The Promise of Drug Courts 23 of Adult

The Promise of Drug Courts

2/3 of Adult and 1/2 of Juvenile Arrestees Test Positive for Drugs New York City 80% Detroit 78% Philadelphia 76% Indianapolis 63% Oklahoma City 72%

Arrestees Test Positive for Methamphetamine Portland, Spokane, San Diego and Phoenix report 25% to 44%

From 1979 to present date, the number of drug and alcohol users in the United States declined by 45%, but the percentages of burglaries, robberies, murder, and other crime attributable to drugs has spiraled incessantly upward, even as crime in general has declined. We are a nation of fewer addicts, but a nation of more harmful and destructive addicts.

What is our Philosophical Base? Punishment or Rehabilitation

What if we JUST put them in PRISON? 29. 9% of prisoners released in 1998 in 15 states were rearrested within six months and 68% are rearrested within three years. (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2002) 95% relapse to substance abuse in three years. (Treatment Research Institute, 2002)

The Number of Inmates Released Federal and States Prisons 635, 000 473, 300 1995 2001

Judge Dennis Challeen We want them to have self-worth So we destroy their self-worth We want them to be responsible So we take away all responsibility We want them to be positive and constructive So we degrade them and make them useless We want them to be trustworthy So we put them where there is no trust

Judge Dennis Challeen We want them to be non-violent So we put them where violence is all around them We want them to be kind and loving people So we subject them to hatred and cruelty We want them to quit being the tough guy So we put them where the tough guy is respected We want them quit hanging around losers So we put all the losers in the state under one roof

Judge Dennis Challeen We want them to quit exploiting us So we put them where they exploit each other We want them to take control of their lives, own problems and quit being a parasite on… So we make them totally dependant on us

The Answer “We need to punish the offenders we are afraid of and treat the ones we are mad at” Hon. Dennis Challeen

What if we JUST refer them to TREATMENT? Attrition n 50% to 67% don’t show for intake n 40% to 80% drop out in 3 months n 90% drop out in 12 months Outcomes n 40% to 60% of clients abstinent at 1 year Treatment Research Institute, 2003

“We cannot solve the problems we have created with the same thinking that created them” Albert Einstein

Courts as Problem-Solver “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

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

Painting the Current Picture: A National Report Card on Drug Courts and Other Problem-Solving Courts in the United States Volume I, Issues 1 and 2 C. West Huddleston Hon. Karen Freeman-Wilson Doug Marlowe, Ph. D. , J. D. Aaron Roussell Office of National Drug Control Policy, Executive Office of the President and the Bureau of Justice Assistance, U. S. Department of Justice

Drug Courts: A National Phenomenon

Number of Drug Courts 1989 1 1990 1 1991 5 1992 10 1993 19 1994 40 1995 75 1996 139 1997 230 1998 347 1999 472 2000 665 2001 847 2002 1, 048 2003 1, 183

1, 621 Drug Courts in 2004 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 Courts 68 Reentry Drug Courts 1 Campus Drug Court 1 Federal Drug Court

2004 Drug Court Activity 37% Increase from 2003 16, 186 graduates in 2004 69, 000 currently being served 75% of Adult Drug Courts are Post Plea

Benefits 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)

Effective Community Supervision and Home Visits

Bar Sweeps

Benefits of Drug Courts Increase Retention in Treatment

Treatment Research Findings Drug Abuse Reporting Project (DARP) ü Treatment Outcome Prospective Study (TOPS) ü Drug Abuse Treatment Outcome Study (DATOS) ü National Treatment Improvement Evaluation Study ü

Treatment Research Findings n The length of time a patient spent in treatment was a reliable predictor of his or her post treatment performance. Beyond a ninety-day threshold, treatment outcomes improved in a direct relationship to the length of time spent in treatment, with one year generally found to be the minimum effective duration of treatment. n Coerced patients tended to stay longer. This was in light of the finding that most of the legally coerced addicts had more crime and gang involvement, more drug use, and worse employment records than their non-coerced counterparts.

Retention in Treatment “Drug Courts exceed these abysmal projections”… “This represents a sixfold increase in treatment retention over most previous efforts. ” Marlowe, Dematteo, & Festinger, 2003

Benefits of Drug Court: Drug Courts Reduce Criminal Involvement

Graduation is KEY “The body of literature on recidivism is now strong enough to conclude that completing a drug court program reduces the likelihood of further involvement in the criminal justice system. ” Vera: Fluellen & Trone,

National Research 2020 Graduates from 95 Drug Courts Representing 17, 000 Graduates 1 Year Post Graduation: 16. 4% 2 Years Post Graduation: 27. 5% Roman, Townsend & Bhati,

Statewide Research “Re-conviction rate among a sample of almost 2, 500 drug court participants in six sites across New York State was, on average, 29% lower (56% to 40%) over three years after the initial arrest than the comparison group. Repel, et. al. 2003

GAO Evaluation Review Drug court participants had: Lower rearrest and reconviction rates than comparison group members. Fewer recidivism events/incidents than comparison group members. Longer time intervals until rearrest or reconviction than comparison group members. Recidivism reductions in various categories of offenses Decreased involvement in substance abuse Positive cost/benefit/ratio GAO, 2005

Benefits of Drug Court: Drug Courts Save Money

Drug Courts Save Money “A state taxpayer’s return on the upfront investment in drug courts is substantial. ” ”a county’s investment in drug court pays off. ”

Statewide Research “New York Statewide Drug Court System saved $254 Million in three years” Rempel et al, 2003

Statewide Research “The average drug court participant produces $6, 779 in benefits with $3, 759 in avoided criminal justice costs paid by taxpayers and $3, 020 in avoided costs to victims. ” 2003 Washington State Institute for Public Policy,

Statewide Research “California drug courts demonstrate a savings of 18 million per year. A 14 million investment returned 43. 3 million in savings over two years. ” Judicial Council of California 2002; NPC Research & Judicial Council of California

Local Research “In St. Louis, Missouri, each drug court graduate cost the city $2, 615 less than those on probation alone. ” Institute for Applied Research, 2004

Local Research “For every dollar spent on drug court in Multnomah County, Oregon, ten dollars were saved. ” Finigan, 1998 “A total savings to the local taxpayer over a thirty-month period was $5, 071. 57 or a savings of $1, 521, 471 per year. ” Carey & Finigan,

Local Research “For every dollar spent on drug court in Dallas, Texas, $9. 43 in tax dollars was realized over a forty-month period. ” Fomby & Rangaprasad, 2002

Cost Benefits of Drug Court Avoided Criminal Justice Costs Avoided Victim Costs Employability Drug Free-Babies

460 drug free babies in 2004!

“To put it bluntly, we know that drug courts outperform virtually all other strategies that have been attempted for drug-involved offenders. ” Marlowe, De. Matteo, Festinger (2003)

National Resolutions “Continued development of problem-solving courts” American Bar Association, 2001 “To take steps nationally and locally to expand the methods and principles of wellfunctioning drug courts into ongoing court operations” Conference of Chief Justices and the Conference of Court Administrators, 2000/2004

National Resolutions The National District Attorneys Association The National Sheriffs Association International Association of Chiefs of Police The National Association of County Organizations Governors Highway Safety Association Mothers Against Drunk Driving

Drug Court Permutations “Problem Solving in the Courts: Taking the Model to Other Populations”

936 Problem-Solving Courts Teen Courts – 393 Mental Health Courts - 111 Domestic Violence Courts – 141 Community Courts - 23 Reentry Courts – 16 Gun Courts- 2 Prostitution Courts - 4 Parole Violation Courts - 5 Homeless Courts - 6 Truancy Courts - 131 Child Support Courts – 45 Integrated Courts 17 Other -42

Number of Operational Problem-Solving Court Programs in the United States 1, 667 - 2003 2, 557 - 2004

Aiming to Solve the Problems of the People Who Come Before the Courts is Work Worth Doing!