drug C

ourt Defendants

Adm

itted to Treatment, A

ugust-September

1990: R

elevant Defendants O

nly

Percen

t of "R

elevant"

Defen

dan

ts

m'.

Unfavorable

Favorable

Pro

gram

Outcom

es (n

z245)

Longer tim

es to rearrest. When D

rug C

ourt defendants were rearrested, the

lengths of time to their first rearrests aver-

aged from tw

o to three times longer than

those of comparison groups (exhibit 6).If

this is generalized across the more than

3,000 Drug C

ourt defendants admitted

since the program began, this finding has

important im

plications for the criminal

caseload of the circuit court as a whole:

Drug C

ourt defendants not only appear to re-offend less often, but those w

ho did re-offend did so only after considerable tim

e had elapsed.

High failure-to-appearrate. A

ll of the D

rug Court defendants are required peri-

odically to appear in court throughout their treatm

ent, and more than half of them

re-corded failures to appear (F

I'A's), com

-pared w

ith from 2 to 11 percent of other

felony defendants. The high rate clearly

results from the requirem

ent for so m

any more court appearances than

associated with norm

al processing of crim

inal charges.

This phenom

enon is similar to that experi-

enced by many program

s granting provi-sional liberty to defendants and suggests that auuroaches should be devised to

monitor appearances m

ore closely to of key them

es that may be of interest not

prevent FT

A's.

only to the jurisdiction itself, as Dade

County plans further efforts to address the

. .

Themes em

erging from the

challenge posed by its drug-involved

Drug C

ourt assessment

caseload,but also to other jurisdictions undertaking or considering sim

ilar drug T

he empirical assessm

ent of Dade

court initiatives. C

ounty's Drug C

ourt revealed a number

Exhibit 4. Length of P

articipation of Drug C

ourt Defendants

Adm

itted to Treatem

ent, August-S

eptember

1990, by Version 2 P

rogram O

utcomes

Med

ian

Days In

Treatm

ent

"

All E

ntering U

nfavorable F

avorable T

ransferrediDroppedi

Defendants

Other

Program

Outcom

es (n

=304)

Strong system

support. A key to the

functioning of the Drug C

ourt is the strong e

joint support shown for the program

by the judiciary, the prosecutor, and the defender. D

rug Court depends on this support to

transact its business in a "team" fashion.

The prosecutor's and defender's roles

are unorthodox and team oriented; both

appear more supportive than adversarial

in encouraging a defendant's pursuit of treatm

ent.

Active judicial role. T

eamw

ork notwith-

"

standing, the leadership role of an actively involved

judge who is fam

iliar with drug-

influenced behaviors is an essential ele-m

ent in the court's capacity to function as w

ell as it does.

The judge can be encouraging and support-

ive in the many brief hearings he orders on

admission of a defendant or to review

a defendant's progress. H

e also is called upon to im

pose sanctions, however, w

hen the defendant show

s poor performance or

has to be returned to the Drug C

ourt on an alias capias.

Exhibit 5. R

earrests During 18-M

onthO

bservation Period: 1990 D

rug Court D

efendantsC

ompared to 1987 and 1990

Felony 2 & 3 D

rug Defendants

Percent of

40 D

efend

ants 30 "

N

o rearrest O

ne T

wo

Three or m

ore

Rearrests

During l&

Mo

nth

Observation P

eriod

Op

ec

ially

designed treatment resources.

One of the critical elem

ents of the Drug

Court in D

ade County w

as development of

a custom-designed substance abuse treat-

ment program

for the programm

atic needs of the D

rug Court specifically. T

he ap-proach focused notably on com

munity-

based outpatient treatment, w

hile making

provision for residential placements for a

very limited num

ber of individuals.

There w

as not in Dade C

ounty (and often m

ay not be in otherjurisdictions) a preex-isting treatm

ent program. Instead, the treat-

ment program

was tailorm

ade to address the target population identified by court of-ficials. Just as the crim

inal court adapted to the treatm

ent goals of the Drug C

ourt pro-gram

, the treatment program

had to modify

practices to respond to the procedures of the D

rug Court, particularly in the areas of

program eligibility and term

ination criteria.

Tolerance for addicts' behaviors. Plan-

ning for the Drug C

ourt sought to recog-nize realistically the sorts of behavior ikely to be associated w

ith drug-involved q

nd

ivid

ua

ls. Within clearly defined public

safety boundaries (defendants would be

transferred out of the program if they w

ere arrested for new

offenses more serious

than those specified by the eligibility crite-ria), the D

rug Court has im

plemented a

flexible or partly tolerant approach to prob-lem

behaviors within treatm

ent. This ap-

proach contrasts clearly with approaches

that specify punishments for program

mis-

steps (such as the days-in-jail ordered for positive drug test results proposed in the D

istrict of Colum

bia's new program

).

Needs for fast, accurate inform

ation. T

he drug court concept and the linking of drug treatm

ent and criminaljustice goals

relies heavily on the need for up-to-date, accurate, and im

mediately accessible data

about defendants, their treatment progress,

and their criminaljustice related problem

s and developm

ents.

In Dade C

ounty, this capacity at first de-veloped at a slow

er rate than the program's

ability to handle cases; it clearly represents m

e of the m

ajor operational challenges ofP the M

iami m

odel in trying to bridge the in-form

ation gap between drug treatm

ent pro-gram

s and the criminal court.

Exhibit 6. M

edian Time to First R

earrest During 18-M

onth Observation

Period: 1990 D

rug Court D

efendants Com

pared to 1987 Felony C

omparison S

amples

1990:Drug C

ourt

1990 Other D

rug

1990 Other D

rug F3

1990: Other D

rug F2

1990:N

on-Drug

1987:lgB7.F3 D

rugD

rug k 1987 F2 D

rug r':%.k

I

--1987 N

on-Drug

k I

0

30

60

90

120 150

180 210

240 270

300

Median D

ays to First Rearrest

Defining (and redefining) the target

population. A m

ajor policy step in imple-

menting the D

rug Court program

was

defining the initial target population. Care-

ful targeting can ensure that the treatment

resources will be deployed efficiently to

process a sufficiently challenging group of defendants w

ith no adverse impact on

public safety. By setting sights too low

(for exam

ple, to deal with very m

inor offend-ers), program

resources could easily have been overw

helmed by a large volum

e of cases, thus preventing benefit from

accru-ing to efforts to address the crim

inal caseload processing or problem

s associ-ated w

ith jail capacity. On the other hand,

assessment findings suggest that the crite-

ria for eligibility might be broadened to

include other types of drug-involved felony-level defendants w

ho may not be

charged with drug offenses.

Targeting to avoid net w

idening. Som

e D

rug Court defendants self-reported that

they engaged in no or very minor levels of

drug abuse, while som

e others tested nega-tively for drugs upon entering the treat-m

ent program. Setting aside questions

about the reliability of such data, the possi-bility that som

e in the treatment program

did not appear to have "serious" drug abuse problem

s raises important questions

about targeting and screening procedures.

Similarly, the finding that D

rug Court de-

fendants had their criminal charges

dropped or dismissed m

uch less frequently than other types of felony defendants raises the possibility that som

e would not have

ventured very far into criminal processing

had they been processed in other criminal

courts or during an earlier period.

Although the assessm

ent found no evi-dence that the M

iami D

rug Court notice-

ably "widened the net," particularly given

its selective felony-level focus, the possi-bility of net w

idening as an inadvertent side effect should be kept in m

ind by the D

ade County program

itself and by other jurisdictions considering sim

ilar efforts.

By setting sights too low

, the Drug C

ourt m

ay "sweep" into its "net" persons w

ho ordinarily w

ould not require many or any

of its scarce resources. By targeting cat-

egories not usually fully processed by the crim

inal courts, such a program m

ight un-w

ittingly add to the court workload and the

jail population as well as intervene w

hen intervention is not necessary.

Screening for eligible candidates and "hitting" the target population. G

iven a suitable target population policy, a separate elem

ent critical to effective implem

enta-tion of a D

rug Court is establishm

ent of a rigorous screening m

echanism that identi-

fies persons eligible for the program at the

earliest stages of processing. Mechanism

s that "m

iss" large portions of the target population or that carelessly include indi- viduals not m

eeting the eligibility criteria can adversely affect the D

rug Court's abil-

ity to meet its objectives.

Defining "success" in outcom

es as a m

atter of policy. Defining "success"-

what w

ill constitute favorable and unfavor- able outcom

es-is an im

portant policy m

atter to be resolved by debate and con- sensus am

ong key officials. This policy

debate is best carried out in advance of im

plementation and evaluation. Such a

policy should clearly detail the behaviors of participants that are acceptable, that are tolerated but sanctioned in som

e specified fashion, or that som

ehow cross the

boundary into unacceptable. program-

terminating actions. T

he implications of

enforcement of such a policy approach

would m

ost helpfully be analyzed in ad- vance of im

plementation, and m

odifica- tions m

ay be necessary periodically and be m

ade on the basis of program experience.

Strengthening reliability of information

relating to defendant drug abuse. A key

to effective early classification and effi- cient subsequent treatm

ent of drug- involved felony defendants m

ay be closer coordination and com

puter information ex-

change between Pretrial Services (or other

early processing agency) at the postarrest interview

stage and treatment intake staff.

A com

bination of carefully structured self-report questions about drug use at the Pretrial Services and treatm

ent intake stages and selective initial drug testing, for exam

ple, may contribute to im

proved targeting and program

ming of D

rug Court

candidates.

Developm

ent of defendant classifica- tions for risk and treatm

ent planning. C

lassification of defendants at the earliest stages based on estim

ated drug involvem

ent and risk to public safety can be developed to assist in the targeting of approp2ate candidates for D

rug Court and

in planning for treatment and supervision

in the comm

unity during Drug C

ourt involvem

ent.

Need for different treatm

ent programs.

In differentiating entering defendants according to estim

ated drug-involvement

and public safety risk, an improved initial

stage classification approach can help tar- get D

rug Court defendants efficiently to

treatment regim

ens of possibly different substance and length, w

hile still ensuring equitable treatm

ent of defendants overall.

Such a classification could maxim

ize effi- cient use of resources by assigning low

er-risk and less drug-involved defend- ants to som

ewhat shorter program

s of treatm

ent to be complem

ented by other nonincarcerative options w

hile channeling m

edium-risk and m

ore seriously drug- involved defendants into longer and m

ore intensive program

s. For equity, an aim

would be to provide equivalent diversion-

ary programs so that defendants are treated

similarly overall, even given their

different content.

The role of drug testing. T

he use of this technology should be carefully reexam

ined as a m

atter of policy: either it should be de- ployed m

ore effectively and selectively, lim

ited to initial tests, used more system

- atically w

ith self-reported drug use infor- m

ation, or even eliminated, if necessary, to

save costs. Inconsistent use of drug testing contributes little to the inform

ation require- m

ents of the Drug C

ourt program.

The role of acupuncture. A

cupuncture is em

ployed in the Dade C

ounty Drug

Court's treatm

ent program on a voluntary

basis as an adjunct to treatment for defend-

ants attending the outpatient treatment

program. A

s such, acupuncture has not been view

ed by the program as a specific

treatment m

odality. Instead it is employed

as a resource for stabilizing defendants, particularly during the early phases of treatm

ent, and for increasing amenability

for treatment.

The failure-to-appear problem

. A clear

implication of the court-based, judge-

supervised model of D

rug Court is that the

much m

ore frequent scheduling of defend- ants before the judge ultim

ately translates into m

any more failed appearances (alias

capiases issued) when the experiences of

Drug C

ourt defendants are compared to

8

those of "normal" defendants. (T

his may

be true even if the ratio of absences-to- scheduled- hearings m

ay not be worse

among D

rug Court defendants.) T

hus, strategies to address this D

rug Court

"side-effect" without overw

helming court

or jail resources should be made early in

the planning stages of Drug C

ourt efforts.

The resource im

plications of the Drug

Court program

. Court system

s have a practical interest in learning about the "cost-effectiveness" of the D

rug Court ap-

proach. Because this assessm

ent was not

designed as a cost-effectiveness study, clear conclusions about the resource im

pli- cations of this approach are not offered. N

evertheless, cost considerations are criti- cal to an overall appraisal of the D

rug C

ourt's promise. Such an analysis is com

- plicated, and its outcom

es would depend

heavily on the assumptions m

ade about costs and savings in a variety of areas. Principal focuses for such an analysis w

ould need to consider the costs associated w

ith, for example, a) operating one or

more courtroom

s dedicated strictly or largely to D

rug Court transactions, b) the

costs of treatment, and c) the costs of

missed appearances and program

mis-

starts, as well as possible savings in d) case

processing, e) confinement, and f) reduced

or slowed rates of reoffending.

The need for routine experim

ental evaluation. T

his assessment has revealed

but not resolved a number of them

es and issues relating to the use of the D

ade C

ounty Drug C

ourt. As other jurisdictions

proceed with their plans to im

plement

Drug C

ourts or continue with efforts al-

ready underway, serious consideration

should be given to simultaneous im

ple- m

entation of more rigorous, experim

ental evaluations. Fuller evaluation can point to the strengths and w

eakness of the Miam

i D

rug Court m

odel, and the advantages and disadvantages of the variety of initiatives now

underway in other court system

s. Fail- ure to incorporate plans for rigorous evalu- ation at the in the initial stages of planning and im

plementation preordains the use of

less than optimal evaluation m

ethods at a later stage w

hen questions of program im

- pact m

ay become critical.

Character of defendant

Op

rog

res

s through D

ade's D

rug Court

For practical reasons, the assessm

ent adopted a fram

ework that sought to record

defendant program, case and public safety

outcomes, as of an arbitrary point in tim

e 18 m

onths after defendants were adm

itted to the treatm

ent program. Som

e officials have argued that this could result in a very "flat" or "one-dim

ensional" accounting of the perform

ance of defendants in the pro-gram

. They have pointed out, in fact, that

the Drug C

ourt's overall approach was

based in part on the operating assumption

that the behavior of drug-involved indi-viduals w

ould be, almost by definition, er-

ratic and generally irresponsible-at least

in the earliest stages of treatment. T

hus, these officials reasoned, a sim

ple, quantita-tive m

easure of program outcom

es would

fail to convey the "ups and downs," "zig-

zags," and other kinds of "real-life" be-havior actually involved in treatm

ent program

progress.

In addition, great concern was expressed

by Dade officials that som

e defendants w

ho had great initial difficulty in the pro-gram

might be view

ed as "failures" under this approach, w

hen, had the observation period extended farther, ultim

ate success w

ould have instead been recorded as the final result. A

lthough it is perhaps com-

mon for officials responsible for program

s undergoing assessm

ent to feel that quanti-tative approaches som

ehow m

iss capturing the character of the program

experience, their point seem

s well supported in the

Dade C

ounty study by selected case his-tory illustrations. Several draw

n from the

full research report are presented here.

Case 1. R

. was in her m

id-30's when ad-

mitted to the treatm

ent program. She w

as arrested in Septem

ber 1990on cocaine

possession charges and assigned imm

edi-ately to D

rug Court. She had a substantial

history of criminaljustice involvem

ent, w

ith 13prior arrests (but only 1

within the

past 3 years) and 9 convictions, 5 for felony property offenses. She had no prior

-arrests for drug offenses. She w

as single,a high school graduate, living alone and

Exh

~b

~t

7. Felony 2 and 3 Drug D

efendants Entering C

ircuit Court in

A

ugust-Septem

ber 1990, A

ssigned to Drug C

ourt, by A

ctual Adm

ission to D

rug Court

Never adm

itted A

dmitted to D

rug Court

-16%

A

ug.-S

ept. 1990

69% (&

Adm

itted after 8

Aug.-S

ept. 1990

15%

7 -

Target Po

pu

lation

of Felony Drug D

efend

ants

Iden

tifiedfor D

rug Court

(n=305)

working full-tim

e. In her intake interview,

R. said she had been using drugs since age

17. She admitted current use of heroin,

marijuana, alcohol, and cocaine. A

dmitted

to treatment during the study period on

September 17, 1990,she had poor attend-

ance initially and consistently tested posi-tive for drugs, show

ing little motivation

for treatment.

In early Novem

ber, after a 2-week ab-

sence, she returned to treatment citing the

demands of her w

ork as the reason for m

issing appointments. She w

as not then seen again until the end of D

ecember.

From this point on, she show

ed slight im-

provement. A

lthough her attendance con-tinued to be poor, her drug tests, w

hen she did com

e, were usually negative. In Febru-

ary 1991,her attendance improved, but in

April she once again stopped attending

treatment.

In May, the defendantreturned once m

ore to D

AT

P, although the length of her ab-sence is not specified. H

er attendance im-

proved somew

hat, and her urine tests were

generally clean during the next months. In

mid-July, after 10 m

onths of participation, she w

as finally transferred to phase I11 aftercare. A

t the end of the 18-month

ob-servation period, the defendant's case w

as still open and she was still active

in treatment.

Interestingly, her records further showed

that as late as September 1992,or nearly 2

years after her initial admission, she did in

fact complete treatm

ent successfully with

the result that her criminal charges w

ere nolle prossed.

Case 2. C

., a man about 20, w

as arrested in early July on cocaine possession charges. H

e entered DA

TP on Septem

ber 26, 1990, after his case w

as transferred to Drug

Court. H

e had two prior arrests, both for

misdem

eanors. Although he w

as charged w

ith possession of cocaine, at his intake in-terview

he admitted only to using m

ari-juanahashish. H

e reported being a drug user since age 18,but this w

as his first tim

e in treatment. A

lthough he initially ap-peared m

otivated for treatment, on N

o-vem

ber 19, 1990,he stopped attending.

On A

pril 22, 1991, C. w

as once again re-ferred to D

AT

P following another arrest

for possession. After a m

onth, he was

again responding poorly and testing posi-tively for drugs. O

ne month later he w

as again reported to have stopped com

ing to treatm

ent. In January of 1992,the defend-ant w

as once more readm

itted by the Drug

Court judge. A

lthough he was still active

in treatment at the close of the 18-m

onth observation period, he dropped out again shortly after. R

ecords show his pattern of

behavior continued. He w

as readmitted in

late September of 1992 and again discon-

tinued treatment just over a m

onth later.

Case 3. Y

., 42 and an imm

igrant, was m

ar- ried but living apart from

her husband at the tim

e of her arrest in a sting for cocaine purchase and possession. She w

as college educated but unem

ployed and was earning

a living as a freelance translator and teacher. A

dmitted to D

AT

P on September

6, 1990, she admitted at her intake inter-

view infrequent cocaine use (less than once

per week), as w

ell as alcohol use. She re-

ported also that she had been using alcohol since 1967 and cocaine since 1983. A

t ad- m

ission she tested positive for both co- caine and am

phetamines.

Y. w

as reported motivated and cooperative

throughout treatment. She transferred to

phase I1 on October 2, 1990, and continued

good progress, attending treatment and

having negative drug tests until her transfer to phase I11 on D

ecember 3, 1990, w

hen she recorded a positive drug test. A

cupunc- ture and individual counseling helped her through this period. H

er attendance and at- titude continued good, and the "binge" did very little to slow

her completion of the

program. She w

as recomm

ended for graduation on A

ugust 28, 1991, slightly less than a year after adm

ission, and her case w

as later nolle prossed. File notes state that in addition to helping her w

ith her drug problem

, counselors tried to help her address problem

s related to employ-

ment and her m

arital situation.

Case 4. C

., 38 at the time of her adm

ission, entered the D

rug Court program

after ar- rest for cocaine possession on A

ugust 24, 1990, despite a long crim

inal justice his- tory under a num

ber of aliases. This w

as reportedly her first tim

e in drug treatment.

She was adm

itted on September 14, failed

to attend the program, and adm

itted again on O

ctober 9, 1990. On D

ecember 12 she

was reported to have discontinued treat-

ment. O

n March 15, 1991, the defendant

was again ordered readm

itted by the court. O

n April 26, 1991, she w

as reported to have failed to return. N

o further notes were

found after that date.

Case 5. S., 24, w

as single and had a high school education. H

e should have been a success story. H

e was arrested in D

ecem-

ber 1989 on charges of cocaine possession, 6 m

onths before Drug C

ourt was estab-

lished. His case w

as assigned to Drug

Court m

ore than a year and a half later, on A

ugust 28, 1990. At his intake interview

, he denied any drug use and case notes indi- cated that counselors w

ere inclined to be- lieve him

, based on his consistently negative drug test results, his cooperative m

anner, and his physical appearance. On

September 14, 1990, he w

as transferred to phase I1 and on O

ctober 22, 1990, after clean urine tests and good progress in treat- m

ent, to phase 111. During the program

, he obtained full-tim

e employm

ent and made

plans to further his education. Treatm

ent records show

he continued to do well, his

attitude was good, and he w

as drug free. H

e was w

orking long hours and was re-

quired to attend only weekly.

In March 199 1, he w

as placed in phase V

for "tracking" due to unexcused nonatten- dance, but he returned several days later and explained that his absence had been due to a fam

ily emergency. In July he w

as briefly jailed after being involved in a fight at a flea m

arket. On A

ugust 29, 1991, he w

as to have been recomm

ended for gradu- ation. S

. failed to appear for his scheduled court date and an alias capias w

as issued. H

e also failed to keep a clinic appointment.

On A

ugust 30, his father informed the

counselor that his son had been robbed and killed.

Reaching the

target population

Exhibit 7 portrays all felony defendants

charged during August and Septem

ber 1990 w

ho were assigned to D

rug Court.

About one in three (3 1 percent) of defen-

dants identified as meeting the chargelpri-

ors criteria and assigned to be processed in D

rug Court appeared not to be adm

itted to treatm

ent by the program im

mediately, for

any number of reasons. A

lthough this pro- portion suggests that D

rug Court w

as pro- cessing fully tw

o-thirds of the identified population of eligible defendants as they entered court processing, it raises questions about w

hy some eligiblelassigned defend-

ants were "m

issed" or did not participate in the voluntary diversion and treatm

ent

program once identified. Several phenom

- ena m

ay explain the "miss" rate.

Some m

ay merely have decided to de-

cline, preferring to take their chances with

traditional criminal processing.

Others m

ay have chosen to post bond im

mediately after arrest, thus elim

inating their opportunity for com

ing in contact w

ith Drug C

ourt.

Pretrial services staff might on occasion

have missed som

e defendants. A few

may

have simply w

alked away w

ithout an in- take interview

.

Drug C

ourt officials pointed out that initially, a sm

all number of defendants

agreed to report to the Model C

ities Clinic

for intake procedures, but never made

their appointments after they w

ere given pretrial release.

A sizable m

ajority of those eligible ap- peared to have been "enrolled," how

ever, and careful em

pirical examination casts

doubt on the initial finding of a 3 1 -percent m

iss rate. As m

any as 40

of the 83 defend- ants in this group (Sam

ple 11, as shown in

exhibit 1) may have entered treatm

ent through D

rug Court at som

e time during

the 18-month observation period, just not

in the August-Septem

ber sample period.

These findings suggest that, in fact, the

Drug C

ourt may have had a fairly effective

reach. The researchers estim

ate that the m

iss rate ultimately m

ay have been as sm

all as 17 percent. This finding of de-

layed enrollment com

plements the earlier

finding that about one-third of admis-

sions to Drug C

ourt were of defendants

whose charges had been filed during an

earlier period.

Conclusion

This research has focused on the innova-

tive efforts of one jurisdiction, the Elev-

enth Judicial Circuit in D

ade County, as it

shifted from the then prevailing paradigm

guiding crim

inal courts in the response to the drug-related caseload tow

ard a court-based approach to the treatm

ent of felony drug defendants. T

hroughout this research, and particularly as this report w

as reaching com

pletion, word of interest in

and efforts to develop Miam

i-type drug courts in m

any other criminal court

ystems in the U

nited States grew increas-

ingly frequent. Anecdotal reports of initia-

tives in other sites pointed to the possibility that a variety of interesting and potentially effective variations on the M

iami m

odel m

ay be underway in locations across

the nation.

As other jurisdictions proceed w

ith plans to im

plement drug court program

s. serious consideration should be given to conduct- ing sim

ultaneous, rigorous evaluations. Such evaluations can point to strengths and w

eaknesses of the Miam

i Drug C

ourt m

odel as well as those of other initiatives

around the Nation. Failure to incorporate

plans for experimental evaluations in the

initial planning and implem

entation stages preordains the use of less than opti- m

al evaluation methods at a later stage

when questions of program

impact m

ay becom

e critical.

Notes

I. The Drug C

ourt's treatment em

phasis is rim

arily on outpatient modalities. H

ow-

er, in 199 l, the Drug C

ourt arranged through the Florida system

for prioritized access to m

ore than 200 residential place- m

ents for selected defendants with particu-

larly difficult drug abuse problems. A

s of spring 1993, an average of about 40 such placem

ents were in use at a given m

oment.

2. The objective of this m

ultisample, com

- parative approach w

as to be able to view

processing of Drug C

ourt defendants in the context of felony defendants overall. O

ne lim

itation of this approach-shared by an

experimental approach as w

ell-is that

prior or subsequent cohorts could have recorded different outcom

es than those described in this report. N

evertheless, the rationale for this approach assum

es that de- fendants entering during the study period w

ere fairly typical.

3. When inform

ation about a defendant's status w

as uncertain or conflicting, priority w

as given to criminal justice inform

ation sources.

.Although the D

rug Court initially only

rgeted third-degree felony drug posses- sion cases w

ith no prior convictions, by 1990, persons w

ith initial charges

involving selected second-degree drug felonies (purchase of drugs) w

ere consid- ered for the program

as well as som

e de- fendants w

ith prior convictions. One w

ay of estim

ating the impact of the D

AT

P is, therefore, to determ

ine the proportion of relevant cases that w

ould have been eli- gible for D

AT

P and the proportion actually entering the program

. Given that m

onthly adm

issions include some cases filed during

previous months, the researchers deter-

mined the com

parative figures.

References

Am

erican Bar A

ssociation, 1993. The State cfC

riminu1 Justicp. W

ashington, D.C

.: A

BA

, Section on Crim

inal Justice.

Belenko, S., 1990. "T

he Impact of D

rug O

ffenders on the Crim

inal Justice System"

in Dnrgs, C

rime and the C

r-inzitzal Justic.e System

, ed. R. W

eisheit. Cincinnati and

Highland H

eights: Academ

y of Crim

inal Justice Sciences and A

nderson Publishing C

o., 27-78.

Gerstein, D

.R., and H

.J. Harw

ood, eds., 1990. Treating D

rug Problem

s. Vol. 1 :A

Study ofthe E

volution, Efi~

~ctivenes.~

, and

Financing c$

Puhlic and P

ritaate Drug

Treatment Systenzs. W

ashington, D.C

. : N

ational Academ

y Press.

Gerstein, D

.R., and H

.J. Harw

ood, eds., 1992. Treating D

rug Problem

s. Vol. 2:

Com

missioned P

apers on Ni.storicu1, Insti-

tutional, and Econom

ic Conte.xtLs c!f'l)rug

Treatment. W

ashington, D.C

.: National

Academ

y Press.

Goerdt, J.A

., C. L

omvadias. G

. Gallas, and

B. M

ahoney, 1989. E,x-amlining C

ourt De-

lay: The Pace c$

Litigation in 26 Urburl

Trial Courts, 1987. W

illiamsburg, V

ir- ginia: B

ureau of Justice Assistance and

National C

enter for State Courts, U

.S. D

epartment of Justice.

Goerdt, J.A

., and J.A. M

artin, Fall 1989. "T

he Impact of D

rug Cases on C

ase Pro- cessing in U

rban Trial C

ourts." State Caur-I

Journal, 4-1 2.

Goldkam

p, J.S., 1987. "Prediction in C

riminal Justice Policy D

evelopment" in

ClassiJi'cation and P

redic.tion in CI-im

inal

.lustice Dc~cisions, eds. D

.M. G

ottfredson and M

. Tonry. C

rime and Justice 9. C

hi- cago: U

niversity of Chicago Press.

Goldkam

p, J.S., M.R

. Gottfredson, and D

. W

eiland, 1990. "Pretrial Drug T

esting and D

efendant Risk." Journal of C

riminal Law

and C

riminology 8

8, 3:585-652.

Goldkam

p, J.S., M.R

. Gottfredson,

P.R. Jones, and D

. Weiiand, 1993.

Pel-.sonu1 Liberty and C

omm

unity Safety: P

~-c.triulRelease in the Crim

ina! Courts.

Forthcoming.

, 1990. Vol. 2, A

ssessing the In?- p

utt c!f'D

rug-R~

latedCriminal C

ases on P

ublic Safety: Drug-R

eluted Recidivisnz.

Philadelphia: Tem

ple University. D

epart- m

ent of Crim

inal Justice.

, 1990. Vol. 3,A

ssessing the Im-

pact ($Drug-R

elated Crim

inal Cases on

the Judic.iul P~

OI.V

SS

, C

row'djng and P

ublic Sufetv: Sum

mary and Inzplicutions. Phila-

delphia: Tem

ple University, D

epartment of

Crim

inal Justice.

Goldkam

p, J.S., P.R. Jones, D

. Weiland,

and S.H

. Smith, 1992. lssues irt M

anaging the D

rug-1nt~olt.ed Qfgndeirr- in the Com

- m

unity: Findings F

rom u N

ational Surl-ey i$P

robationlParoIe and D

t-u,q Ahuse

Treatn~

entAgencies. Philadelphia: Crim

e and Justice R

esearch Institute.

Goldkam

p, J.S., and D. W

eiland, 1991. A

ssessittg the Impact of D

ude County's

Felony D

rug Court. Philadelphia: C

rime

and Justice Research Institute.

, 1993. The Impact of C

ourt-R

elated Practices on the C

orrectional P

opulation in Dude C

ounty. Phil adel phia: C

rime and Justice R

esearch Institute.

Johnson, B.D

., P. Goodm

an, E. Prebie, J. Schm

eidler, D. L

ipton, B. Spunt, and T

. M

iller, 1985. Taking Care of B

usiness: The E

conomics of C

rime by N

et-oin A

husecs. Lexington, M

assachusetts: L

exington Books.

National A

ssociation of Pretrial Services A

gencies, 1978. Pe~

orm

an

ces Standards ancl G

oals jbr Pretrial R

elease and D

iversion: Diversion 5.

-

President's Com

mission on L

aw E

nforce-m

ent and Adm

inistration of Justice, 1967. 1

~IcU

mtpis p

rofe

m

c stice at T

emple U

ni The C

hallengeof Crim

e in a Free Society.

knflaae,paia M~w

eilandis W

ashington, D.C

.: U.S. G

overnment Print-

aq

so

cia

teat the crim

ea ing O

ffice. Justice Institute, Philadelphia

Smith, B

.E., R

.C. D

avis, and S.R.

Goretsky, 1991.Strategiesfor C

ourts To

Cope W

ith the Caseload P

ressures of Drug

Cases: Trial R

eport. Washington, D

.C.:

Am

erican Bar A

ssociation. --

Findings and conclusions of the research re-ported here are those of the researchers and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U

.S. Departm

ent of Justice.

TheN

ationalInstitute of Justice isa com

po-nentof theO

fice ofJustice Program

s,which

also includes the Bureau of Justice A

ssist-ance, B

ureau of Justice Statistics, Ofice of

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency P

reven-tion, and the O

ffice for V

ictims of C

rime.

This E

valuation Bulletin is based on the

complete R

esearch Report, A

ssessing the N

CJ 145302

lmpact of D

ude County's F

elony Drug

Court,N

CJ 144524.A

detailed description of the M

iami D

rug Court's operations

can be found in the NIJ Program

Focus, M

iami's "D

rug Court':' A

Different

Approach, N

CJ 142412. B

oth of these docum

ents can be obtained through the N

ational Crim

inal Justice Reference

Service, 800-85 1-3420.

U.S. D

epartment of Justice

Office of Justice Program

s

National Institute qf Justice

BU

LK

RA

TE

PO

STA

GE

& FE

ES PA

ID

DO

JNIJ

Permit N

o. G-9 I

Washington. D

.C. 20531

Official B

usiness Penalty for Private U

se $300