8/02/2006

Drug Courts: A Way to Lower Costs and Reduce Recidivism?
New Department of Justice report examines cost-benefit analysis

BY BOB ELLIS
DAKOTA VOICE

Drug courts came onto the legal scene in the late 1980s due to rapidly increasing felony drug caseloads that overloaded the nation's courts, jails and prisons. The first one was established in Miami, Florida in 1989.The outlook on drug courts is generally positive, with National Drug Control Strategy Update, issued in March 2004 by the White House, calling drug courts "one of the most promising trends in the criminal justice system."

The goal of drug courts is to reduce substance abuse and criminal behavior, freeing up court and correctional systems to deal with other cases. Drug courts provide a structure that links supervision and treatment as an alternative to incarceration, and exert legal pressure on defendants to enter and remain in treatment long enough to stand a good chance of remaining drug-free once out of the program.

One cost-benefit analysis cited by the report put savings at $2,329 in direct cost to the criminal justice system, and another $1,301 in victimization costs.

In January 1997, the National Association of Drug Court Professionals and the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Justice published "Defining Drug Courts: The Key Components", describing the basic elements of drug courts and providing benchmarks.

The 10 key components were defined as:

• Combining substance abuse treatment with a pending criminal case

• A non-adversarial approach where both prosecution and defense work for public safety while providing access to due process for the accused

• Prompt placement of eligible participants

• Access to a continuum of treatment and rehabilitation services

• Frequent testing for substance abuse

• A coordinated strategy among the judge, prosecution, defense, and treatment providers to ensure offender compliance

• Ongoing judicial interaction with each participant

• Monitoring and evaluation to measure achievement of goals and gauge effectiveness

• Continuing interdisciplinary education to promote effective planning, implementation, and operation.

• Partnerships with public agencies and community based organizations to generate local support and enhance drug court effectiveness.

According to December 2005 figures, there are more than 1,500 drug courts in the United States with another 391 planned. In evaluating the effectiveness of these courts, the National Institute of Justice, a part of the Department of Justice, took a closer look to find out if drug courts are performing as well as supporters claim.

A NIJ report entitled "Drug Courts: The Second Decade" released in June looks at a number of factors, including how prison populations and attributes affect program outcomes, the judge's role in the success of drug court participants, treatment issues, drug court interventions for juveniles, and cost-benefit analyses of drug courts. The study examined 26 different drug courts.

Some of the basic findings of the study regarding drug courts are:

• Drug courts can reduce recidivism and promote other positive outcomes.

• Research has not uncovered which court processes affect which outcomes and for what types of offenders. The magnitude of a court's impact may depend upon how consistently court resources match the needs of the offenders in the drug court program.

• Treatment(1) be based on formal theories of drug dependence and abuse, (2) use the best therapeutic tools, and (3) give participants opportunities to build cognitive skills. Treatment plans that use a mixture of inconsistent philosophies are usually not effective.

• Services that address mental and physical health, housing, and other needs are beneficial.

• Juveniles are often difficult to diagnose and treat due to a lack of an established pattern of abuse or addiction.

• Offenders report that interactions with the judge are one of the most important influences on the experience they have while in the program. Involvement with a single judge rather than multiple judges seems to result in better participant compliance and greater accountability.

Recidivism rates were also better in drug courts. The study looked at participants between 1993 and 1997 and found that 53% of drug court participants were rearrested later, versus 65% for others.

However, the study found that 64% of the participants did not attend the required of treatment sessions, and that more than 36.5% graduated from drug court programs without completing the required number of sessions.

Actual drug testing figures also departed from requirements. Some 54% of participants did not receive the minimum number of drug tests (70% of the standard) called for by the program requirements. About 33% of participants graduated from drug court programs without completing this requirement. These results suggest a serious gap in meeting the requirements necessary to hold participants accountable.

Additionally, 76% tested positive for drug use one or more times, and 61% tested positive two or more times.

Cost comparison between drug court and "business as usual" processing showed a slightly higher court cost for drug court participants ($3 per participant) and $635 more per participant for treatment, a savings of $1,172 in incarceration costs and $908 in probation costs is a net savings of $1,442 per participant. One county examined reported annual savings of $1.5 million.

Based on the findings of the report, it would appear that drug courts can not only save the taxpayers money, but can also result in a lower rate of recidivism. However, it also indicates the effectiveness of the program is contingent on adherence to program, which was fairly inconsistent.