the promise of drug courts new york city 80% detroit 78% philadelphia 76% indianapolis 63% oklahoma...

The The PromisePromise

ofof

Drug Drug CourtsCourts

New York City New York City 80%80%

Detroit 78%Detroit 78%Philadelphia Philadelphia

76%76%Indianapolis Indianapolis

63%63%Oklahoma City Oklahoma City

72%72%

2/3 of Adult and 1/2 of 2/3 of Adult and 1/2 of Juvenile ArresteesJuvenile Arrestees Test Test

Positive for DrugsPositive for Drugs

Portland, Spokane, San Diego

and Phoenix report 25% to

44%

Arrestees Test Arrestees Test Positive for Positive for

MethamphetamineMethamphetamine

From 1979 to present date, the number From 1979 to present date, the number of drug and alcohol users in the of drug and alcohol users in the

United States declined by 45%, but United States declined by 45%, but the percentages of burglaries, the percentages of burglaries,

robberies, murder, and other crime robberies, murder, and other crime attributable to drugs has spiraled attributable to drugs has spiraled

incessantly upward, even as crime in incessantly upward, even as crime in general has declined.general has declined.

We are a nation of fewer addicts, but a We are a nation of fewer addicts, but a nation of more harmful and nation of more harmful and

destructive addicts.destructive addicts.

What is our Philosophical What is our Philosophical Base?Base?

Punishment Punishment

oror

RehabilitatiRehabilitationon

What if we JUST put them in What if we JUST put them in PRISON?PRISON?

29.9% of prisoners released in 1998 in 15 29.9% of prisoners released in 1998 in 15 statesstates

were rearrested within six months and 68% were rearrested within six months and 68% are are

rearrested within three years. rearrested within three years. (Bureau of Justice (Bureau of Justice

Statistics, 2002)Statistics, 2002)

95% relapse to substance abuse in 95% relapse to substance abuse in three years. three years. (Treatment Research Institute, 2002)(Treatment Research Institute, 2002)

The Number of Inmates The Number of Inmates ReleasedReleased

Federal and States PrisonsFederal and States Prisons

19951995 20012001

473,300

635,000

Judge Dennis ChalleenJudge Dennis Challeen

We want them to have self-worthWe want them to have self-worth

So we destroy their self-worthSo we destroy their self-worth

We want them to be responsibleWe want them to be responsible

So we take away all responsibilitySo we take away all responsibility

We want them to be positive and We want them to be positive and constructiveconstructive

So we degrade them and make them So we degrade them and make them uselessuseless

We want them to be trustworthyWe want them to be trustworthy

So we put them where there is no trustSo we put them where there is no trust

Judge Dennis ChalleenJudge Dennis Challeen

We want them to be non-violentWe want them to be non-violent

So we put them where violence is all around themSo we put them where violence is all around them

We want them to be kind and loving peopleWe want them to be kind and loving people

So we subject them to hatred and crueltySo we subject them to hatred and cruelty

We want them to quit being the tough guyWe want them to quit being the tough guy

So we put them where the tough guy is respectedSo we put them where the tough guy is respected

We want them quit hanging around losersWe want them quit hanging around losers

So we put all the losers in the state under one So we put all the losers in the state under one roofroof

Judge Dennis ChalleenJudge Dennis Challeen

We want them to quit We want them to quit exploiting usexploiting us

So we put them where they exploit So we put them where they exploit

each othereach other

We want them to take control We want them to take control of their lives, own problems of their lives, own problems

and quit being a parasite on…and quit being a parasite on…

So we make them totally So we make them totally dependant on usdependant on us

The AnswerThe Answer

““We need to punish the offenders We need to punish the offenders we are afraid of and we are afraid of and

treat the ones we are mad at”treat the ones we are mad at”

Hon. Dennis ChalleenHon. Dennis Challeen

What if we JUST refer them to What if we JUST refer them to TREATMENT?TREATMENT?

AttritionAttrition 50% to 67% don’t show for intake50% to 67% don’t show for intake 40% to 80% drop out in 3 months40% to 80% drop out in 3 months 90% drop out in 12 months90% drop out in 12 months

OutcomesOutcomes 40% to 60% of clients abstinent at 1 year40% to 60% of clients abstinent at 1 year

Treatment Research Treatment Research Institute, 2003Institute, 2003

““We cannot solve the We cannot solve the problems we have problems we have

created with the same created with the same thinking that created thinking that created

them”them”

Albert EinsteinAlbert Einstein

Courts as Problem-Courts as Problem-SolverSolver

“Effective trial courts are responsive to emergent public issues such as drug

abuse…A trial court that moves deliberately in response to emergent issues is a stabilizing force in society and acts consistently with its role of

maintaining the rule of law”

Bureau of Justice Assistance’s Trial Court Performance Standards, 1997

Unlike These Judges Unlike These Judges

Drug Court Judges Find the Drug Court Judges Find the Good in Those Who Can’t See Good in Those Who Can’t See

it in Themselvesit in Themselves

Painting the Current Painting the Current Picture:Picture:A National Report Card on Drug A National Report Card on Drug

Courts and Other Problem-Solving Courts and Other Problem-Solving Courts in the United States Volume Courts in the United States Volume

I, Issues 1 and 2I, Issues 1 and 2

C. West HuddlestonC. West HuddlestonHon. Karen Freeman-WilsonHon. Karen Freeman-Wilson

Doug Marlowe, Ph.D., J.D.Doug Marlowe, Ph.D., J.D.Aaron RoussellAaron Roussell

Office of National Drug Control Office of National Drug Control Policy, Executive Office of the Policy, Executive Office of the

President and the Bureau of Justice President and the Bureau of Justice Assistance, U.S. Department of Assistance, U.S. Department of

JusticeJustice

Drug Courts: Drug Courts:

A National A National PhenomenonPhenomenon

Number of Drug Number of Drug CourtsCourts

19891989 11

19901990 11

19911991 55

19921992 1010

19931993 1919

19941994 4040

19951995 7575

19961996 139139

19971997 230230

19981998 347347

19991999 472472

20002000 665665

20012001 847847

20022002 1,0481,048

20032003 1,1831,183

1,621 Drug Courts in 1,621 Drug Courts in 20042004

1,621 Drug Courts in Operation 811 Adult Drug Courts

357 Juvenile Drug Courts 153 Family Dependency Treatment

Courts 176 DWI Courts (90/86)

54 Tribal Healing to Wellness Courts68 Reentry Drug Courts

1 Campus Drug Court1 Federal Drug Court

2004 Drug Court 2004 Drug Court ActivityActivity

37% Increase from 200316,186 graduates in 2004

69,000 currently being served75% of Adult Drug Courts are

Post Plea

Benefits of Drug CourtBenefits of Drug Court“drug courts provide the most

comprehensive and effective control of drug-using offenders’ criminality and drug usage while under the court’s

supervision.”

-Effective Treatment--Drug Testing-

-Community Supervision and Structure-

Belenko (1998; 2001)Belenko (1998; 2001)

Effective Community Effective Community Supervision and Home Supervision and Home

VisitsVisits

Bar SweepsBar Sweeps

Benefits of Drug Benefits of Drug CourtsCourts

Drug Courts Increase Drug Courts Increase Retention in Retention in TreatmentTreatment

Treatment Research Treatment Research FindingsFindings

Drug Abuse Reporting Project (DARP)Drug Abuse Reporting Project (DARP) Treatment Outcome Prospective Study Treatment Outcome Prospective Study

(TOPS)(TOPS) Drug Abuse Treatment Outcome Study Drug Abuse Treatment Outcome Study

(DATOS)(DATOS) National Treatment Improvement Evaluation National Treatment Improvement Evaluation

StudyStudy

Treatment Research Treatment Research FindingsFindings

The length of time a patient spent in The length of time a patient spent in treatment was a reliable predictor of treatment was a reliable predictor of his or her post treatment performancehis or her post treatment performance. . Beyond a ninety-day threshold, treatment outcomes improved in a Beyond a ninety-day threshold, treatment outcomes improved in a direct relationship to the length of time spent in treatment, with one direct relationship to the length of time spent in treatment, with one year generally found to be the minimum effective duration of year generally found to be the minimum effective duration of treatment.treatment.

Coerced patients tended to stay longerCoerced patients tended to stay longer.. This was in light of the finding that most of the legally coerced This was in light of the finding that most of the legally coerced addicts had more crime and gang involvement, more drug use, and addicts had more crime and gang involvement, more drug use, and worse employment records than their non-coerced counterparts.worse employment records than their non-coerced counterparts.

Retention in Retention in TreatmentTreatment

““Drug Courts exceed these Drug Courts exceed these abysmal projections”… “This abysmal projections”… “This

represents a six-fold increase in represents a six-fold increase in treatment retention over most treatment retention over most

previous efforts.”previous efforts.”

Marlowe, Dematteo, & Marlowe, Dematteo, & Festinger, 2003Festinger, 2003

Benefits of Drug Court:Benefits of Drug Court:

Drug Courts Reduce Drug Courts Reduce

Criminal InvolvementCriminal Involvement

Graduation is KEYGraduation is KEY

““The body of literature on recidivism is The body of literature on recidivism is now strong enough to conclude that now strong enough to conclude that

completing a drug court program completing a drug court program reduces the likelihood of further reduces the likelihood of further

involvement in the involvement in the criminal justice system.”criminal justice system.”

Vera: Vera: Fluellen & Trone, Fluellen & Trone, 20002000

National ResearchNational Research

2020 Graduates from 95 Drug CourtsRepresenting 17,000 Graduates17,000 Graduates

1 Year Post Graduation: 16.4%2 Years Post Graduation: 27.5%

Roman, Townsend & Roman, Townsend & Bhati, 2003Bhati, 2003

Statewide ResearchStatewide Research

““Re-conviction rate among a sample Re-conviction rate among a sample of almost 2,500 drug court of almost 2,500 drug court

participants in six sites across New participants in six sites across New York State was, on average, 29% York State was, on average, 29%

lower (56% to 40%) over three years lower (56% to 40%) over three years after the initial arrest than the after the initial arrest than the

comparison group.comparison group.

Repel, et. al. 2003Repel, et. al. 2003

GAO Evaluation ReviewGAO Evaluation ReviewDrug court participants had:Drug court participants had:

Lower rearrest and reconviction rates than comparison group Lower rearrest and reconviction rates than comparison group members.members.

Fewer recidivism events/incidents than comparison group members.Fewer recidivism events/incidents than comparison group members.

Longer time intervals until rearrest or reconviction than Longer time intervals until rearrest or reconviction than comparison group members.comparison group members.

Recidivism reductions in various categories of offenses Recidivism reductions in various categories of offenses

Decreased involvement in substance abuseDecreased involvement in substance abuse

Positive cost/benefit/ratioPositive cost/benefit/ratio

GAO, 2005GAO, 2005

Benefits of Drug Court:Benefits of Drug Court:

Drug Courts Save Drug Courts Save MoneyMoney

Drug Courts Save Drug Courts Save MoneyMoney

““A state taxpayer’s return on A state taxpayer’s return on the upfront investment in the upfront investment in

drug courts drug courts is substantial.”is substantial.”

””a county’s investment in drug a county’s investment in drug court pays off.”court pays off.”

Statewide ResearchStatewide Research

“New York Statewide Drug Court System saved $254 Million in three

years”

Rempel et al, 2003

Statewide ResearchStatewide Research

““The average drug court participant The average drug court participant produces $6,779 in benefits with produces $6,779 in benefits with

$3,759 in avoided criminal justice $3,759 in avoided criminal justice costs paid by taxpayers and $3,020 costs paid by taxpayers and $3,020

in avoided costs to victims.”in avoided costs to victims.”

Washington State Institute for Washington State Institute for Public Policy, 2003Public Policy, 2003

Statewide ResearchStatewide Research

““California drug courts demonstrate a California drug courts demonstrate a savings of 18 million per year. A 14 savings of 18 million per year. A 14

million investment returned 43.3 million investment returned 43.3 million in savings over two years.”million in savings over two years.”

Judicial Council of Judicial Council of California 2002; California 2002;

NPC Research & Judicial Council of NPC Research & Judicial Council of California 2002California 2002

Local ResearchLocal Research

““In St. Louis, Missouri, each drug In St. Louis, Missouri, each drug court graduate cost the city $2,615 court graduate cost the city $2,615 less than those on probation alone.”less than those on probation alone.”

Institute for Applied Institute for Applied Research, 2004Research, 2004

Local ResearchLocal Research

““For every dollar spent on drug court For every dollar spent on drug court in Multnomah County, Oregon, ten in Multnomah County, Oregon, ten

dollars were saved.”dollars were saved.” Finigan, 1998Finigan, 1998

““A total savings to the local taxpayer A total savings to the local taxpayer over a thirty-month period was over a thirty-month period was

$5,071.57 or a savings of $5,071.57 or a savings of $1,521,471 per year.”$1,521,471 per year.”

Carey & Finigan, 2003Carey & Finigan, 2003

Local ResearchLocal Research

““For every dollar spent on drug For every dollar spent on drug court in Dallas, Texas, $9.43 in court in Dallas, Texas, $9.43 in tax dollars was realized over a tax dollars was realized over a

forty-month period.”forty-month period.”

Fomby & Fomby & Rangaprasad, 2002Rangaprasad, 2002

Cost Benefits of Drug Cost Benefits of Drug CourtCourt

Avoided Criminal Justice Avoided Criminal Justice CostsCosts

Avoided Victim CostsAvoided Victim Costs

EmployabilityEmployability

Drug Free-BabiesDrug Free-Babies

460 drug free babies in 460 drug free babies in 2004!2004!

“To put it bluntly, we know that drug courts outperform virtually all other strategies that have been

attempted for drug-involved offenders.”

Marlowe, DeMatteo, Festinger (2003)Marlowe, DeMatteo, Festinger (2003)

National ResolutionsNational Resolutions

““Continued development of problem-Continued development of problem-solving courts” solving courts”

American Bar American Bar Association, 2001Association, 2001

““To take steps nationally and locally To take steps nationally and locally to expand the methods and to expand the methods and

principles of well-functioning drug principles of well-functioning drug courts into ongoing court courts into ongoing court

operations”operations”

Conference of Chief Justices and the Conference of Court Conference of Chief Justices and the Conference of Court Administrators, 2000/2004Administrators, 2000/2004

National ResolutionsNational Resolutions

The National District Attorneys AssociationThe National Sheriffs Association

International Association of Chiefs of Police

The National Association of County Organizations

Governors Highway Safety AssociationMothers Against Drunk Driving

Drug Court Drug Court PermutationsPermutations

““Problem Solving in Problem Solving in the Courts: Taking the Courts: Taking the Model to Other the Model to Other

Populations”Populations”

936936 Problem-Solving Courts Problem-Solving Courts

Teen Courts – 393Mental Health Courts - 111

Domestic Violence Courts – 141Community Courts - 23

Reentry Courts – 16Gun Courts- 2

Prostitution Courts - 4Parole Violation Courts - 5

Homeless Courts - 6Truancy Courts - 131

Child Support Courts – 45Integrated Courts 17

Other -42

Number of Operational Number of Operational Problem-Solving Problem-Solving

Court Programs in the Court Programs in the United StatesUnited States

1,667 - 20031,667 - 20032,557 - 20042,557 - 2004

Aiming to Solve the Aiming to Solve the Problems of the Problems of the

People Who Come People Who Come Before the Courts isBefore the Courts is

Work Worth Doing!Work Worth Doing!