Looking at a Decade of Drug Courts
Rev. 1999
Prepared by the Drug Court Clearinghouse and Technical Assistance Project
The Office of Justice Programs Drug Court Clearinghouse and Technical
Assistance Project (DCCTAP) at American University, sponsored by the Drug
Courts Program Office of the Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department
of Justice, compiles operational and evaluative information on adult, juvenile,
family and tribal drug court programs throughout the United States. Summary
reports of drug court activities are published and updated periodically
by the DCCTAP, reflecting current developments, emerging issues, experiences
reported by local drug court officials, and staff observations during the
course of providing technical assistance to local jurisdictions This report
reflects information provided by drug courts operating throughout the United
States as of June 1999.
This report was prepared by the Office of Justice Programs Drug Court Clearinghouse and Technical Assistance Project at American University, Washington D.C. This project is supported by Grant Nos. 95-DC-MX-KOO2 and 98-NU-VX-K018, awarded by the Drug Courts Program Office, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Points of view or opinions in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Table of Contents
Capacity to Promptly Address Relapse and its Consequences
Integration of Drug Treatment with Other Rehabilitation Services
Summary Results: The First Decade
The Nature and Extent of Addiction Being Addressed
Benefits for Families and Children
Benefits to Prosecutors and Police
Adult Model Being Adapted for Juvenile and Family Matters
Highlights of National Drug Court Survey Findings
Primary Services Being Provided
Comprehensive, Individualized Treatment Services
Physical and Mental Health Services
Education, Job Training, Employment, and Other Rehabilitation Services
Offenders Targeted: Focus on Long-Term Drug Users
Participant Enrollment and Performance
Educational Status of Participants
Family Reunification and Other Family Services
Support from Law Enforcement Agencies
Adaptation
of the Drug Court Model to Other Justice System Initiatives
What began in 1989 as an experiment by the Dade County (FL) Circuit
Court to call upon the authority of a sitting judge to devise-- and proactively
oversee--an intensive, community-based treatment, rehabilitation, and supervision
program for felony drug defendants in an effort to halt rapidly increasing
recidivism rates has become a national movement during the decade that
has followed. "Drug court" activity is now underway in 49 of the 50 states,
as well as in the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, a number of
Native American Tribal Courts, and two federal district courts.
The appeal of the drug court lies in many sectors: more effective supervision
of offenders in the community; more credibility to the law enforcement
function (arrests of drug offenders are, indeed, taken seriously, even
by court systems that are inundated with cases); greater accountability
of defendants for complying with conditions of release and/or probation;
greater coordination and accountability of public services provided, including
reduced duplication of services and costs to the taxpayer; and more efficiency
for the court system through removal of a class of cases that places significant
resource demands for processing, both initially and with probation violations
and new offenses that otherwise would undoubtedly occur. Dramatic as these
benefits may be, however, they do not explain the tremendous personal impact
that drug courts have on all who have been involved with them--even the
casual observer of a drug court session.
What has made the drug court movement so powerful and infectious is
its human element. Close to 140,000 drug-dependent offenders have entered
drug court programs since their inception and more than 70 percent are
either still enrolled or have graduated--more than double the rate of traditional
treatment program retention rates. Drug court participants reflect all
segments of the community. Approximately two-thirds are parents of minor
children. Approximately 10 percent are veterans. Men participate at more
than twice the rate of women, although the percentage of female participants
is rising. Most drug court participants have been using drugs for many,
many years; many are polydrug users. Most have never been exposed to treatment,
although a large majority have already served jail or prison time for drug-related
offenses.
Unlike traditional treatment programs, becoming "clean and sober" is
only the first step toward graduating from drug court. Almost all drug
courts require participants (after they have become clean and sober) to
obtain a high school or GED certificate, maintain employment, be current
in all financial obligations--including drug court fees and child support
payments, if applicable--and have a sponsor in the community. Many programs
also require participants to perform community service hours--to "give
back" to the community that is supporting them through the drug court program.
One drug court requires prospective graduates to prepare a 2-year "life
plan" following drug court graduation for discussion with a community board
to assure the court that the participant has developed the "tools" to lead
a drug-free and crime-free life.
The original goals for drug courts--reductions in recidivism and drug
usage--are being achieved, with recidivism rates substantially reduced
for graduates and, to a lesser but significant degree, for participants
who do not graduate as well. Drug-usage rates for defendants while they
are participating in the drug court, as measured by the frequent, random
urinalysis required of all participants, are also substantially reduced,
generally to well under 10 percent, dramatically below the rate observed
for non-drug court offenders.
The "outcomes" that drug courts are achieving go far beyond these original
goals, however: the birth of more than 750 drug-free babies to drug court
participants; the reunification of hundreds of families, as parents regain
or are able to retain custody of their children; education and vocational
training and job placements for participants, to name a few. Most significantly,
many of the judges who have served as "drug court judges" have requested
an extension of their assignment, and many have taken on the drug court
duty in addition to their other docket responsibilities.
The following sections of this publication highlight the background
of the drug court "movement,"the major areas in which drug courts differ
from traditional adjudication processes, and salient accomplishments to
date.
Since the mid-1980's, many state and local criminal justice systems have been inundated with felony drug cases. Court dockets became overloaded with drug cases and drug-involved offenders, leaving fewer resources available to adjudicate serious, violent felonies. During this same period, it became increasingly clear that: (1) incarceration in and of itself does little to break the cycle of illegal drug use and crime, and offenders sentenced to incarceration for substance-related offenses exhibit a high rate of recidivism once they are released; and (2) drug abuse treatment is demonstrably effective in reducing both drug addiction and drug-related crime if participants remain in treatment for an adequate period of time.
In the early 1990's, a number of jurisdictions began to rethink their approach to handling defendants charged with drug and drug-related offenses and explored ways of adapting the "drug court" concept introduced by Dade County in 1989. Defendants targeted for the "drug court" have generally been nonviolent offenders whose current involvement with the criminal justice system is due, primarily, to their substance addiction. Defendants eligible for the drug court are identified as soon as possible after arrest and, if accepted, are referred immediately to a multiphase outpatient treatment program entailing multiple weekly (often daily) contacts with the treatment provider for counseling, therapy, and education; frequent urinalysis (usually at least weekly); frequent status hearings before the drug court judge (biweekly or more often at first); and a rehabilitation program entailing vocational, educational, family, medical, and other support services.
Drug court programs are currently operating in 42 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and one federal district, and programs are planned or about to be implemented in Guam, one additional federal district, and seven additional states, including several Native American Tribal Courts. Over 350 programs have been implemented, and 225 additional programs are about to start or are being planned. In addition, since 1995, 14 states have either enacted or have under consideration legislation dealing with the establishment of or funding for drug courts, and one state (Delaware) has implemented a statewide drug court program. The scope of drug court activity underway extends to state, local, Native American tribal courts, and federal districts.
Initially most drug courts focused on first offenders, but, increasingly,
jurisdictions are targeting more serious offenders for several reasons:
(1) recognition of the apparent futility of traditional probation and/or
incarceration sentences that have already been imposed on many of these
defendants and have failed to prevent continued drug use and criminal activity;
and (2) a policy decision to use the limited resources available to the
drug court for persons with serious substance addiction problems, rather
than those with less severe problems who might be served through other
programs.
Traditional Adjudication Process
Drug Use Forecasting (DUF) data collected on defendants in 35 cities indicate that 36 to 78 percent of arrested males and 20 to 67 percent of arrested females were under the influence of at least one illicit drug(1) at the time of arrest. Defendants convicted of drug offenses are either sentenced to a period of incarceration or referred for probation supervision, with few jurisdictions requiring frequent drug testing to monitor drug use after conviction. Jurisdictions that do have the capacity to monitor defendants on pretrial release or probation generally note significant drug usage rates, but are unable to respond promptly to positive tests. Few jails or prisons provide any comprehensive treatment services for inmates, and none provide long-term rehabilitation support once the defendant is released. In jurisdictions that require, as a condition of probation, completion of a treatment program, there is generally no follow-up monitoring of whether defendants who complete such programs actually cease or reduce their use of drugs. This situation, coupled with available recidivism data (see below), has led many justice system officials to conclude that the traditional case disposition process lacks the capacity to bring about any significant reduction in drug usage and criminal activity by persons convicted of drug offenses.
Drug Court Experience
Because drug court programs test defendants for drug use on a regular
basis (usually at least weekly), information regarding drug use by defendants
under drug court supervision is available and known to the court on an
ongoing basis, and is responded to promptly with appropriate sanctions.
Consequently, the drug use of defendants participating in drug court programs
is substantially reduced and significantly lower than that reported for
non-drug court defendants, and for participants who graduate from the programs
(ranging from 50 to 65 percent) is eliminated altogether for most participants.
Recidivism among graduates also appears to be very low (see below).
Traditional Adjudication Process
Most criminal justice system professionals estimate that well over 50 percent of defendants convicted of drug possession will recidivate with a similar offense within 2 to 3 years.(2) The more frequently a defendant has been arrested for a drug offense, the more likely he or she is to recidivate. A high percentage of defendants convicted of drug possession are also arrested for property offenses during the period when they are using illicit substances, and a substantial percentage have either committed violent offenses or are considered likely to do so, particularly as their addictions progress. Defendants in drug court programs report spending at least $50 - $ 100 per day on drugs before entering the drug court, and many report spending considerably more. The money to maintain their drug habits is usually derived from theft and other criminal activity, whether reported or not.
Drug Court Experience
In comparison, drug court programs are experiencing a significant reduction
in recidivism among participants. Depending upon the characteristics of
the population targeted and the degree of social dysfunction and other
problems they present (employment status, family situation, medical condition,
etc.), recidivism among all drug court participants has ranged between
5 and 28 percent and less than 4 percent for graduates. The drastic reduction
in drug use by drug court participants, and the consequent criminal activity
associated with drug use, is confirmed by urinalysis reports for drug court
defendants, usually well over 90 percent negative.
Intensive supervision is provided where little existed before.
Traditional Adjudication Process
Under the traditional adjudication process, supervision of defendants released before trial usually consists of a weekly call-in and periodic reporting to a pretrial service agency during the pretrial period (usually 60 to 120 or more days following arrest); after conviction, supervision usually consists of monthly reporting to a probation officer. Urinalysis is generally conducted only periodically, and treatment services provided only if available. The court's involvement occurs only when probation violations are reported--generally when new crimes are committed. Bench warrants may be issued for defendants who fail to appear for court hearings, but their actual execution (e.g., the defendant's arrest) may not occur for months and is often triggered only by a new arrest.
Drug Court Experience
Defendant supervision and monitoring--as well as treatment services--in all of the drug court programs are significantly more immediate and intensive than would have been provided to the typical drug court defendant before the program began. Drug court defendants come under the court's supervision very shortly after arrest, and throughout a typical 12- to 15-month period are required to attend treatment sessions, undergo frequent and random urinalysis, and appear before the drug court judge on a regular and frequent basis. Almost all of the drug courts have instituted procedures for immediate execution of bench warrants (often within hours) for defendants who fail to appear at any court hearing.
Capacity to Promptly Address Relapse and Its Consequences
Traditional Adjudication Process
It is particularly common for defendants on probation for drug offenses to fail to comply with probation conditions entailing attendance at treatment programs or abstinence from drug use. Frequently, their failure to comply is evidenced by a new arrest for a drug or drug-related offense, generally becoming known to the justice system months after the defendant's drug use has resumed -- if it ever ceased in the first place. This new arrest usually triggers: (1) a probation violation hearing, which generally results in imposition of the original sentence suspended when the defendant was placed on probation, and (2) conviction for the new offense, often resulting in an additional sentence of incarceration. It is common for this cycle to continue indefinitely once the defendant is released, with an enhanced incarceration sentence imposed each time to reflect the defendant's lengthening criminal history. At least 60 percent of offenders incarcerated in 1997 were imprisoned for drug or drug related offenses and more than 75 percent of the correctional population had substance abuse problems.(3)
Drug Court Experience
Recognizing that substance addiction is a chronic and recurring disorder,
the drug court program maintains continuous supervision over the recovery
process of each participant, through frequent court status hearings, urinalysis,
and reports from the treatment providers to the supervising judge. Drug
usage or failures to comply with other conditions of the drug court program
are detected and responded to promptly. Immediate responses--such as enhanced
treatment services, more frequent urinalysis (daily, if necessary), imposition
of community service requirements, and "shock" incarceration--are some
of the options drug court judges use to respond to program noncompliance.
In appropriate situations, particularly where public safety is at issue
or participants willfully fail to comply with program conditions, they
are terminated from the drug court and referred for traditional adjudication,
with standard penalties are applied. Data reported by the 200 oldest drug
courts indicate that drug use is being reduced for most participants, not
just drug court graduates.
Integration of Drug Treatment with Other Rehabilitation Services
Integration of services is promoting long-term recovery.
Traditional Adjudication Process
Although there are strong correlations between drug abuse and other attributes of social dysfunction exhibited by drug users, such as poor reading skills, dysfunctional family relationships, and low self esteem, most courts do not address these problems when sentencing drug-using offenders. At best, they refer them to a treatment program and/or a special skills class, with no regular follow-up monitoring of their participation or its results, absent a violation of probation filed by the probation officer (see above).
Drug Court Experience
In contrast, a fundamental premise of the drug court approach is that
cessation of drug abuse requires not only well-structured treatment services
but coordinated and comprehensive programs of other rehabilitation services
to address the underlying personal problems of the drug user, and promote
his or her long-term reentry into society. While sobriety is a primary
objective of the drug court program, no participant can successfully complete
the program without also addressing needs relating to his/her long-term
rehabilitation. In addition to sobriety, most drug courts require participants
to obtain a high school or GED certificate; obtain or maintain employment;
and develop mentor relationships within the community to sustain them after
they leave the drug court program.
Programs report high participant retention rates.
Despite their rigorous requirements, drug court programs are retaining
a significant percentage of the defendants enrolled, and consequently,
are having a more significant impact on participants' lives than traditional
pretrial and/or probation supervision. Data from the 200 oldest drug courts
(confirmed by a 1997 U.S. General Accounting Office study) reflect an average
retention rate of more than 70 percent (the total of graduates plus active
participants), despite the difficult populations that most programs target.
These retention rates can be contrasted with the significantly lower rates
generally acknowledged for traditional drug treatment programs dealing
with criminal defendants, with slightly higher rates for individuals not
involved with the criminal justice process. It has also been noted that,
in many cases, defendants may be terminated from a drug court program because
they fail to meet the stringent requirements imposed by the court but have
nevertheless made significant progress in terms of reducing drug use and
improving their employment status, educational development, and family
relationships. These people often eventually succeed in subsequent treatment
programs in which they enroll.
The Nature and Extent of Addiction Being Addressed
The nature and extent of addiction among drug court participants varies widely but generally tends to be severe.
Most drug court participants, even first offenders, appear to have significant
histories of substance addiction, frequently 15 or more years. Based on
information provided by the 200 oldest drug courts, the primary drug used
most frequently by drug court participants is crack/cocaine, although many
are polydrug users. Sixty percent of the drug courts also report heroin
use among participants and more than one-half report methamphetamine addiction,
notably in the central and eastern regions of the country as well as the
West, where it had previously appeared to be concentrated. Marijuana and
alcohol use, in conjunction with other substances, was also reported by
most of the programs. Increasing prevalence of the abuse of prescription
drugs and, among juveniles, toxic inhalants is also being reported.
Participants note judges' supervision, coupled with drug court treatment services and strict monitoring, is key to their success.
Responses from two recent surveys of 400 drug court participants in
the final phases of participation in more than 50 different programs(4)
indicated that the close supervision--and encouragement--provided by the
drug court judge, coupled with the programs' intensive treatment and rehabilitation
services and ongoing monitoring, were critical in promoting their success
in the program. More than one-fourth of the respondents had been in at
least one treatment program during the previous 3 years which they had
left unsuccessfully.
The average cost for the treatment component of a drug court program
ranges between $1,200 and $3,500 per participant, depending upon the range
of services provided and whether any of these services are provided by
existing agencies. Savings in jail bed days alone have been estimated to
be at least $5,000 per defendant--which does not factor in the value of
the added capability (see below) to incarcerate the more serious offenders
that many jurisdictions are also deriving from these programs. Similarly,
prosecutors are reporting that the drug court programs have reduced police
overtime and other witness costs, as well as grand jury expenses for those
jurisdictions with an indictment process, that would otherwise be required
if these cases proceeded in the traditional manner. Most programs also
report that a substantial percentage of the participants who came into
the program unemployed and on public assistance have become employed while
in the program and are now self-supporting. In addition, many participants
who are employed at the time of program entry are able to maintain their
employment, despite their arrest, because of their program participation.
Benefits for Families and Children
Approximately two-thirds of the drug court participants are parents
of minor children. Many of these parents have lost or are in danger of
losing custody of their children because of their drug use. Drug court
participation has resulted in many of these litigants' retaining or regaining
custody upon completing the drug court. More than 750 drug-free babies
have been reported born to female drug court participants while enrolled
in drug court programs, thus obviating the substantial medical and social
service costs (estimated at a minimum of $250,000 per baby) required to
care for a drug-addicted infant, let alone the resultant societal impact.
Almost all drug courts provide family counseling and parenting services,
and at least half provide aid with housing, food, and clothing. An increasing
number are providing child care services and facilities while parents attend
drug court treatment sessions and hearings.
Criminal justice resources are freed up for violent and other serious criminal cases.
In addition to cost savings, all components of the justice system report
that the drug court programs are enabling their agencies to allocate criminal
justice resources more efficiently. Staff and services, which had heretofore
been consumed by the less serious but time-consuming drug cases now targeted
for drug court assignment, can be directed to more serious cases and to
those offenders who present greater risks to community safety. Some prosecutors
and indigent defense counsel report that the case preparation and court
appearance time freed up by drug court programs is equivalent to one or
more FTE attorney positions. The caseloads assumed by the drug court judges
have also freed up other judges' docket time for other criminal matters
as well as civil cases which, in many jurisdictions, have been given secondary
priority because of the drug caseload. In jurisdictions where jail space
has been freed up, this space is now being used to house more serious offenders
and/or to assure that they serve their full sentences.
Benefits to Prosecutors and Police
Prosecutors and police in many jurisdictions report that the drug court
has significantly enhanced the credibility of the law enforcement function,
provides their agencies with a more effective response to substance abuse,
and is a significant alternative to the "revolving door" syndrome that
frequently results from the traditional case process. Defendants are no
longer released back into the community--and back to using drugs--shortly
after arrest but, rather, placed in a rigorous, court-supervised treatment
program that carries an important message to the community regarding the
seriousness of illegal drug use. A recent poll of 318 police chiefs found
that almost 60 percent advocate court-supervised treatment programs over
other justice system options for drug users.(5)
In a number of jurisdictions, prosecutor and/or police agencies have contributed
asset forfeiture funds to the local drug court and have campaigned with
the judiciary for community support.
Adult Model Being Adapted for Juvenile and Family Matters
Over 80 juvenile drug courts, addressing both delinquency and dependency
matters, have been implemented and 50 more are being planned in both state
courts and Native American Tribal Courts. Juvenile drug courts use the
rigorous and ongoing judicial supervision, treatment and community resources
of their adult counterparts, but in addition, shape the program's treatment
and rehabilitation services to also focus on the juvenile's developmental
needs, family situation, and peer environment as well as the juvenile.
Highlights of National Drug Court Survey Findings
The 1997 Drug Court Survey Report, recently published by the Office of Justice Programs Drug Court Clearinghouse and Technical Assistance Project at American University, provides a comparative profile of the 95 oldest drug court programs and includes operational information and comments from drug court judges, prosecutors, defender offices, law enforcement agencies, corrections departments, and treatment providers involved with the operation of the drug courts in their respective jurisdictions. The Survey Report also includes comments from 256 participants in the final phases of 55 drug court programs in 23 states and the District of Columbia.
The following are the most salient observations that emerge from the
survey and subsequent follow-up data.
The number of drug courts, in both the planning and operational stages of development, has tripled during the past year.
As of June 1, 1999, there were more than 575 drug courts in the following
stages of development:
| Drug courts operating for at least 2 years | 164 |
| Drug courts more recently implemented | 193 |
| Drug courts being planned | 217 |
| Jurisdictions exploring the feasibility of a drug court program | 3 |
| TOTAL | 577 |
Drug courts are now operating or being planned in 49 states plus the
District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, and two federal jurisdictions,
including more than 30 Native American Tribal Courts.
Primary Services Being Provided
Comprehensive, Individualized
Treatment Services
Many drug courts are diversifying the treatment services being provided to address the multitude of needs and backgrounds of participants.
Many of the treatment program components, for example, are developing
differentiated "tracks" to address the diversity of treatment needs presented
by drug court clients. Special components are also being developed for
the special ethnic and/or cultural groups represented, and other "special
populations", including pregnant women, mothers, fathers, persons who have
been sexually abused, and others.
Physical and Mental Health
Services
Drug courts are providing a range of physical and mental health services to participants, as well as substance-abuse treatment.
Almost all of the drug courts provide public health services, including HIV and TB screening and referral. An increasing number of programs are also developing special services to address the needs of dually diagnosed participants who have mental health problems, frequently as a result of their substance abuse, and, in many jurisdictions, comprise a significant percentage of the drug court-eligible populations. A number of drug courts routinely utilize the services of a physician and/or nurse.
Education, Job Training,
Employment, and Other Rehabilitation Services
The range of support and rehabilitation services being delivered by drug courts is expanding significantly.
Many of the early drug courts focused primarily upon treatment services,
with ancillary support for education, job training, and placement. Most
of these early drug courts, and their numerous progeny, have expanded their
treatment and rehabilitation services significantly, recognizing the diversity
of both treatment and other needs presented by the drug court populations.
The expanded services being developed also reflect, in large part, a growing
recognition that the drug court must treat not only the participant's addiction
but the numerous associated personal problems most participants encounter--physical,
mental, housing, family, employment, self-esteem, etc.--if long-term sobriety
and rehabilitation is to be achieved and future criminal activity is to
be significantly reduced.
Offenders Targeted: Focus on Long-Term Drug Users
Drug courts are increasingly targeting the chronic recidivists as well as first offenders.
Many drug courts that began as pretrial diversion programs are expanding their focus to target individuals with more extensive criminal histories who require the rigid supervision and monitoring of the drug court and can benefit from the treatment and rehabilitation services provided. Less than 20 percent of presently operating drug courts restrict their services to first offenders. Although generally not eligible for diversion because of their more extensive criminal history, defendants with more extensive criminal histories are generally offered some incentive to complete the drug court, such as suspension of a jail or prison term, or a reduction in the period of their probation.
Most programs report that participants are presenting moderate to severe crack/cocaine addiction with other drug usage and alcohol addiction as well.
Crack/cocaine addiction is prevalent among most drug court participants.
In addition, approximately 75 percent of the drug courts report moderate
to severe marijuana addiction and 53 percent of the programs report moderate
to severe heroin addiction. Approximately one-third of the programs also
report moderate to severe methamphetamine addiction presented by participants.
Since the first comprehensive Drug Court Survey in 1995, a notable prevalence
of methamphetamine has been reported by programs in the central and eastern
regions of the country, as well as in the West, where it had previously
appeared to be concentrated. Two-thirds of the responding programs also
report moderate to severe alcoholism presented by their clients. Over 60
percent of the programs routinely test for alcohol consumption as well
as illegal drug use. All of the drug courts either prohibit or strongly
discourage the use of alcohol by drug court participants. For juvenile
drug courts, the most prevalent drugs reported had, until recently, been
alcohol and marijuana. However, increasing prevalence of crack/cocaine,
methamphetamine, and toxic inhalants is being noted. The average age at
first use in juvenile drug courts is 10 to 12 years, and some programs
report usage as early as 8 years.
Close to 140,000 individuals have enrolled in drug courts to date, and
approximately 70 percent have graduated or are still participating. A profile
of 256 drug court participants in the final phases of 55 drug courts in
23 states and other data reported by operating programs indicates the following:
Participant Enrollment and Performance
Significantly more males than females are enrolling in drug court programs; in some programs, females who participate in drug courts are more heavily involved with drugs than males by the time they become involved in the criminal court process.
Where day care, special women's groups, and other special services are offered, females are graduating at a higher rate than their male counterparts.
For voluntary programs, a high percentage of defendants offered the
opportunity to participate in the drug court accept it despite its more
rigorous requirements compared with the traditional sanction to which they
are exposed.
The average age of drug court participants is generally over 30; the average age of graduates in individual programs is often older than the average age for all participants in the program.
In a number of programs, the average age for female participants is younger than for male participants.
Most participants who responded to the 1997 survey were single, divorced,
or widowed. Twenty-five percent were currently married. Men were more frequently
single or never married (56% vs. 41%). More women were currently married
(28% vs. 21%). The marital status of the respondents was as follows:
Marital Status of Responding Participants:
Marital Status by Gender
| Gender | Female | Male |
| Single | 41% | 56% |
| Divorced | 28% | 22% |
| Married | 28% | 21% |
| Widowed | 3% | 1% |
This data set is consistent with 1999 data reported by 200+ drug courts.
Most drug court participants have been using drugs for at least 15 years, and generally much longer. Most are using multiple illegal drugs at the time of program entry, and are also using alcohol. Some have also abused prescription drugs.
Approximately one-fourth of drug court participants have participated unsuccessfully in at least one--and often more--prior treatment programs.
Many drug court participants have served time in prison for prior drug
offenses.
Educational Status of Participants
Almost all of the drug court programs require a high school or GED certificate in order to graduate. The educational profile of the 256 participants surveyed in 1997 revealed that 5 percent had less than an eighth grade education, 25 percent had some high school, 36 percent were high school graduates or had a GED certificate, 9 percent had post high school technical training, 15 percent had 2 years of college, 6 percent had 3 to 4 years of college, 2 percent held an undergraduate college degree, and 3 percent had completed some postgraduate study.
Many drug court participants are parents. About 60 percent of the 256 drug court participants surveyed were parents of minor children, many of whom were in foster care at the time the parent entered the drug court. More recent information from 100+ drug courts indicates that a similar percentage of participants in these programs are parents of minor children, with an estimated 50,000 children represented among drug court parents.
The retention rates for drug courts remain high, generally between 65 and 85 percent, despite the difficult populations most programs are targeting, the rigid participation requirements of these programs, the rapid proliferation of drug courts nationally, and their expansion to more complex caseloads.
The rapid proliferation of drug courts does not appear to have had a negative impact on the high retention rates (total graduates plus active participants divided by total number ever enrolled) experienced by early programs. Moreover, retention rates do not appear to be decreasing over time. Retention rates for programs begun during the period of 1989-92 are similar to those of the more recently implemented programs.
The retention rates also do not appear to be influenced by the population size of the jurisdiction served. Drug courts in large metropolitan areas (e.g., with populations over 750,000) appear to retain participants at a rate similar to drug courts in smaller jurisdictions with populations under 200,000 and in rural areas.
Recidivism
Recidivism rates continue to be significantly reduced for graduates
as well as for participants who do not complete the program.
Recidivism rates reported by drug courts continue to range between 2
and 20 percent, depending upon the characteristics of the population targeted.
In almost all jurisdictions, recidivism is substantially reduced for participants
who complete the drug court program and to a considerable, although generally
lesser, degree for those who do not complete the program as well.
Less than 3 percent of the recidivism rates for drug court graduates involve violent offenses, and almost all of the small number of violent offenses reported have been misdemeanors. Most of the recidivism reported involves new drug possession charges or traffic violations arising out of driving license suspensions resulting from the initial drug court charge
Drug usage, as measured by the percent of negative urine samples
for drug court participants during the frequent, random urinalyses conducted,
is being reduced for most participants, not just
graduates,
despite the substantial drug usage of these defendants when entering the
drug court.
Examples of the rate of clean urine samples reported for participants
while in the drug court are:
| Jurisdiction | No. of Tests | Percent Clean |
| Albuquerque, NM Met. Ct. | 5,477 | 97% |
| Beaumont, Tex | 10,130 | 88% |
| Iberia Par., La | 4,392 | 98% |
| Panama City, Fl | 5,156 | 96% |
| Riverside, CA | 5,911 | 97% |
| San Diego, CA-Mun | 49,969 | 98% |
| San Jose, CA | 4,742 | 95% |
| Peoria, Il | 1,500 | 91% |
| Kalamazoo, MI-male | 9,066 | 84% |
| Kalamazoo, MI-female | 5,373 | 84% |
| Roanoke, VA | 6,988 | 89% |
| Sandusky, OH | 3,891 | 95% |
| Toledo, OH | 1,902 | 95% |
| Tuscaloosa, AL | 9,767 | 95% |
Drug courts are continuing to achieve cost savings for the justice system, particularly in the use of jail space and probation services
A number of jurisdictions report reducing and/or more efficiently using jail space and probation services as a result of the drug court, which frees up these resources so that they can focus on other offenders who present greater public safety risks. Savings are also reported in prosecutor and law enforcement functions, particularly in regard to court appearance costs. All sectors of the justice system have also noted "cost avoidance" results from the reduced recidivism of drug court participants and graduates. Among the jurisdictions reporting specific
annual justice system cost savings as a result of the drug court are:
Albuquerque, NM-Met $ 612,000/yr based on 90 day jail sentences @ $ 68/ day.
Kalamazoo, MI-male $ 100,485/yr. Based on 4,785 jail days @ $ 21/day
Pittsburgh, PA. $ 2,073,643 based on 33,120 jail days saved @ $ 62.61 per day
Los Angeles, CA-Mun $ 2.5 million (jail/prison costs saved based on 2 yr. aver. sentence @ $ 25,000 per year)
Philadelphia, PA. $ 2,835,000 based on 1,350 months saved @ $ 70/day
San Joaquin Co., CA $ 1,834, 950 (based on 28,230 jail days saved plus $ 1,220,000 (based on 12,200 prison days saved)
Washington DC: $4,065-$8,845 per client in jail costs (amount fluctuates,
depending upon use of jail as a sanction while the defendant is enrolled
in the drug court); and $102,000 in prosecution costs.
Many individuals participating in the drug court are able either
to
retain their jobs or to obtain employment as a result
of drug court participation.
While a small percentage of drug court participants have steady jobs at the time of program entry, a substantial number (generally more than 65%) are unemployed or employed only on a sporadic basis. Many of the individuals who are employed at the time of program entry report that they were able to retain employment by demonstrating participation in the drug court, and a high proportion of unemployed individuals obtain employment while enrolled.
A number of drug courts (Portland and Las Vegas, for example), have
a job counselor on site dedicated to working with drug court participants.
Almost all of the drug courts provide vocational training and job development
services. Many judges also work with local employers to personally guarantee
daily supervision of persons they employ in order for them to either retain
or obtain employment. The following chart illustrates the experiences
of drug court participants in being able to retain or obtain employment
in the programs listed below:
Austin, TX: 74% retained/obtained
Bakersfield, CA: 47% retained/obtained
Birmingham, AL: 53% retained; 39% obtained
Erie Co., OH: 46% retained; 23% obtained
Fort Worth, TX: 98% retained/obtained
Greenfield, MA: 33% retained; 19% obtained
Kalamazoo, MI: everyone who leaves program has to be either employed or in school full-time
Laguna Nigel, CA: 52% retained; 22% obtained
Los Angeles (Mun.), CA: 66% obtained/retained
Marathon, FL: 90% retained/obtained
Panama City, FL: 61% retained; 28% obtained
Pensacola, FL: 50-60% have obtained employment; in addition, local maintenance service regularly employs at least 20 drug court participants at any one time
Portland, OR: 65-70% are unemployed when they enter the drug court; all are sent to a job referral service, which has had an office on site at the drug court, and at least 70-80% are employed by the time they leave the drug court
Rochester, NY: 80+% retained/obtained (GED & jobs required of all graduates)
St. Mary's Parish, LA: 32% retained; 20% obtained
San Bernardino, CA:77% obtained/retained
San Diego, CA: 30% obtained
Santa Clara Co., CA: 16% retained; 33% obtained
Visalia, CA: 60% retained/obtained (work force preparation component is required for all participants)
Worcester, MA: 40% retained; 50% obtained
Yosemite (Federal District), CA: 100% obtained/retained
Drug courts are developing close working relationships with a broad
base of community organizations to promote the long-term sobriety and rehabilitation
of participants.
Almost all drug courts are working closely with community groups to provide support services for participants, both during and following drug court participation. Through both community networks and involvement with local AA and NA groups, participants are often linked with community mentors shortly after entering the drug court. Drug courts are also developing close working relationships with local chambers of commerce, medical providers, community service organizations, the local educational system, the faith community, and other local institutions to provide a broad-based network of essential services that can be drawn upon to serve the needs of drug court participants.
Drug court graduates are forming alumni groups and serving as mentors for new participants in many jurisdictions.
In many of the older programs, particularly (Jacksonville, Las Vegas, Portland, Rochester, and San Bernardino, for example), drug court graduates are, at their own initiative, forming alumni groups, continuing the network of support they developed during drug court participation, as well as serving as mentors for new participants. Several alumni groups (Rochester, Grants Pass, Oregon, and Tulare Co, California/juvenile) publish periodic newsletters.
Family Reunification and Other Family Services
Drug courts are resulting in family reunification in many instances.
In many programs, parents who have lost custody or may lose custody of their children because of their drug use have regained it upon completion of the drug court program.
In Pensacola, for example, the first two graduates of the family (dependency)
drug court established in early 1996 illustrate the impact of the drug
court on the families of these women: one of the women had four minor children,
the other had five minor children. Both had a long history of drug usage;
one had been in state prison for 3 years, having been sent to prison by
the drug court judge when he presided over her previous case. She was a
long-term crack addict; the other was primarily alcohol- and marijuana-addicted.
Neither had any permanent residence or work history. Their cumulative total
of 9 children were living in foster care. Both now have a home (one rents;
one owns); one is working; both families are reunited; neither mother currently
uses drugs, and both have been clean for over one year.
In Portland, almost all of the more than 100 female participants who
lost custody of their minor children due to their substance abuse regained
custody of their children at the conclusion of their participation in the
drug court.
In Kalamazoo, at least 15-20 percent of the women in the female drug
court program at any one time are also involved with probate court proceedings
regarding loss of custody of their children; almost all of them regain
custody of their children following completion of the drug court. Participants
in the newly established male drug court, while not as extensively involved
with the loss of custody of their children, have brought in letters
from their children and wives expressing their gratitude at having their
fathers and husbands "back" from drugs.
In Las Vegas, at least 40 women who have lost custody of their children
have regained them after completing the drug court program.
Drug courts are providing a wide array of family services
Almost all of the drug courts provide family counseling, and at least
half provide assistance with housing, food, and clothing. Most of the programs
also provide parenting classes, including special segments on stress and
anger management.
Birth of drug-free babies is an unplanned program impact.
Well over 750 drug-free babies have been reported born to drug court
participants, including one set of twins in Rochester; a number of pregnant
women are currently participating in drug court programs across the country.
Support from Law Enforcement Agencies
Increased collaboration is developing among drug courts and law enforcement agencies.
Many drug courts are developing close relationships with local law enforcement
agencies and community policing activities. Much effort is being made by
drug court judges to explain the drug court process to line officers who
are generally the arresting officers in many drug court cases. The police
departments in several drug court jurisdictions (New Haven and San Diego,
for example), have assigned an officer full-time to the drug court to assist
with monitoring and supervising participants and to immediately execute
bench warrants for any participants who fail to appear in court or are
otherwise noncompliant with drug court orders. A number of drug courts
provide arresting officers with updated information on the progress of
their arrestees in the drug court, and many drug courts invite the arresting
officer to participants' graduation ceremonies.
Adaptation of the Drug Court Model to Other Justice System Initiatives
Many jurisdictions are adapting the adult drug court model to juvenile populations and family matters.
More than 80 juvenile and/or family drug courts have been implemented
and another 50 are being planned. Using the adult drug court model of intensive,
ongoing judicial supervision and the development of a structured system
of sanctions and rewards, juvenile and family drug courts are focusing
on both delinquency cases and dependency matters. There is also increasing
recognition among the adult drug court judges that children and other family
members who live with an adult substance abuser are at particular risk
for becoming substance-involved. Consequently, a number of adult drug courts
are developing special prevention-oriented components for children and
other family members of adult drug court participants, whether or not they
are already involved with the adult or juvenile justice system.
The drug court experience appears to be providing a model for other
community-based justice system initiatives that focus on chronic repeat
offenders whose criminal activity is aggravated by coexisting substance
abuse and/or related problems.
A number of jurisdictions are developing special dockets, modeled after
the drug court approach, to handle other classes of chronic criminal offenders
whose criminal activity is aggravated by coexisting substance abuse and/or
related problems and for whom the conventional sanctions available to the
criminal justice system are inadequate. Domestic violence matters, for
example, with their special offender supervision, coordination, and follow-up
needs, and the multiple ramifications that these cases often generate for
the "system" (custody, support, medical, housing, etc.) are considered
particularly appropriate for the drug court approach. Many jurisdictions
are also looking to the drug court "model" to apply to the high volume
of "quality of life" crimes (ordinance violations, loitering, etc.) which,
although less serious in terms of criminal sanction, can seriously erode
the life of many communities.
The drug court experience is evolving daily, from both a national perspective
and the local perspectives of the 575+ communities in which drug court
activity is underway or being planned. While the full impact of drug courts
probably will not be evident for some time, the experience of the first
decade demonstrates the remarkable achievements drug courts have spurred
in all segments of the justice system and the community. While we may not
have a definitive assessment of drug court impact over the long term, the
short-term impact is significant and touches many segments of the community:
public safety, criminal activity, drug use, public health, child welfare,
employment, education, to name a few. Unequivocally, judges involved with
drug court programs during this first decade maintain that the drug court
approach is far more effective than the traditional criminal case process
for the significant number of offenders who seriously desire to address
their substance addiction and turn their lives around. Most of the judges
who take this position have been dealing with criminal caseloads for many
years, and many of them are former prosecutors.
For Further Information Contact:
Marilyn M. Roberts, Director
OJP Drug Courts Programs Office
U.S. Department of Justice
810 Seventh Street N.W., Eighth Floor
Washington, DC 20531
202/616-5001; fax - 202/514-6452
Web site - http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/dcpo
Caroline S. Cooper, Director
OJP Drug Court Clearinghouse & Technical Assistance Project
American University
4400 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20016-8159
202/885-2875; fax - 202/885-2885
Web site - http://www.american.edu/justice
e-mail: justice@american.edu
1. U.S. Dept. of Justice, National Institute of Justice. 1997 Drug Use Forecasting: Annual Report on Adult and Juvenile Arrestees. 1997.
2. See also Corrections Facts at a Glance: Criminal Offender Statistics, 1997. U.S. Dept. of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
3. U.S. Dept. of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Special Report: Substance Abuse and Treatment: State and Federal Prisoners, 1997. 1999.
4. State Justice Institute. 1995 National Symposium on the Implementation and Operation of Drug Courts. Drug Courts: Participant Comments. OJP Drug Court Clearinghouse and Technical Assistance Project at American University. 1997 Drug Court Survey: Participant Perspectives.
5. Police Foundation and Drug Strategies. Drugs
and Crime Across America: Police Chiefs Speak Out. 1996.