[Senate Hearing 106-1054]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 106-1054
OVERSIGHT OF THE OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS: PROGRAM PERFORMANCE--DRUG
COURTS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON YOUTH VIOLENCE
of the
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
OCTOBER 3, 2000
__________
Serial No. J-106-111
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
74-754 WASHINGTON : 2001
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpr.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah, Chairman
STROM THURMOND, South Carolina PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont
CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts
ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania JOSEPH R. BIDEN, Jr., Delaware
JON KYL, Arizona HERBERT KOHL, Wisconsin
MIKE DeWINE, Ohio DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
JOHN ASHCROFT, Missouri RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin
SPENCER ABRAHAM, Michigan ROBERT G. TORRICELLI, New Jersey
JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York
BOB SMITH, New Hampshire
Manus Cooney, Chief Counsel and Staff Director
Bruce A. Cohen, Minority Chief Counsel
------
Subcommittee on Youth Violence
JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama, Chairman
BOB SMITH, New Hampshire JOSEPH R. BIDEN, Jr., Delaware
JON KYL, Arizona DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
JOHN ASHCROFT, Missouri HERBERT KOHL, Wisconsin
Kristi Lee, Chief Counsel
Sheryl Walter, Minority Chief Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Page
Biden, Hon. Joseph R., Jr., a U.S. Senator from the State of
Delaware....................................................... 12
Sessions, Hon. Jeff, a U.S. Senator from the State of Alabama.... 1
WITNESSES
Belenko, Steven, Fellow, National Center on Addiction and
Substance Abuse, Columbia University, New York, NY............. 44
Gebelein, Hon. Richard S., Judge, Superior Court of Delaware,
Wilmington, DE................................................. 39
Goldkamp, John, Professor of Criminal Justice, Temple University,
Philadelphia, PA............................................... 55
Leary, Mary Lou, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Office of
Justice Programs, Department of Justice, Washington, DC........ 5
McMaken, Hon. Michael E., Judge, District Court of Alabama,
Mobile County, Mobile, AL...................................... 29
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
Responses of Mary Lou Leary to Questions from Senator Sessions... 65
Responses of Hon. Michael R. McMaken to Questions from Senator
Sessions....................................................... 128
Responses of Hon. Richard S. Gebelein to Questions from Senator
Sessions....................................................... 130
Responses of Steven Belenko to Questions from Senator Sessions... 133
Responses of John S. Goldkamp to Questions from Senator Sessions. 135
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Youth Violence,
Washington, DC:
Chairman's Report on the Oversight Activities................ 164
Oversight Plan of the Chairman............................... 184
Hummel, John H., KPMG LLP, Washington, DC........................ 204
OVERSIGHT OF THE OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS: PROGRAM PERFORMANCE--DRUG
COURTS
----------
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 3, 2000
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Youth Violence,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a.m., in
room SD-628, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Jeff Sessions
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Also present: Senator Biden.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF SESSIONS, A U.S. SENATOR FROM
THE STATE OF ALAMAMA
Senator Sessions. Good morning. We will get started now,
and I think Senator Biden will be joining us shortly.
I am pleased to begin the performance review by the
Subcommittee on Youth Violence of programs funded through the
Office of Justice Programs with this hearing. OJP is the grant-
making arm of the Department of Justice, and the subcommittee's
ultimate focus in looking at OJP will be on financial and
performance accountability of OJP's programs--bang for the
buck.
OJP's budget for a variety of criminal justice programs has
increased from $695 million in fiscal year 1992 to $3.9 billion
in fiscal year 2000. Much of this budget increase has resulted
from the 1994 Violent Crime Act that created and enlarged
numerous criminal justice programs. Today, OJP funds programs
ranging from juvenile violence prevention efforts to community
preparedness initiatives to drug treatment for incarcerated
offenders. With all this money being spent for many different
programs, it is time for performance analysis to begin.
The analysis will focus on simple questions: What is the
problem being addressed? What is the solution that Congress or
OJP is advocating? How much does it cost? Does it work?
The Subcommittee on Youth Violence has developed an
oversight plan that I will place in the record. The first area
that the subcommittee will examine is OJP's substance abuse
programs. These programs run from prevention programs to
treatment programs to reentry programs. For today's hearing, we
will be looking at one of these--drug court programs.
What is the problem being addressed? Well, drug use leads
to crime. At least it is clear that drugs are an accelerator to
crime. A recent OJP report entitled ``The 1999 Annual Report on
Drug Use among Adult and Juvenile Arrestees'' revealed the
troubling statistic that over 60 percent of 30,000 male
arrestees from 27 of 34 different sites and cities around the
country tested positive for either cocaine, marijuana,
methamphetamine, opiates, PCP, and in some cases several of
those drugs. Those numbers have not changed since the mid-
1980's at least, if not the early 1980's. Sixty percent plus--
often as high as 66 percent--have drug-tested positive for just
any crime for which they were arrested, whether it be burglary,
shoplifting, or robbery.
The old choices have been prison, which is costly, or
probation, which has proven to be unsatisfactory. Even with
offenders being prosecuted, while they are being tried to be
sent to jail, they often are released on parole and often are
released on bail prior to trial. So they are out at that time;
if they are still strung out on drugs, they may well be
committing crimes.
As a Federal prosecutor for 15 years, I saw firsthand how
drugs can gain control of and destroy people. Drugs sap the
will to work and can be responsible for and accelerate crime.
There is indeed a problem. So drug courts have been used for a
decade. Is that a solution to our crime problem? I remember
vividly--and Judge McMaken, is here from Mobile who was at that
meeting in the late 1980's--when I was U.S. attorney, we
brought up Judge Goldstein from Miami, who I believe is
generally credited with creating the drug court. Judge
Goldstein was extraordinarily enthusiastic, as anybody who
knows him knows, and he suggested incredible results from drug
courts--just unbelievable reductions in recidivist rates. In
fact, they were so unbelievable, I told him they were
unbelievable, but I did tell him if he could get 25 percent of
what he said, that would probably be progress, and we ought to
consider a drug court. I really arranged that meeting. Judge
McMaken came and became interested in it, and eventually the
City and County of Mobile created an eminent, first-rate drug
court.
Drug court programs do serve as an alternative to trial and
imprisonment for nonviolent offenders. If the offender enrolls
in the program, he will be required to complete a period of
months without testing positive for drug use, to perform
community service, to complete certain educational
requirements, and to hold down a job. If he fails, he will be
sent back to the regular criminal justice system.
Congress has, however, allowed local drug courts much
flexibility in how they operate, with a few notable exceptions.
These exceptions include several things, such as requiring
continued judicial supervision over drug court participants.
Judge Goldstein explained he believed that personal supervision
by the judge over the defendant was key to success. Mandatory
periodic testing for drug use is, in my view, an essential
component of every step of the criminal justice system. Our
failure to do that systematically throughout the criminal
justice system is one of the greatest failures in our system,
but it is done consistently in drug courts. Drug courts also
must have substance abuse treatment for each participant and
exclude violent offenders in order to receive Federal funding
from the Drug Court Program Office.
Many of the participatants in drug courts fail. The best
numbers I have been able to see--and if others have different
numbers I would like to hear them--state that throughout our
history of drug courts, 200,000 participants have enrolled
50,000 have completed and graduated, and 65,000 are still
enrolled, which would indicate some 80,000 offenders have
failed or either been sentenced, dropped out of the program
maybe even gone to jail.
How much does it cost? It is my understanding that there
are currently around 560 drug court programs operating in the
United States with 293 additional programs being planned. This
chart here on my right shows the dramatic increase in drug
courts from one in the late 1980's to 567 by 2000. That is a
dramatic increase, and it also shows an increase in Federal
funding.
These figures on the right show that 1992 appropriations of
$3.4 million increased to $57 million by 1999. That figure
represents Federal support for drug courts. It is not what they
cost, because I am sure most drug court judges will tell us the
State and local systems contribute substantially to these
programs.
Over the past 10 years, OJP has spent a total of around
$180 million on drug courts. That is a lot of money, and if we
are going to continue to spend that much money on a program,
the American people deserve to know if it works. While there
has been no comprehensive nationwide study of all drug courts,
scientific studies of various individual drug courts have given
us some indication of how they work and do indicate that they
have shown positive results.
For example, studies have shown that criminal recidivism,
measured by rearrests, ranges from 12 percent to 32 percent for
offenders who were not enrolled in a drug court program. That
is a pretty broad number, and it raises questions in my mind
about the rigor of those tests and what cohort was being
tested. But 12 to 32 percent, according to the studies we have
of offenders who are not enrolled in a drug court are
rearrested.
For offenders enrolled in a drug court program, the
recidivism rate has been reported to drop to between 4 percent
and 12 percent during the 1- to 2-year period when they are in
the drug court. So this would be a drop of some significance,
but we need to be sure we are not comparing apples to oranges
and that we have an honest number here. It is obvious to me
that we don't have a panacea.
For example, for recidivism after drug courts--that is,
after they have completed their time in the drug court--the
studies showed that a control group that had never been through
a drug court program had rearrests of approximately 36 percent.
The rearrest rate for those who had gone through a drug program
was 27 percent. That is an 11 percent change. You would say
that is a 25 percent reduction and that is significant progress
worthy of our attention, but in the long run, you are talking
about an improvement of 11 of 100. Eleven fewer out of the 100
would have been rearrested had they gone through a drug court
program as opposed to not going through one, according to
numbers that we have.
Despite the obstacles, the subcommittee understands that
drug courts are demonstrating positive results for addicted
offenders and reducing recidivism and drug use, at least for
certain periods of time. We will be looking at that in more
detail, and I think it is important that we do.
Another part of the does-it-work inquiry is how can we
improve drug courts. I am particularly interested in
discovering what the Federal Government is doing with research.
Has the DOJ pinpointed the most effective elements of current
drug court programs in order to guide fledgling and existing
drug courts? Instead of allowing the Federal Government to run
drug courts around the country, I believe our best contribution
would be to provide blue ribbon research and training for drug
and crime programs.
Indeed, Fred Thompson, who formerly chaired this committee,
strongly believed that the virtually exclusive role of the
Department of Justice in youth violence should be to provide
the best blue ribbon scientific evidence possible to our State
and local systems where our juvenile court systems actually
function. Marshalling monetary resources, data, and the
accumulated criminal justice experience of coordinated Federal
agencies, the Department of Justice can make a real difference
in this arena.
OJP has informed the subcommittee that it is funding a
multistage National Institute of Justice evaluation of drug
courts that, when completed, will provide a clearer portrait of
drug court effectiveness and the best practices. This is a
critical step, and it will be something I would like to hear
more about. I have some concern about why we haven't done more
research sooner. Indeed, we are going from zero to 500 and 600
drug courts, with more planned, and it seems to me we are
awfully late in getting blue ribbon research.
Further, it is my understanding that OJP provides thorough
training and technical assistance to local courts to assist
them in building strong drug court programs and in promoting
long-term sustainability.
So we are privileged today to have an excellent list of
witnesses. On the first panel will be Acting Assistant Attorney
General Mary Lou Leary. Ms. Leary was designated by the
President to serve as Acting Assistant Attorney General of OJP
in February of this year--not too long ago. We certainly can't
blame you for problems that occurred last year, can we?
Ms. Leary. No.
Senator Sessions. In 1998, Ms. Leary was appointed as
Deputy Associate Attorney General, and from October 1999 until
coming to OJP, she served as chief of staff to the Associate
Attorney General at the U.S. Department of Justice. She was
Acting Director of the Community-Oriented Policing Services
Office from June to October 1999. She served as U.S. Attorney
for the District of Columbia, which has got to be a challenge,
from July 1997 to January 1998. Indeed, I may ask Ms. Leary
about the exceptional drug testing program used in the District
of Columbia.
Ms. Leary, would you raise your right hand, and I will
administer the oath?
Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you give to this
subcommittee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth so help you God?
Ms. Leary. I do.
Senator Sessions. Thank you. Be seated. We will be glad to
hear your statement at this time.
STATEMENT OF MARY LOU LEARY, ACTING ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL,
OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, WASHINGTON,
DC
Ms. Leary. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I appreciate this opportunity to provide you with
information about the work of the Office of Justice Programs in
preventing and controlling illegal drug use, particularly among
our young people. Drug prevention has long been a priority for
OJP, and we currently support a wide range of intervention
initiatives to prevent and intervene in drug use, sanction and
treat drug-abusing offenders, and follow up with community-
based services after incarceration.
Mr. Chairman, from our experience as prosecutors, you and I
both have seen the terrible toll that drugs can take on
individuals and on communities, but we have also seen the
impact that innovative programming can have on illegal drug
use, drug-related crime, and improving opportunities for young
people to grow up in a productive and fear-free environment.
As you mentioned, I did have the opportunity to serve in
the U.S. Attorney's Office, and there I had the privilege of
working with the former U.S. attorney, Jay Stephens, to
establish the first Weed and Seed site in Washington, DC. That
is a program that former U.S. Attorney and now Deputy Attorney
General Eric Holder also strongly supported.
Senator Sessions. That is one I personally was involved
with and strongly believe in also.
Ms. Leary. I realize that. I know that you have firsthand
knowledge from your experience as U.S. attorney with how much
of a difference Weed and Seed can make in a community, and from
a handful of programs at the very beginning, Weed and Seed has
now grown, and we have over 200 sites across the country at
this point in time.
As you know, these programs support law enforcement to weed
out drug dealing and violent crime and gangs, and then they
bring in social services and the like to help revitalize
communities. We have had evaluation teams looking at Weed and
Seed, and we know that there are things that we can do to
improve that program; however, we do know that the basic
strategy really works.
For example, in Seattle, violent crime dropped 54 percent
in the Weed and Seed target area 5 years after the initiation
of the program, and that was compared with a citywide drop of
only 38 percent. In Hartford, CT, Part One crimes fell 46
percent in 2 years after inception of the program. Citywide,
crime declined 22 percent. Similarly, in Las Vegas, violent
crime in the Weed and Seed area dropped 8 percent in the
program's first 2 years. Citywide, the decline was only 3
percent, and this has been extremely helpful in our efforts to
eliminate drugs and crimes.
Many of OJP's initiatives that are targeted at drug use by
young people are supported, as you know, through our Office of
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, and in your role
as chairman of the Youth Violence Subcommittee, I know that you
have been looking at some of those programs. My written
statement details a number of those initiatives which are
geared towards drug use by young people.
Enforcement programs are also a critical component of our
comprehensive effort to prevent illegal drug use and to help
States and local communities enforce their drug laws. OJP
certifies about $900 million in programming to ONDCP as drug
related, and practically two-thirds of that amount of money
actually goes to enforcement initiatives. For instance, 40
percent of the funds awarded under the Byrne Formula Grant
program are used by States to support multi-district law
enforcement task forces that target drug trafficking.
Senator Sessions. Is that 40 percent of the Byrne Grants?
Ms. Leary. The Byrne Formula Grant, that is correct.
We support intervention and treatment as well for drug-
involved offenders to try to break that cycle of drug use and
crime. Eighty percent of the prisoners who are incarcerated in
our institutions today report that they were under the
influence of drugs or alcohol when they were arrested or that
they stole property to buy drugs or they have a history of drug
or alcohol abuse. I know that these figures are not new to you,
having worked as a prosecutor.
Senator Sessions. And alcohol is high, too.
Ms. Leary. Extremely high.
Senator Sessions. People don't understand the numbers are
real dramatic, are they not, on alcohol use and crime?
Ms. Leary. They are extremely high, and, in fact, we are
beginning to see some innovations in drug courts who are also
addressing alcohol abuse.
You know, at the same time, you can see that study after
study tells us the treatment is effective, and particularly if
it is prison based on long-term treatment. Coercive treatment
is just as effective, if not more so, than voluntary treatment.
So OJP administers several initiatives that combine drug
treatment with criminal justice sanctions and incentives for
good behavior.
And you and I have had some discussions about one of our
most widespread and effective programs to address drugs, and
that is the drug court program. Drug courts combine intensive
supervision and sanctions with incentives such as reduced
charges or shorter sentences for offenders who successfully
complete treatment.
In the drug courts, we use judges to monitor offenders'
performance to make sure that they are getting drug treatment
and other services and that they are sticking to their regimen.
As you noted, Mr. Chairman, testing is a really important
component of that. The courts require the testing on a regular
basis, and then they impose prompt and graduated sanctions if
there are any infractions.
The drug courts grant program, as you know, was authorized
by the 1994 Crime Act, and since that time, since 1995, Drug
Courts Program Office has awarded about $125 million. Six
hundred communities have received that funding to set up
courts. In addition, there is training and T.A. and evaluation
money that has been expended.
But as you know, drug courts really began as a grass-roots
movement. So in addition to the support through the Drug Courts
Program Office, all States and local communities use their own
funds or a combination of local, State, private, and Federal
funding from Byrne, LLEBG, juvenile accountability, incentive
block grant programs to support the drug courts.
We have about 100 new drug courts coming on line every
single year, but only half of those are a result of Drug Court
Program Office funding.
Senator Sessions. Are any dropping off line, do you know?
Ms. Leary. A few, but very few, and some of them actually
drop out in the very initial stages. When we do our training
for communities who are planning drug courts, almost all of
them end up implementing a drug court, but we have had a couple
of dropouts along the way, which is good. They realize we
really--this is too much of a commitment or we are not ready,
whatever.
In terms of local support, the California Legislature just
this year appropriated about $20 million to support drug courts
in the State. That is half the total appropriation for the Drug
Courts Program Office for fiscal year 2001, a big commitment.
And oftentimes, we will see local communities come in with far
more than the 25 percent required local match for funding.
So in addition to funding, OJP provides extensive training
and technical assistance to communities who are planning new
drug courts. We have, as you know, a mentor court system so
that teams who are considering planning a drug court can visit
a court that is up and running, talk to the program staff, and
learn from the experts who are doing it day in and day out.
Then you can help folks avoid common mistakes, and they don't
have to reinvent the wheel when they go about their own drug
court planning.
We closely monitor the performance of drug court programs
that we fund. We spend a lot of time in the field, and when we
do discover problems in our monitoring visits and the like, we
step in immediately and provide training and technical
assistance. If the problems persist even after that assistance,
then we stop the drawdowns of Federal funds until they fix the
problem. On rare occasions, as a last resort, if a program
fails to take remedial measures, then we will rescind the grant
funds or not provide funding for the following year.
We also rely on evaluations to measure the drug court
performance. Since 1995, we have committed $5 million to
evaluate drug court programs. We plan to spend more in fiscal
year 2001 to expand these efforts.
As the chairman knows, our National Institute of Justice
has begun a multiphase, multiyear, multisite evaluation of our
drug court programs. We have some preliminary findings from
those evaluations that were released this past year. We are
using the results from that study to improve future drug court
programming. For example, through the training that we provide
to drug court communities, we are addressing any problems that
were identified in the evaluation. We are also taking those
evaluation results, converting them to plain language that a
practitioner can understand, and we are disseminating those
results broadly in the field.
We require communities who are planning a drug court to
include on their team an evaluator or a management information
systems person, and the reason that we do that is so that
communities will understand and will actualize setting up your
evaluation criteria from the get-go, and then it doesn't become
an afterthought when you are midway through your program.
We are also supporting an evaluation of the effectiveness
of the various treatment services that are used by drug courts
and the development of an assessment tool that can be used by
drug court programs to provide reliable information on the
program costs and to tell us what kind of savings we are
incurring through the drug court program. A privately funded
analysis of 77 drug court evaluations that was released found
that drug courts really are effective in addressing drug abuse
among nonviolent offenders and reducing burdens on the criminal
justice system and in helping offenders become law-abiding and
drug-free citizens. That particular study found that only 10
percent of drug court clients' drug tests were positive,
compared to 31 percent of the defendants who were under just
regular probation.
Sixty percent of those who entered drug courts were still
in treatment after 12 months. That compares favorably to a 50
percent rate for folks who were treated in regular outpatient
programs.
Senator Biden. Excuse me. Treated in outpatient programs,
not as a consequence of a criminal disposition, just
voluntarily----
Ms. Leary. Correct.
Senator Biden [continuing]. Going into a drug program.
Thank you.
Ms. Leary. Correct.
Senator Biden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Leary. One study has shown that rearrest rates for drug
court graduates were consistently lower than those for non-
graduates overall. When researchers took a look at Portland,
OR, they found over a 1-, 2-, and 3-year period, 35 percent of
the drug court graduates were rearrested within 3 years
compared to 61 percent of non-graduates.
We know that drug courts also save money. Right here in
Washington, DC, they save an average of $6,000 per client per
year compared to the costs of incarceration. A comprehensive
cost analysis of the drug court program in Portland----
Senator Sessions. Saved $6,000?
Ms. Leary. That is correct. Instead of incarcerating, you
are spending the money on a drug court program. You are saving
the $6,000 that you would have spent to incarcerate that
individual for the year.
Senator Sessions. I would be surprised if it weren't more
than that.
Ms. Leary. It is expensive.
Senator Sessions. If you take 20,000 or more.
Ms. Leary. Well, I think when you figure in the costs of
the drug court and treatment as well, the savings are about--
that is what they are reporting to us, is a savings of $6,000.
So we are being conservative on our estimate.
A comprehensive analysis of the costs of the drug court
program in Portland, OR, found that for every dollar, every tax
dollar that they spent on the drug court program, they saved
$2.50 in costs to the public.
Senator Biden. What kind of costs?
Ms. Leary. Those are costs in processing cases, in handling
defendants, moving them through the court system, and the like;
but if you look at broader costs, if you look at, for instance,
costs to victims of crime as a result of drug abuse and those
kinds of broader issues, the cost savings estimate was
increased to $10 for every $1 spent, and that is coming out of
that Portland study.
For me, I think particularly as a parent, one of the most
compelling statistics coming out of the drug court program is
that we have had over 1,000 babies born drug free to drug court
participants, and when you look at the costs of caring for
children who are born addicted to drugs, you will see that in
the early years, we are spending a minimum of $250,000 per
child. And, of course, as that child gets older and
complications develop and all, the costs increase
exponentially. And there are also, you know, the untold costs
in raising those kids, who, studies show, have all kinds of
problems and oftentimes get involved in the criminal justice
system later in life.
Office of Justice Programs supports research and
statistical analysis to inform programming as well as
evaluations to measure effectiveness. We try at OJP to
incorporate research and evaluation as an integral part of our
efforts, not just have it be an isolated endeavor. We are
trying to make evaluation part of every program we support, use
the results of research and evaluation to inform our
programming and to improve what we are doing out in the field.
And in administering the drug court program, for instance,
we carefully scrutinize the results of those national scope
evaluations, individual assessments of drug courts, and the
results of our monitoring visits. Starting with the passage of
the 1994 crime bill, we work with Congress so that now we are
able to take money off the top of all new programs for research
and evaluation.
Senator Sessions. Is there any limit to how much you can
take off the top for research and evaluation?
Ms. Leary. Yes. Yes. We are taking, I think it is 1 percent
off the top for all programs.
Senator Sessions. Would you need more than that?
Ms. Leary. It would be helpful, and we can talk about that
with your staff.
I personally am committed to ensuring that we work with
performance measures, build them into all of our programs at
OJP, and that OJP staff closely monitor our grant programs to
measure the effectiveness, and when we see problems, to
intervene immediately with training and technical assistance.
You may be familiar with our drug court clearinghouse, for
instance, which in the past 2 years alone has responded to
3,500 requests for technical assistance just in the drug court
program.
And because crime is primarily a State and local
responsibility, we are also working hard to build research and
evaluation capacity at the State and the local level. We have
entered into a cooperative agreement with the National
Association of Drug Court Professionals. They are working to
develop standards and performance measures for drug courts to
use. Three years ago, those standards were published, and they
have been adopted by the Conference of Chief Justices, by a
number of States, and by the Conference of State Court
Administrators.
I would like to take just 1 minute to mention another
initiative this morning that is very much related to our drug
abuse efforts, and that is offender reentry. We know that----
Senator Biden. Excuse me. Would you define reentry? You
mean reentry into the drug courts or reentry into the use of
drugs or reentry into--define for the record what you mean by
reentry.
Ms. Leary. Senator Biden, when I talk about reentry, I am
talking about how we go about reintegrating offenders when they
come out of institutions. Many of them have drug problems, but
some of them do not as well, but how do we help communities who
have to deal with 500,000, 600,000 incarcerated individuals
coming out of institutions back into the community every year;
how do we keep them on the straight and narrow;, how do we keep
them from getting involved again in criminal activity, from
getting involved again in drug abuse, from getting involved
again in all the kinds of things that led them to incarceration
in the first place.
Senator Biden. And you are talking about drug-addicted or
drug-arrested--that their convictions are based upon a drug
offense or that there is a basis to believe that they were
addicted to drugs when they went into the system?
Ms. Leary. No. I am talking about any incarcerated
offender.
Senator Biden. Any incarcerated individual?
Ms. Leary. But we know from our research that a vast
percentage of incarcerated individuals have problems with drug
abuse, alcohol abuse, and there are many other co-occurring
disorders as well.
But oftentimes when these individuals return to the
communities from the institutions, they have little or no
supervision, and about 20 percent of them have no supervision
whatsoever. So within 3 years, we know that perhaps two-thirds
of them, about two-thirds of them, recidivate. So we are
developing approaches to deal with the need for post-
incarceration supervision through reentry courts, which are
modeled on the drug court model, and also through reentry
partnerships which establish a network of community support
services to help individuals with a reentry plan coming back
into the community, monitoring their adherence to the plan, and
monitoring recidivism.
It draws on the resources of the community to help deal
with the need for housing, employment skills, substance abuse
treatment, and the like, so that the individuals get the kind
of support they need to be held accountable, and the
communities can be ensured of their public safety.
We are in the very initial stages of these reentry
initiatives, but we believe that they hold significant
potential for improving public safety and for reducing
recidivism.
Senator Biden. What is the relevance of drug courts? Is it
just that the model of drug courts----
Ms. Leary. The model of drug courts. Well, I think it is
important because the model of drug courts was actually kind of
an inspiration for working with a number of communities on
developing reentry courts.
Senator Biden. I just want to understand what point you
were trying to make relative to drug courts. It is just----
Ms. Leary. That drug courts have provided a very successful
model.
Senator Biden. OK. Good.
Ms. Leary. And in addition, I think that the reentry
initiative can build on the success of drug courts by providing
a host of services and support and sanctions for folks who come
out of the institutions, and many of them are people who
actually are in need of drug court intervention.
Senator Biden. Can I ask another question? Are these--
excuse me. The models that you are contemplating or initiating
relating to, quote, reentry courts and/or reentry partner
partnerships, would it be required to participate in the
reentry courts as a condition of sentencing or condition--since
we don't have in the Federal system probation, what is the--in
other words, what constitutional authority do you have at a
Federal level, or are these State models----
Ms. Leary. These are State.
Senator Biden [continuing]. Models you are setting up to
hopefully encourage States to fund and States to----
Ms. Leary. These are State and local.
Senator Biden. Would it be required that the participation
in these reentry courts be a condition of sentencing in the
first instance?
Ms. Leary. It could be, and the reentry courts are just
getting up and running, and they are developing their criteria
now.
Senator Biden. I mean, I am the guy that introduced the
bill.
Ms. Leary. I know that.
Senator Biden. But my point is I think it is worth
explaining what you mean, because I know even though I am the
guy that introduced the drug court bill and introduced this, I
think the average listener or the record when you read it, it
will be hard to understand why you went in one breath from drug
courts to these courts without explaining in detail why you
were putting them together.
I just want to make sure no one is confusing this.
Ms. Leary. Right.
Senator Biden. But I don't want anybody walking away
thinking that what you are talking about is extending the drug
courts into becoming reentry courts, because if you didn't
listen closely, at least that is what I was worried you were
saying, as opposed to the drug court model being a potential
model for reentry courts, totally unrelated, totally unrelated
to the existence of the drug court.
You could have a State with no drug courts in it, like
North Dakota, and it could end up having 10 reentry courts in
the State. Correct?
Ms. Leary. Correct.
Senator Biden. OK. Because the greatest--and I apologize
for the intervention, Mr. Chairman.
The greatest problem I had in trying to sell the drug court
idea, however many years ago it was now--6, 8, 10 years or
however how long it was. God, it is a long time. How long has
it been? I have been here a long time. At any rate, it was that
people thought that this was a criminal court that you went to
post-conviction. Do you follow me?
Ms. Leary. Yes.
Senator Biden. So that is why I don't want any confusion
here about delineating the nature of the courts.
Ms. Leary. Right.
Senator Biden. I found some difficulty in convincing people
of the drug court route.
Ms. Leary. Yes. The drug courts have been a model, and we
have seen that it has been successful, that you can use the
power of the court basically and that leverage to pull the
levers and hold people accountable.
Senator Biden. Thank you very much. I am sorry for the
intervention.
Ms. Leary. No. That is fine, and I also mention it because
we had discussed earlier in the hearing some of our broader
initiatives at preventing drug use by individuals in the
community, and this is another way in which we can do that
post-incarceration.
So through these initiatives, host and the drug court
programs, Office of Justice Programs is going to continue to
assist State and local communities to address the problem of
illegal drug use. I look forward to working with you, Mr.
Chairman, and the other members of this committee, to further
our efforts in this regard.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak. I am
happy to answer any questions that you have.
Senator Sessions. Thank you. I think there is a role for
drug courts, and we need to make sure their work is as
absolutely fine as it possibly can be.
Senator Biden, we have a vote on, and I would be glad to
give you your choice. If you would like to do an opening
statement now as a ranking member?
Senator Biden. No. I don't need to make an opening
statement. Thank you. I just ask unanimous consent that my
statement be placed in the record.
Senator Sessions. All right.
[The prepared statement of Senator Biden follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Joseph R. Biden, Jr., a U.S. Senator From
the State of Delaware
Mr. Chairman, thank you for convening this hearing today to look at
the drug court program. I have been involved with drug courts since
their inception and I believe in them. And, as the author--along with
Senator Specter--of legislation to reauthorize the drug court program,
I look forward to exploring today how we can help them work even
better.
I look forward to hearing from all of our witnesses this morning,
but let me take a minute to thank Judge Gebelein for being here.
Not only is Judge Gebelein one of the nation's foremost experts on
drug courts, but he also is in charge of the drug court program in my
home state of Delaware.
I have been an observer in Judge Gebelein's Drug court--he is known
as a ``tough judge,'' but he's also smart enough to know that the old
system of locking up every drug offender and throwing away the key--
with no treatment and no supervision upon release was failing our
criminal justice system and the public at large.
In the 1994 Crime Law, Congress created a grant program to fund
drug courts because we believed that they were a cost-effective,
innovative way to deal with non-violent offenders in need of drug
treatment.
And in the past six years, drug courts have taken off. There are
currently 533 drug courts currently operating throughout the country,
with an additional 293 courts being planned.
Let me tell you why I am such an advocate for these courts--drug
courts are as much about fighting crime as they are about reducing
illegal drugs.
It is no secret that there is a strong link between drugs and
crime.
As one of our witnesses today, Steven Belenko, well knows--because
he literally wrote the book on this at The National Center on Addiction
and Substance Abuse at Columbia University--80 percent of those
incarcerated today are there because of a crime associated with drug or
alcohol abuse or addiction; either they have a history of substance
abuse or addiction, they were high when they committed their crime,
they violated drug or alcohol laws, or they stole property to buy
drugs.
The most recent Arrestee Drug Use Monitoring Program (ADAM) data
revealed that more than half of adult male arrestees in the 34 ADAM
sites tested positive for drug use at the time of arrest.
Drug courts take non-violent drug-related offenders and closely
supervises them as they address the root of their criminal problem.
This task is made more difficult by the fact that the root problem
is a chronic, relapsing condition--addiction.
Let me let you in on a little secret--if we just lock these folks
up and don't treat them, they are going to commit crimes again and
again and again. Treatment helps to break that escalating cycle of
drug-related criminal behavior.
To date, nearly 200,000 people have entered drug court programs and
the results have been impressive. About 70 percent of the drug court
program participants have either stayed in the program or completed it
successfully. That is more than twice the retention rate of most
traditional treatment programs.
The other 30 percent of the participants went to jail. And I think
that should be heralded as a success of the drug court program as well.
Without drug courts, this 30 percent would have been unsupervised,
not monitored, and unless they happened to be unlucky enough to use
drugs or commit a crime near a cop, they would still be on the streets
abusing drugs and committing crime. Drug courts provide the oversight
to make sure that does not happen.
Rather than just churning people through the revolving door of the
criminal justice system, drug courts use a mix of sanction and
incentives to help these folks to get their acts together so they won't
be back.
When they graduate from drug court programs they are clean and
sober and more prepared to participate in society.
In order to graduate from most drug courts, participants are
required to finish high school or obtain a GED, hold down a job, keep
up with financial obligations including drug court fees and child
support payments. They are also required to have a sponsor who will
keep them on track.
Drug courts work. And that is not just my opinion. Drug courts are
effective at taking offenders with little previous treatment history
and keeping them in treatment. Treatment experts agree that the longer
someone stays in treatment, the more likely that person is to remain
drug-free and to become a productive, tax-paying member of society.
That may be why drug courts are getting results.
Drug courts reduce recidivism. Though post-program recidivism rates
vary between drug courts, consider the impact of the Jefferson County,
Kentucky drug court: Thirteen percent of the graduates of that program
were reconvicted for a felony, compared to 60 percent of non-graduates
and 55 percent of the comparison group.
Drug courts also reduce future drug use. An average of ten percent
of drug court participants have positive drug tests compared to 31
percent of those on probation.
And drug courts are cost-effective. According to a study of the
Portland, Oregon drug court, for every $1 spent on the drug court,
$2.50 is saved in avoided costs such as criminal justice costs, public
assistance and medical claims. If you factor in larger costs--such as
victimization and theft--there is a savings of $10 for every tax dollar
spent on drug courts. Just as important, scarce prison beds are freed
up for violent criminals.
Harder to quantify is what I believe may be the most important
impact of drug courts. Nearly two-thirds of drug court participants are
parents of young children. After getting sober through the coerced
treatment mandated by the court, many of these individuals are able to
be real parents again. And more than 1,000 drug-free babies have been
born to female drug court participants, a sizable victory for society
and the budget alike.
Mr. Chairman, new innovative and effective programs like drug
courts don't come along often. When they do, we should make sure that
we do everything possible to make sure that they continue to succeed. I
look forward to hearing from our witnesses today about how they think
we can do that.
Senator Sessions. I am inclined to think we probably should
go before the next panel.
Thank you, Ms. Leary. Thank you for the work you have done
since you have been in this position. We will have some
questions when we get back, and then we will take the second
panel. We do have a vote, and it will probably take us 10
minutes to get back.
Thank you.
[Recess.]
Senator Sessions. OK. We will get started again. Senator
Biden will join us in a minute.
Ms. Leary, thank you for your comments and observations.
Our goal fundamentally today and what we will do as we go along
is to ask you, as you have taken over this office to make sure
that you know and your staff knows precisely what is going on,
precisely what our research shows, what is working, how much
money is being spent, and how much money is being planned to be
spent.
On the OJP funding for drug courts, both the discretionary
and block grant formula amounts, how much is now going to drug
courts? We have a chart up here. Can you tell us if that chart
accurately summarizes where we are and what additional
information you need to give an accurate answer to that
question?
Ms. Leary. I can tell you we tried to figure out for fiscal
year 1999 how much money went to drug courts, because as you
know, it comes from multiple sources, and so with respect to
OJP funds, it is approximately $55 million that went to drug
courts during fiscal year 1999.
Senator Sessions. Now let me ask you: You have an account
in OJP for drug courts and a division, and what is the name of
that division?
Ms. Leary. Well, we have the Drug Court Program Office.
Senator Sessions. Drug Court Program Office that reports
directly to you?
Ms. Leary. That is correct.
Senator Sessions. And that has a budget of $50 million?
Ms. Leary. No. No. That has $40 million.
Senator Sessions. Forty million.
Ms. Leary. Now, in addition to the Drug Courts Program
Office, there are several other funding streams coming through
OJP that go to drug courts: the Byrne Formula Grant, the Local
Law Enforcement Block Grant, Byrne Discretionary. Some Weed and
Seed funds go to drug courts, and the Juvenile Accountability
Incentive Block Grant. Moneys from each one of those funding
streams can and actually does go to drug courts as well.
Senator Sessions. Does that make sense to you? Should it
all be funneled through the Drug Court Program Office?
Ms. Leary. Well, one of our goals with reorganization, as
you noticed, is to kind of streamline things and make a little
bit more sense.
Senator Sessions. You are talking about more than 20-25
percent funding through your own Department of Justice. It is
not under the program office.
Ms. Leary. Yes. And these are statutorily prescribed. You
know, you have purposes, permissible purposes for each of these
other grant programs, and drug courts would be one of the
permissible purposes, but in addition, we shouldn't forget that
a lot of money comes to drug courts from States, localities,
private foundations, and the like. So even when you look at the
Federal funding, that doesn't reflect the total.
Senator Sessions. Now, the Byrne Grant goes to the State,
and the State can then use it for drug court funding. Is that
why you do not have accurate numbers, or it is difficult to
have accurate numbers?
Ms. Leary. It is difficult to have accurate numbers.
Senator Sessions. But you think that the number is $57
million for fiscal year 1999. Are there any other funding
streams out there other than State moneys and local moneys from
the Federal Government that could be going to drug courts?
Ms. Leary. Well, HHS provides money for treatment, and you
know the drug courts rely very heavily on HHS funds for that.
So, yes, there are Federal funds.
Senator Sessions. And now that is not included in that $57
million, to your knowledge?
Ms. Leary. I don't know since I don't really know how that
chart was put together. I would say it appears not to.
Senator Sessions. Do you have the numbers available of what
amount HHS is putting into drug courts?
Ms. Leary. No, we don't, but we can work with your staff to
help identify some folks who could help get that number.
Senator Sessions. Can you get it from them, or does it take
me to get it from them?
Ms. Leary. We will do everything we can, Senator.
Senator Sessions. We need to know that.
Ms. Leary. Sure.
Senator Sessions. You need to know that.
Ms. Leary. We do.
Senator Sessions. The taxpayers need to know what we are
spending.
Now, basically would you describe how this thing works? If
a city applies or a jurisdiction applies for a drug court, and
the Federal Government gives a grant, about what percentage of
the cost are they funding in that initial grant, and what is
your vision about continued funding of the drug court?
Ms. Leary. Well, when a community initially wants to do a
drug court, what we do first is, instead of giving them a
grant, we bring them on board for a year of a training program.
So we will bring them to any one of a number of sites
throughout the country. They come with a whole team from their
jurisdiction which would, you know, include an evaluator or a
management information systems person, and they attend a total
of, I think it is about 9 days of training over the course of
that year to understand what drug court is all about, what are
the various models here, the cost/benefit analysis, and the
like. And so before we give them money to set up a drug court,
we do that. They would need to make sure that they know what
they are getting into.
Senator Sessions. They have been trained.
Ms. Leary. That is correct, and then we give them an
implementation grant, and that can go up to, I think, 3 years,
and after that, you can get an enhancement grant for special
purposes. Many enhancement grants actually go to building
capacity and funding for evaluation activities.
Senator Sessions. In existing courts?
Ms. Leary. Correct.
Senator Sessions. So normally you have a grant that
provides funding for 3 years. Is a State required to match that
in any----
Ms. Leary. Twenty-five percent match.
Senator Sessions. So it would be 75 percent Federal support
for 3 years?
Ms. Leary. Well, they are not all 3 years. If you can hold
on 1 second.
It is up to 3 years.
Senator Sessions. OK.
Ms. Leary. It is not a requirement, and it is up to 3.
Senator Sessions. And then presumably the court is 100
percent funded by the State and local institutions?
Ms. Leary. They can be funded by the State. They can get
local or private foundation, whatever.
Senator Sessions. But the Federal Government's funding
would normally be expected to end after 3 years?
Ms. Leary. That is our goal, yes, that they would move off
to State and local sources of funding, and, in fact, 22
legislatures in recent times have passed legislation at the
State level to support drug courts. So we really are seeing
success with this, and when you have 100 new courts coming on
board each year, and only half of them are funded with Drug
Court Program Office funding, that is also a good sign.
Senator Sessions. It is 100 new courts, and only half of
them are receiving Federal money?
Ms. Leary. Only half are receiving Drug Courts Program
Office money, but, you know, they are probably using some of
their other sources.
Senator Sessions. Now, HHS has a substantial sum of money
devoted to drug treatment. Are you aware of how effectively
they are working with local drug courts to apply those drug
treatment resources in a way that facilitates the success of a
drug court?
Ms. Leary. The very best drug courts are working closely
with HHS, and they need to be partners. That is one of the
things that we tried to facilitate.
Senator Sessions. But I have been in the real world, and
the real world doesn't always work like we think. I mean, maybe
HHS has a plan they want to do in a local community, and they
are not interested in redirecting resources under some sort of
a hegemony of the judge who wants to do it a certain other way.
Ms. Leary. Right.
Senator Sessions. Could we improve OJP's cooperation with
HHS in helping fund drug treatment for these courts?
Ms. Leary. I would have to say that there is always room
for improvement in Federal collaboration among agencies. I have
seen that from my own experience in the U.S. Attorney's Office
and at OJP, but we do work pretty closely with CSAT to try to
coordinate our efforts in treatment and also even data
collection, because if a drug court is working with OJP and
with HHS, they have to collect data for each of those Federal
agencies. It doesn't make sense for us not to be talking to one
another about common data elements that would be useful for
both agencies and the courts.
So we are working on that regard as well, but there is
always room for improvement only Federal collaboration.
Senator Sessions. Let me mention to you and discuss with
you the 1997 GAO report which preceded your time there. It
recommended that the Department of Justice require drug court
programs to collect in-program--that is, while they are in the
drug court and being tested and meeting regularly with the
judge--in-program recidivist data and post-program recidivist
data. That is, after they have completed and graduated, what
kind of recidivist data do we have? This makes sense to me
because it would enable OJP to evaluate drug courts, perhaps
determine which ones work better than others, and could help
give valuable advice to all these States who are thinking about
adopting it.
To me, we could provide no greater service than to have
really peer-reviewed scientific information that we could
provide to a local or State jurisdiction when they decide to
adopt a drug court. So what efforts have we undertaken to date,
and what information and statistical information have we
obtained since that 1997 GAO report?
Ms. Leary. The most reliable information that we have
obtained is through our NIJ studies, which we have provided to
your staff and have talked about with them, and that is because
we have discovered that States and local courts----
Senator Sessions. Some of those were pre-1997, weren't
they? Have you undertaken anything intensively or significantly
since 1997 to really make a major leap in your analysis of
these drug courts?
Ms. Leary. Yes. We have a big effort in partnership with
the National Institute of Justice, which is part of OJP, to do
this long-term study. And that will give us, you know,
perspective. It is kind of a--it is a national evaluation, but
in terms of the--I think we have a real obligation to help
build the capacity at the local level so that the courts can
get a better handle themselves on the results of their efforts.
We found that they are sorely lacking in expertise and
equipment and sophistication.
So we have done a number of things. Number one, when we
bring communities in----
Senator Sessions. I guess I want to stay on this research
and evaluation information question. GAO recommended that. Do
you agree with their recommendations?
Ms. Leary. No, I agree that ideally you would be collecting
that kind of data.
Senator Sessions. And they talked about evaluating programs
through DOJ funding to assess post-program criminal and drug
recidivism and compare that to a group of non-participants or
similar cohort.
Ms. Leary. Right.
Senator Sessions. Do you agree that would be a good
project?
Ms. Leary. That would be very useful, and some of that has
been done.
Senator Sessions. Well, some of that has been done. Can't
we get that information? Isn't that a reasonable request for
those of us who are providing funding that after a decade here
we begin to really evaluate this?
Ms. Leary. Yes, I agree. I think that is very useful
information. It is information we should have. It is not easy
to obtain, as you know, particularly in instances where the
supervisory power of the court has ended. Somebody is no longer
on probation. It is difficult to track that individual into the
future, and that is a problem that we are grappling with, and
we are trying to figure it out at the Federal level, and we are
also trying to help the States build capacity so that local
courts can do a better job.
Senator Sessions. Well, will you commit that as part of
this National Institute of Justice study that you would
evaluate those issues that GAO suggested that we will have a
recidivism program both in-program and out-of-program and
compared to nonparticipants?
Ms. Leary. Yes.
Senator Sessions. I just think that is important. We need
to nail that down.
Ms. Leary. Right. And I should probably make it clear that
we will do it through the studies. It is impossible to do it
for every single drug court in America.
Senator Sessions. Right. That is correct.
Ms. Leary. But we will get a handle on it.
Senator Sessions. Take a series of them and get some top
scientific evaluation there.
Would you also be willing to give the Subcommittee a
progress report on results as the NIJ study data comes in?
Would you share those with us as they come in?
Ms. Leary. Sure.
Senator Sessions. Tell us about this study, NIJ study. Have
you had an opportunity, since you have been on board, to
evaluate exactly what is planned there, and can you describe
for us some of the things that you would like to see covered by
this study?
Ms. Leary. The study is--it is a multiphase study, so it is
taking place over a period of time. They are looking at
individual drug courts to try to ascertain the number of
things, the topology of the drug courts----
Senator Sessions. What does that mean?
Ms. Leary. Let me tell you some of the questions they are
trying to answer.
Senator Sessions. OK.
Ms. Leary. They are trying to answer questions who are
these folks who come into drug courts, what do they need, what
are the courts doing to address those needs, and how effective
are the steps that are being taken to address those needs, how
much does it cost, what is our cost/benefit analysis, what
happens to these individuals while they are enrolled in drug
court in terms of recidivism, retention, and the like, and then
what happened to them after they finish up the drug court
program, and obviously compared to people who are on regular
probation, for instance, or people who are on various forms of
intensive supervision, electronic monitoring and the like, you
know, a decent comparison group. Those are the basic questions
that we are trying to answer.
Senator Sessions. Well, the thing is it can be awfully
muddled----
Ms. Leary. Yes.
Senator Sessions [continuing]. About how you compare and
what you compare. If you have, for example, an individual who
is sentenced normally to probation for a smaller offense, and
they have access to the State treatment program of mental
health or something, and the judge orders them to undergo
treatment, and they report to a probation officer, you know,
you never know what has been happening in that treatment. They
may be drug testing the person.
Ms. Leary. That is right.
Senator Sessions. You don't have the leverage of the judge.
So comparing this really would take some rigor, and that is why
the studies you have got provide insights into this, but from
what I can understand, the experts you will be testing later
recognize that we are not where we need to be with data at this
point.
Ms. Leary. That is right. That is right, and you will get a
lot more information from the other witnesses on the panel
about this, but it is very important, I think, for evaluators
to understand what it is that we are evaluating, you know, what
are the nuances of this program, how does it actually operate,
what are the outside influences that might impact on what is
happening on it.
Senator Sessions. One more question, and I will let--did
you have something you wanted to say?
Ms. Leary. That is fine.
Senator Sessions. With regard to how a case is handled,
there are two theories. One is that you require the defendant
to admit that he is guilty and actually plead guilty and
withhold adjudication of the guilty plea pending successful
completion of the drug court, the post-conviction, post-
adjudication--post-conviction, post-plea, I guess is the right
word--way of handling it, and the other would be to simply move
them into a diversion from criminal justice without a
requirement of a plea and to go through this drug court program
of treatment and monitoring.
Does the Department of Justice recommend one or the other
of those programs at this time?
Ms. Leary. We leave it up to the individual courts to
determine what works best for them, but what we do is we
provide information about the various models and how well they
work in different settings, and at this time, I think better
than half of the drug courts in operation use what you might
describe as kind of a post-adjudication model. Some use kind of
a hybrid pre- and post-adjudication, and some use something
else altogether.
So we have seen a trend towards the post-adjudication
model.
Senator Sessions. It always struck me that that made more
sense, because you end up 2 years down the road, and the
witnesses are gone, the evidence has been lost, the person
totally rejects the drug court, and you have got to figure out
how to try the case.
Ms. Leary. I have been in that courtroom.
Senator Sessions. Whereas, if he successfully completes it,
it is easy to--what do you call it?--not adjudicate guilt and
dismiss the plea.
Senator Biden, I will turn it over to you.
Senator Biden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I agree with you
that the evaluation of the program would be useful for a whole
lot of reasons, but as my grandfather would say, I don't want--
I want the horse to be able to carry the sleigh here, and to do
the kind of genuine evaluation that leads to discussion of
recidivism, based on rearrest, recidivism based on not arrest
but use of drugs, the question of whether or not someone is
drug free, for how long. These are all fairly difficult to
measure.
I just want to make sure everybody understands. When we
passed this the first time, I did not advertise it to be a
cure-all of anything. I advertised it as we were taking a low
risk at a minimum to save big money with the prospect and hope
that it would impact upon future drug use and recidivism, but
that was not the promise of the program. So I want to make it
clear I don't want to set a new bar for whether or not this
program is working or not working. That is just me speaking.
But the second point I want to raise with you is that
before you so quickly commit another administration to this
thorough study, I think it is important that somehow you get to
us a written response that indicates with some specificity what
you are suggesting you are willing to study or likely to study.
For example, in many States, they don't even have computerized
criminal records within the State. Within the State. And so the
knowledge that you would know whether or not there was a
rearrest is de minimis in some States.
And so what I am concerned about is if we come along after
your study, and you find out that you say we can't give you an
accurate, a definitive picture of rearrest rates, recidivism,
then we are in a circumstance where if we make that a mandatory
requirement of the program, we are going to be imposing on the
States an incredibly expensive burden of, you know, computing.
Now, I wish they were like my State and small enough and
enlightened enough to get ahead of the curve, but it is easy
for us with 750,000 people to do this, compared to States with
10 to 32 million people.
And so the second point I would make is that it is pretty
important to know what is the baseline from which you are
starting to monitor accurately future drug use or post-drug
court drug use with or without arrest. It requires a lot of
testing, and so if that is the measure, that is a very
different measure. You could have someone--I mean, we all know
a whole hell of a lot of addicts who never get arrested or drug
users who never get arrested, and so I just think it is very
important you and the Department are very specific about what
is it you think we should be--you should be tasked to do
relative to studies, and I would love all this information.
What I don't want to do is set a bar, and then you all come
back to us and say, by the way, you know, we need an extra $220
million, or we need X, Y, Z, or that you have to not fund as
many drug courts in the future because you are funding the
studies.
Do you follow me?
Ms. Leary. Exactly.
Senator Biden. So I would really like to know, and I fully
agree with the objective of the chairman. I sincerely mean
that, but I would just make sure we better be counting, you
know, understand what we are doing so we don't--so the Senator
and I, if we are still here, or whether we are not, someone
else who has this committee later says, Well, wait a minute
now, you all didn't do this study, this program can't mean
much, or, you know, the study says this, and therefore the
program doesn't work. I mean, specificity is pretty important.
Senator Sessions. Senator Biden, I just was reminded that
there is an objection from your side to committees--we have got
until 11:30 a.m. We have got a couple of judges.
Senator Biden. I will withhold any more questions, or I
will do it in writing.
Ms. Leary. The points are very well taken on that.
Senator Biden. I agree with you. Let us move on.
Senator Sessions. All right.
Senator Biden. I agree with you.
Senator Sessions. Thank you, Ms. Leary. I appreciate that,
and we will probably submit some other questions and we would
like to be partners with you in improving this program. I do
believe there is good in drug courts, and obviously we are
spending an increasing amount of money on them. If we can
identify the very best parts and the very best courts and
replicate that, we will do a service to the country.
Ms. Leary. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Leary follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Mary Lou Leary
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
I appreciate the opportunity to provide you with information about
the work of the Office of Justice Programs (OJP) in preventing and
controlling illegal drug use, particularly among young people. Drug
prevention has long been a priority for OJP, and we currently support a
wide range of initiatives to prevent and intervene in drug use,
sanction and treat drug-abusing offenders, and follow up with
community-based services after incarceration.
As a former state and federal prosecutor, I have seen the terrible
consequences of illegal drug use and trafficking--ruined lives,
families torn apart, and communities devastated by drug-related crime.
But through my experience at the United States Attorney's Office here
in Washington, DC, I have also had the opportunity to see how
communities--working together with criminal jsutice, health, education,
and other agencies--can reduce illegal drug use and drug-related crime
and improve opportunities for young people to grow up in an environment
free from drugs, crime, and fear.
As you may know, Mr. Chairman, I had the privilege of working with
former U.S. Attorney Jay Stephens to establish the first Weed and Seed
Program in the District of Columbia. That program, based in
Washington's Langston-Carver neighborhood, has had remarkable success
in driving out drug traffickers, closing crack houses, and making the
streets safe for the families who live there. Later, working with
former U.S. Attorney and now Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder, we
expanded our Weed and Seed efforts to four sties in D.C.
OJP currently supports Weed and Seed programs in over 200
communities throughout the nation. These programs support law
enforcement initiatives to weed out drug dealing, gang activity, and
violent crime and seed the targeted area with educational, treatment,
and social services, and employment opporutnities. Drug abuse
prevention and other youth programs are essential components of many
Weed and Seed programs. In addition, most Weed and Seed programs
involve youth in their community crime prevention, school-based, and
neighborhood cleanup efforts.
As you know, Mr. Chairman, from the Weed and Seed sites in Mobile,
these programs have tremendous community and neighborhood support. In
addition, their methodologies have been independently evaluated and
determined to work in reducing crime and improving the vitality of
neighborhoods. A National Impact Evaluation of Weed and Seed also shows
that the small amount of federal funding provided to sites, and the
emphasis on broad-based community participation, has stimulated sites
to mobile a far greater amount of local ersources for their Weed and
Seed programs, particularly for the seeding component. Our strategy in
administering Weed and Seed is to provide funding and technical
assistance to help communities leverage resources to sustain their
efforts, and many communities have responded overwhelmingly to this
challenge. We are now working to enhance Weed and Seed site data
collection and evaluation capabilities, so that sites can use the
results of these performance measures to further improve their
programs.
I would like to briefly describe for the Subcommittee OJP's other
major drug-related initiatives in five categories; prevention,
enforcement, intervention and treatment, post-incarceration
supervision, and research and evaluation. Together, these initiatives
constitute a comprehensive approach to the prevention of illegal drug
use and the control of drug-related crime.
PREVENTION
Prevention is the first step toward ensuring the public safety,
and, for that reason, is an integral component of OJP's comprehensive
approach to reducing drug use and its consequences. We know, for
example, that 16 percent of all jail immates and about 25 percent of
property and drug offenders said they committed their offense to get
money to buy drugs. At the same time, research also shows that young
people who refrain from using illegal drugs before the age of 18 are
likely to avoid drug problems throughout their lives. Clearly,
prevention is an important key to community safety. OJP supports a
broad array of initiatives designed to educate young people, their
parents, and adults who work with youth about the dangers posed by drug
use.
As you know, Mr. Chairman, while OJP funds some drug prevention
efforts directly, such as Weed and Seed, many states use OJP funds
awarded through the Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law
Enforcement Assistance (Byrne) Formula Grant and Local Law Enforcement
Block Grant to support drug prevention initiatives. However, most OJP
initiatives designed to prevent drug use by young people are supported
through our Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
(OJJDP).
For example, OJJDP partners with the Office of National Drug
Control Policy (ONDCP) on the Drug-Free Communities Support Program.
This program supports community coalitions that engage youth, parents,
media, schools, and law enforcemennt to reduce and prevent youth
substance abuse. Under this program, funds have been provided to over
300 communities.
OJJDP also supports the Drug Prevention Program for Youth. This
school-based program provides Life Skills Training to youth to enable
them to resist pressure to use drugs. The program also tests and
demonstrates promising drug prevention strategies to reach children in
grade school, middle school, and high school and develop a
comprehensive, strategic approach for replicating model drug prevention
programs for youth.
Drug prevention also is an importannt component of many other
programs OJJDP supports. Under the Safe Schools, Healthy Students
Initiative, OJJDP--in partnership with the Department of Education and
Health and Human Services--last year provided more than $100 million to
54 communities to design comprehensive, community-based programs to
prevent aggressive behavior and drug and alcohol abuse by young people.
The programm involves a partnership among educational, mental health,
social service, law enforcement, and juvenile justice agencies.
OJJDP and BJA also support Boys & Girls Clubs of America (BGCA),
which operates facilities where young people can participate in
positive recreational, educational, and social activities. Through its
Smart Moves program, BGCA helps local clubs provide drug and alcohol
prevention programming for youth. In addition, drug abuse prevention is
an objective of the Juvenile Mentoring Program (JUMP), which pairs at-
risk youth with adult role models to prevent drug use and deliqneucy
and to improve school work and life skills. Through these and other
efforts, OJP is working to deter young people from illegal drug use.
ENFORCEMENT
Enforcement programs are another critical component of OJP's
comprehensive effort to prevent illegal drug use and to help states and
local communities enforce drug laws. Of the approximately $900 million
in program funding that OJP certifies to ONDCP as drug-related, two-
thirds of these funds are for enforcement initiatives. For example,
states use approximately 40 percent of funds awarded under the Byrne
Formula Grant Program to support multi-jurisdictional law enforcement
task forces that target drug trafficking.
As you know, Mr. Chairman, the Byrne program was created by the
Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 specifically to help states enforce state
and local drug laws. In providing guidance to states on their use of
Byrne funds, BJA emphasizes controlling violent and drug-related crime
and serious offenders through multi-jurisdictional and multi-state
efforts to support national drug control priorities.
Funds awarded to states and localities under BJA's Local Law
Enforcement Block Grant (LLEBG) Program also may be used for drug
enforcement efforts. LLEBG funds may be used to hire law enforcement
officers, pay overtime, procure equipment, enhance school security,
create drug courts, adjudicate violent offenders, establish multi-
jurisdictional law enforcement task forces, and support crime
prevention programs. State and local jurisdictions determine how they
will use their LLEBG funds.
BJA also is helping local jurisdictions safely investigate and
close down clandestine drug laboratories. These labs illegally
manufacture controlled substances, often endangering the nearby
neighborhood and the officers who investigate the labs, as well as
increasing the availability of illegal drugs. For example, under a BJA
grant, the National Sheriffs' Association provides training and
technical assistance to state and local law enforcement and regulatory
personnel on safe methods for investigating and cleaning up illegal
drug labs.
INTERVENTION AND TREATMENT
Intervention and treatment are important linchpins of OJP's
comprehensive drug control initiative. Research has shown that
combining criminal justice sanctions with substance abuse treatment is
highly effective in breaking the cycle of drug use and crime. Many
studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of treatment, particularly
treatment in prison or other long-term residential settings followed by
aftercare treatment in the community. OJP administers several major
initiatives that combine drug treatment with criminal justice sanctions
and incentives for good behavior.
One of the most widespread and effective programs is drug courts.
Drug courts use a ``carrot and stick'' approach. Intensive supervision
and sanctions are combined with the prospect of reduced charges or
shorter sentences for offenders who successfully complete treatment.
Although drug courts vary among communities, such courts typically
involve active participation by judges, regular drug testing of
offenders, and prompt, graduated sanctions. Drug courts use a
partnership approach that integrates drug treatment with other health
and social services. As an alternative to traditional incarceration or
probation, drug courts are an effective means to reduce drug use and
recidivism and are less costly than traditional supervision.
In 1994, the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act (Crime
Act) authorized a new Drug Courts Grant Program in the Department of
Justice. To administer this new grant program, the Drug Courts Program
Office (DCPO) was created within OJP. Since 1995, DCPO has awarded more
than $125 million to support the planning, implementation, or
enhancement of drug courts in over 600 local communities.
DCPO also provides technical assistance to communities in
designing, implementing, and operating drug courts. Much of this
technical assistance is provided through DCPO's Drug Courts
Clearinghouse at American University. The Clearinghouse provides
technical assistance to DCPO grantees, conducts research, and collects
and disseminates information on drug courts.
DCPO also sponsors the mentor drug court program, through which
jurisdictions establishing new drug courts have the opportunity to
learn from established drug courts, thereby avoiding potential
problems. In addition, DCPO sponsors regional training conferences for
drug court grantees.
DCPO closely monitors the drug court programs supported with OJP
funds. When problems are detected, DCPO staff step in to provide
additional training and technical assistance. If problems persist,
drawdowns of federal funds are prohibited until corrective measures
have been taken. As a last resort, for programs that fail to take
remedial measures, grant funds are rescinded.
DCPO also relies on evaluations to measure drug court performance.
In 1998 and again in 1999, Columbia University's National Center on
Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) released findings from reviews of
77 drug courts. CASA reported that evaluations have shown that drug
courts are effective in addressing drug abuse among nonviolent
offenders, in reducing the burdens imposed on the criminal justice
system by drug-related cases, and in helping offenders become law-
abiding, drug-free, and self-sufficient members of their communities.
Among the CASA findings are the following:
Compared to other treatment programs, drug courts provide
more comprehensive supervision and monitoring, increase the rates of
retention in treatment, and reduce drug use and criminal behavior while
participants are in the drug court program.
Drug use for participants while in the program remains
low, as compared with similar defendants not in a drug court. CASA
found that an average of 10 percent of drug tests of drug court clients
were positive, compared to an average of 31 percent for similar
defendants not in a drug court, but under probation supervision.
Retention and graduation rates among drug court
participants remain high, as compared with other outpatient treatment
programs. Sixty percent of those who entered drug courts were still in
treatment after 12 months, compared to 50 percent of individuals
treated in outpatient programs.
Recidivism for participants while in the drug court
program remains low for graduates. Post-graduation recidivism rates are
also low. In an evaluation of the Jefferson County, Kentucky drug
court, only 13 percent of drug court graduates were convicted of a
felony in the one-year following graduation, compared to 60 percent of
those who failed to graduate and 55 percent of the comparison group of
eligible offenders who declined to participate in the drug court
program.
Other evaluations found nondrug court clients were about twice as
likely to recidivate as compared to drug court clients. In Portland, 27
percent of drug court clients were arrested for a new offense, compared
to 46 percent for the comparison group. In Las Vegas, 39 percent of
drug court clients were rearrested, compared to 66 percent for the
control group.
Drug courts can also help communities save money. For example,
Denver reports savings of $2.15 million annually, and Washington, DC
saves an average of $6,455 per client per year compared with the cost
of incarceration. A comprehensive cost analysis of the drug court
program in Portland, Oregon, found that every taxpayer dollar spent on
the drug court saved $2.50 in other costs to the public. When broader
cost savings were taken into account, such as costs to crime victims,
the ratio of the benefit to the taxpayer was estimated at $10 saved for
every $1 spent.
As of June 1, 2000, there were 533 operating drug courts with
another 293 in the planning stages. While drug courts originally served
only adult offenders, today specialized drug courts have emerged to
serve juveniles, Native Americans, families, and individuals charged
with driving under the influence (DUI). More than 57,000 individuals
have graduated from a drug court. More than 1,000 drug-free babies have
been born to drug court participants. And over 90 percent of drug court
graduates are gainfully employed.
Research also has shown a tremendous need for prison-based drug
treatment. The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse found
that 80 percent of the 1.7 million adults incarcerated at the time of
its study were under the influence of drugs or alcohol when arrested,
stole property to buy drugs, or had a history of drug and alcohol
abuse. From prisoner surveys conducted by OJP's Bureau of Justice
Statistics, we know that over 80 percent reported drug use prior to
incarceration, and between 30 and 40 percent report having been under
the influence of alcohol immediately prior to or during the commission
of their offenses. A study by OJP's Corrections Program Office (CPO) in
1997 indicated that approximately 70 to 80 percent of all state prison
inmates are in need of substance abuse treatment. However, only a
fraction of the substance-abusing offenders in the nation's
correctional facilities have access to treatment.
Studies have shown a tremendous difference in recidivism rates for
drug-abusing offenders who receive treatment as compared with those who
do not undergo treatment. A Delaware study, for example, found that
inmates who completed the state's drug treatment program were three
times more likely to be drug and crime-free after 18 months than
nonparticipants or those who failed to complete the program.
To help fill the treatment gap, OJP's Residential Substance Abuse
Treatment for State Prisoners (RSAT) program provides formula grants to
states for substance abuse treatment programs in state or local
correctional facilities. Last month, OJP awarded more than $57 million
to all 50 states and eligible territories to continue to provide
substance abuse treatment to state and local prisoners. Originally
authorized in the 1994 Crime Act, RSAT has allowed OJP to provide more
than $230 million to the states and territories since 1996.
In implementing RSAT, states are encouraged to adopt comprehensive
approaches to substance abuse testing and treatment for offenders,
including relapse prevention and aftercare services. RSAT programs must
last from six to 12 months, be provided in residential treatment
facilities set apart from the general correctional population, focus on
the substance abuse problems of the inmate, and work to develop the
inmate's behavioral, social, vocational, and other skills needed to
reduce substance abuse and related problems and improve the ability to
remain drug and crime-free upon the offender's return to the community.
Another major OJP program is Breaking the Cycle (BTC), a system-
wide, coordinated program designed to reduce substance abuse and
criminal activity of drug-involved offenders by combining drug
treatment with criminal justice sanctions and incentives. It is based
on research suggesting that early identification and assessment of drug
users, followed by treatment and supervision tied to the court's
coercive powers, can reduce drug use and crime. BTC's focus is on
maintaining continuous treatment as the defendant moves through the
justice system.
In 1996, OJP's National Institute of Justice (NIJ) selected
Birmingham, Alabama as the first Breaking the Cycle demonstration site.
In 1998, NIJ expanded the initiative to Jacksonville, Florida and
Tacoma, Washington, and, in 1999, selected Lane County (Eugene), Oregon
as the first Breaking the Cycle project in a juvenile justice system.
Each site brings a strong collaborative framework to the initiative,
which includes partners from the justice and treatment communities and
the local political system. Each also has undertaken other innovative
strategies to treat and monitor drug-using defendants. Each site has an
active drug court and networks to promote criminal justice and
treatment system coordination.
In fact, the court plays a critical role in each BTC project, both
in offender management and in oversight of program implementation and
operation. Judges are responsible for ensuring that sanctions and
incentives are applied appropriately and that treatment and other
services are coordinated among the various program partners.
Under Breaking the Cycle, Birmingham has significantly improved its
handling of drug-using defendants. Substance abuse assessments that
once were conducted six months after arrest are now completed within
two days of arrest. The number of defendants on the project's active
caseload has more than doubled from 900 a month to over 1,800, and the
median length of supervision has increased from about 150 days to 232
days. Treatment also includes case management, frequent urinalysis, and
other needed services. Criminal justice and service providers are now
engaged in developing a seamless transition of drug treatment and
supervision data from the pretrial stage to post-adjudication
supervision.
Birmingham's experience as Breaking the Cycle's ``pioneer site''
reinforced the importance of elements such as strong system
collaboration, a comprehensive management information system, and the
availability of wide-ranging treatment options. The Birmingham
experience also showed that Breaking the Cycle's collaborative
structure can be used to address other system issues. NIJ has
incorporated the lessons learned in Birmingham into its partnership
with the other Breaking the Cycle sites. It also is working with site
officials to transition Breaking the Cycle to other local, state, and
federal funding sources.
POST-INCARCERATION SUPERVISION
Experience with these and other treatment programs, as well as
research, have documented the need for post-incarceration supervision
and follow-up treatment, or aftercare, in the community to reinforce
institutional interventions. OJP is developing approaches to help
offenders stay crime and drug-free when they return to their
communities following incarceration. The objective of these efforts is
to hold offenders accountable for their behavior, to reduce recidivism,
and to increase public safety.
About half a million offenders are released from prison or jail
each year and return to our communities. Too often, these offenders
fail to receive the close supervision, drug treatment, and other
services they need. About 100,000 offenders are under no supervision,
drug treatment, and other services they need. About 100,000 offenders
are under no supervision at all. Mr. Chairman, as you and I know from
our experience as former prosecutors, many of these offenders
recidivate. In fact, we know that about two-thirds of released
offenders will reoffend and be reincarcerated if they are not closely
monitored to prevent recidivism and drug abuse relapse.
OJP has begun testing two approaches to help communities more
effectively supervise offenders following incarceration. The first
initiative is a reentry court, along the lines of a drug court, which
supervises released offenders using judges instead of traditional
parole boards. Law enforcement and correctional officers, along with
treatment and service providers, set up a reentry plan, monitor
offender behavior, and apply sanctions and incentives.
OJP is providing intensive technical assistance to nine state and
county agencies--including Broward County, Florida, San Francisco, and
the states of Delaware, Iowa, Kentucky, and West Virginia--to develop a
variety of models for reentry courts.
The second approach involves reentry partnerships, where law
enforcement, corrections, and the community work together to prepare
for and manage the reentry process. Under this initiative, reentry
plans are developed for individual offenders based on a network of
community resources, including employment, housing, substance abuse
treatment, family counseling, and other services. This comprehensive
approach draws upon the resources of a broad range of partners,
including corrections agencies, community police, treatment providers,
and community-based organizations. The offender, the offender's family,
the victim, and the community all work together to develop a
comprehensive strategy for managing an offender's reentry to community
life. Eight states are participating in this initiative--Florida,
Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, Nevada, South Carolina, Vermont, and
Washington.
In addition, to maximize the impact of federal funds in the reentry
partnership sites, OJP plans to collaborate with the Departments of
Labor (DOL) and Health and Human Services (HHS). DOL would provide
assistance in developing and operating jobs-related programs in the
reentry sites, and HHS would support substance abuse and mental health
services. We have also set aside monies under this program to support
an evaluation, and, in fact, our National Institute of Justice has just
recently issued a Request for Proposals for this purpose.
RESEARCH AND EVALUATION
In addition to these programmatic efforts, OJP supports research
and statistical analysis to inform programming, as well as evaluations
to measure program performance and effectiveness. At the Justice
Department, from the Attorney General on down, research and evaluation
are real priorities. Research and evaluation are not isolated
endeavors, but an integral part of our efforts to administer justice in
this country and to improve the operations of the criminal and juvenile
justice systems. Our goal is to have data and knowledge driving policy,
so that our programming and funding decisions are based on sound
performance measures, hard data, and ongoing analysis.
Starting with the passage of the 1994 Crime Bill, we worked with
Congress to allow us to take money off the top of all the new program
funds to support research and evaluation in those areas and to help
inform future federal spending. At OJP, we are working to make
evaluation a part of every program we support and to use the results of
research and evaluation to inform our programming and spending
decisions. For example, since 1995, we have committed $5 million to
evaluate drug court programs, and we plan to expend additional monies
in fiscal year 2001 to expand these efforts. Our National Institute of
Justice has designed a multi-phased, multi-year, multi-site evaluation
of over 30 drug court programs. Some preliminary findings from the
first evaluations were released this past spring, and we are using
those results to improve our drug court programming. In addition, we
are supporting an evaluation of the effectiveness of the various
treatment services used by drug courts and research that will develop
an assessment tool that can be used by drug court programs throughout
the country to provide reliable information on program costs and cost-
savings.
In addition, we are supporting initiatives that incorporate
research and evaluation into programs from their inception. In these
programs, researchers and practitioners work together to identify local
crime-related problems, guide the implementation of interventions,
evaluate progress, and disseminate data.
I am committed to continuing to ensure that performance measures
are built into every program that OJP has a responsibility to ensure
that taxpayer monies are spent wisely and effectively. For that reason,
I am working to ensure that OJP staff closely monitors every grant
program to measure effectiveness, and to quickly intervene with
training and technical assistance where needed to improve program
operations. If a program continues to flounder in spite of additional
assistance, I believe we must learn from our mistakes and end funding
for projects that simply do not work.
In addition to federally supported initiatives, we are also working
to build research and evaluation capacity at the state and local
levels. Federal support for research and evaluation is critical. But at
the same time, we must build capacity at the state and local levels to
enable those officials to better understand and respond to crime.
Because crime in this country is primarily a state and local
responsibility, we must enhance state and local capacity to assess
their crime statistics, analyze risk factors, and conduct research and
evaluation to inform local planning and programming.
OJP is working to foster performance measures at the state and
local level. Assistance provided to drug courts is one example.
Although OJP closely monitors the drug courts supported with its grant
monies, provides training and technical assistance where needed, and
rescinds funds from ineffective programs, many drug courts are
supported with funds from state and local government, private industry,
and foundations. In fact, as you know, Mr. Chairman, drug courts began
as a grass-rots movement, without federal assistance, and spread across
the nation.
In an effort to ensure the effectiveness of all drug courts, OJP
entered into a cooperative agreement with the National Association of
Drug Court Professionals to develop standards and performance measures
for drug courts. A Drug Court Standards Committee, composed of drug
court practitioners from throughout the country, developed
recommendations published in DCPO's 1997 report, ``Defining Drug
Courts: The Key Components.'' This landmark report describes the 10 key
components of a drug court and provides performance benchmarks for each
component. The Conference of Chief Justices, the Conference of State
Court Administrators, and several states have adopted the key
components and performance benchmarks as standard measurement tools for
drug courts.
OJP also is working to help jurisdictions collect and analyze drug
use data, and then use those data in local criminal justice planning.
Through the Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) program, 35
jurisdictions across the country collect and analyze interviews and
urinalysis of adult and juvenile arrestees and detainees in police
lock-ups. Analyses of these data help jurisdictions understand local
and regional drug use trends, as well as the links between drug use and
crime, and make informed decisions about deployment and spending. ADAM
was the first national indicator, for example, to document an alarming
rise in Western jurisdictions in methamphetamine use. ADAM has also
found that marijuana was the most commonly used drug among juvenile
detainees.
ADAM is designed so that each participating local jurisdiction can
customize information to meet its unique needs. ADAM makes it possible
to identify levels of drug use among arrestees; track changes in
patterns of drug use; identify specific drugs that are abused in each
jurisdiction; alert officials to trends in drug use and the
availability of new drugs; provide data to help understand the drug-
crime connection; and evaluate law enforcement and jail-based programs
and their effects.
ADAM also serves as a research platform for a wide variety of
related initiatives, including the relationship of drugs and crime to
related social problems, such as alcohol abuse, domestic violence, drug
markets, firearms, gambling, gangs, and sexually transmitted diseases.
For example, in Indianapolis, a special committee convened by the
mayor's office consisting of law enforcement officials, court
officials, and service providers, used ADAM data to develop a plan to
address problems such as prostitution, drug use, and other crimes.
Through an agreement with the Bureau of the Census, OJP's Bureau of
Justice Statistics collects additional data regarding drug use by
prison and jail inmates, drug-related programs in state and local
police agencies, and the adjudication and sentencing of drug offenders.
For example, BJS surveys found that more than 80 percent of jail and
prison inmates reported prior drug use, compared to 36 percent of the
general population.
CONCLUSION
These data highlight the need for continued national attention to
the problem of illegal drug crime and drug-related crime. OJP has
adopted a comprehensive approach to preventing illegal drug use,
enforcing drug laws, providing appropriate interventions and sanctions
for drug-abusing offenders, ensuring post-incarceration supervision and
treatment, and supporting research and evaluation to inform these
efforts. I look forward to working with you, Mr. Chairman, and the
Members of this Subcommittee to prevent illegal drug use in this
country, particularly by our nation's young people, and to reduce drug-
related crime. This concludes my formal statement. I would be happy now
to answer any questions you or the Subcommittee Members may have.
Senator Sessions. All right. Our next panel, we will get
your names up there, and if you can go on and step forward, I
guess I will ask you first to give your oath, if you would.
Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you give to this
subcommittee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth, so help you God?
Judge McMaken. I do.
Judge Gebelein. I do.
Mr. Belenko. I do.
Mr. Goldkamp. I do.
Senator Sessions. Thank you very much.
Our second panel is comprised of several distinguished
experts on the operation and study of drug courts. Judge Mike
McMaken has presided over the drug court in my hometown of
Mobile, AL, for 7 years. I have watched with great admiration
how he has conducted that court. He served as district judge in
Mobile County since 1987 and currently presides over the
district court. He has served tirelessly to improve the Alabama
criminal justice system, devoting particular efforts to child
advocation advocacy. He co-authored a publication entitled
``Implementing Child Advocacy: A Rational and a Basic
Blueprint.'' He served as first president of the board of the
directors of the Child Advocacy Center, Incorporated, in
Mobile, and when he was a private practitioner, he represented
the Mobile County Department of Human Resources at one point of
his legal career, almost exclusively dealing with child custody
actions involving abused and neglected children. He served as
an assistant district attorney and prosecutor in both Mobile
and Tuscaloosa and was present at and has presided over the
creation of this drug court and its history since.
Senator Biden, you have someone you would like to
introduce.
Senator Biden. I do, and let me say, Mr. Chairman, first of
all, thank you and to the whole panel. I am supposed to be,
like we all are, but I have three other things I am supposed to
be doing now, and I say to Judge Gebelein there are 19
University of Delaware students in the back room from my former
professor, Professor Belinski. I can't remember what grade he
gave me. So I am trying to figure out if it was a good grade, I
am going to go speak to him. If it wasn't, I am going to go to
the press conference, but all kidding aside, and I am supposed
to be with Senator Hatch at 11 o'clock, which I am obviously
not going to make, at another function on the digital divide
and the H-1B visa.
So I apologize if I step out, gentlemen, during your
testimony.
But I know you know Judge Gebelein, Mr. Chairman. He has
been here before. He has been a member and associate judge in
the Superior Court of Delaware since 1984. Prior to that, he
had a job similar to the one you had as a Federal prosecutor.
He was our attorney with the State of Delaware. He is a good
card-carrying Republican, which I hope makes you like him a
little more, but he also is----
Senator Sessions. He did look like a nice fellow, I must
admit.
Senator Biden. He is one hell of a guy. He has served as
chairman of the Delaware Sentencing Accountability Commission
since 1989. He is the founder of the Delaware Statewide drug
court system--ours is Statewide--where he serves as drug court
judge responsible for post-adjudicated offenders, and he is the
founding member of the National Association of Drug Court
Professionals. There is much more to say about him, except to
suggest to you that this is a serious man who has taken his job
incredibly seriously. We have had, I am very proud to say,
incredible success in Delaware. He has dealt with over 1,400
folks who have come through his system. They have so far a 62
percent completion rate, success rate, and I have visited his
courts many times.
I am happy he is here, and in the event that I don't get to
stay for the whole testimony, it is not because of my lack of
interest. It is because I have these other things, and I know
so much about what he has done already.
But I appreciate you having him here, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Sessions. Thank you.
Our next panelist is Dr. Steven Belenko, a fellow at the
National Center for Addiction and Substance Abuse, CASA, at the
Columbia University. He studied drug courts for a number of
years and has published two studies that synthesize the current
body of drug court research on outcomes, such as recidivism
rates for drug court participants and graduates as compared to
non-participants.
Dr. John Goldkamp is currently a professor of criminal
justice at Temple University where he heads the Crime and
Research Institute in Philadelphia. His research focuses
broadly on discretion in criminal justice and innovation in the
courts, with special emphasis on treatment and alternatives to
confinement, including drug courts. Dr. Goldkamp co-authored
the first comprehensive evaluation of the Nation's first drug
court in Miami. They didn't get a 80 percent cure rate, I don't
think, did they?
Dr. Goldkamp has conducted one portion of the large-scale
national evaluation funded by NIJ to study the oldest drug
courts in the United States.
Judge McMaken, thank you for coming, and I just want to
reiterate that I know how much you care about the people who
come before you, and how hard you work to try to turn their
lives around. I have seen that commitment over many years, I
appreciate you for that. I think it is not atypical of other
drug court judges around the country. We would be glad to hear
your comments at this time.
PANEL CONSISTING OF HON. MICHAEL E. McMAKEN, JUDGE, DISTRICT
COURT OF ALABAMA, MOBILE COUNTY, MOBILE, AL; HON. RICHARD S.
GEBELEIN, JUDGE, SUPERIOR COURT OF DELAWARE, WILMINGTON, DE;
STEVEN BELENKO, PH.D., FELLOW, THE NATIONAL CENTER ON ADDICTION
AND SUBSTANCE ABUSE (CASA) AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY, NEW YORK,
NY; AND JOHN GOLDKAMP, PH.D., PROFESSOR OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE,
TEMPLE UNIVERSITY, PHILADELPHIA, PA
STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL E. McMAKEN
Judge McMaken. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a privilege
to be here. I want to thank you for the invitation to
participate in this proceeding.
First, it is always a pleasure to talk about the Mobile
drug court program. After 7 years, I have become very attached
to it, but it is also because I believe these programs can have
a very positive impact on the community and on the participants
when they truly commit to recovery. I realize these are very
expensive propositions, and your committee is absolutely
correct to be concerned that the Government money that is spent
is only spent on programs that are successful.
I have to acknowledge that the Mobile program expends the
vast majority of its resources on program activities, rather
than evaluation. Although there was a study done back in 1997,
it was not as full-fledged an evaluation study as we would
like, and it was 3 years ago. So those figures are no longer
current, although it did indicate we were doing well there
reducing the recidivism rate.
Our numbers are a little bit smaller than some of the
programs around the country. I don't know all the numbers of
other programs, but we do have a very intensive level of
monitoring and supervision and judicial involvement.
My personal experiences after this 7 years is that we are
definitely making a big impact on the people that graduate. We
just had our 30th graduation last Friday. We graduated our
454th graduate out of 1,183 participants, which is a smaller
number than Judge Gebelein's program, but we are very pleased
with that. We have consistently graduated 43 percent of our
defendants. We are very, very difficult with them, and
sometimes we are probably a little bit unreasonable by other
persons' opinions, but we do have to work in what I consider a
very conservative political environment, and our county
commission spends a lot of money on this, and they have a right
to expect a safe and positive return on their investment.
There are several reasons I am convinced that we are
successful.
Senator Sessions. You say 40 percent. That means that those
who consistently test positive or otherwise fail to follow your
orders, you remove from the court, and they go back into is
criminal justice system?
Judge McMaken. They are sentenced. We are a post-plea, pre-
sentence program. If they fail, they are sentenced immediately.
Now, we defer quite a while before we decide they have failed,
but the 43 percent represents those who have been in the
program a year or more. They have graduated every graduation we
have held at 43 percent for the past 7 years.
I would think that--my personal conviction that we are
successful is biased, obviously, but I would have thought--and
I am not familiar with these proceedings so I have no
preconceived notion of how to go about this, but I brought some
before and after pictures of somewhat representative defendants
in our program. I would have thought I could have shown these
photos to these ladies, and that would be enough to make them
persevere. That doesn't always work, but the dramatic
appearance of people, their demeanor, their participation,
their attitude between the time they admit and the graduation
is amazing. It is a transition that you can't understand unless
you go to a graduation proceeding.
Senator Sessions. I think you invited me to the first one,
if I am not mistaken.
Judge McMaken. Yes, sir, and you are invited to every one.
Senator Sessions. Thank you. And I attended.
Judge McMaken. At each graduation, I give the defendants an
opportunity to stand up and speak, and their comments are
usually very touching and sometimes very tearful, but they are
given with emotional expressions of gratitude for what they
have received from the program, and this, I wanted to point
out, is not a time when they have to impress me. They are done.
They have already got their dismissal order in their hand.
Their plea is set aside, and they are free to go, but they are
genuinely touched by the changes in their lives, I am
convinced.
It is very compelling to hear people say things like thank
you for giving me my daughter back; or a child, my parent; or a
spouse, my husband; or whatever. Or very commonly, Drug courts
saved my life, thank you so much. One especially moving comment
is, Thank you for helping my baby be born drug free. I have had
defendants who I have sentenced who failed the program, went
off to the penitentiary, had their baby at Julia Tutweiler,
came back, and brought the child to us in court to show us that
this baby was, in fact, born drug free. In prison, but drug
free. I got my family back. I got my children back, is a very
common statement from a lot of the women. My family respects me
again, or I respect myself now.
One really small comment, but very telling to me was one
lady told me--it has been years ago--I can leave my daughter in
the room with my purse again, which you can imagine what life
is like when you can't trust your daughter to that extent.
Often the tone of the testimony we receive for graduation
is very spiritual. It is, I think, a good sign in a lot of
ways, and you and I obviously share some beliefs with the same
church membership, but that is a very moving and compelling
fact with some of our graduates, their spiritual reawakening,
so to speak.
I acknowledge that not all of our graduates will succeed. I
realize some will fail, but many I think persevere, and sitting
as I do at sort of the top of the criminal justice funnel in
Mobile County, I get to see everybody or one-fourth of
everybody that comes through the system at their initial
appearance for bail hearings and whatnot. I am satisfied we are
doing good with that respect.
Two things I would like to see us do: One, we need to work
more with the children to prevent drug use. I try to take--we
have been doing this for several years--defendants to schools
or youth groups at churches to participate in discussion about
not so much ``just say no'' to the drugs, but a ``this is my
story, I didn't say no, and this is what happened to me.'' We
try to match them to the demographics of the group that
participate with them. We try to have a question and answer
session. We don't do that enough. We need to do more in the
effort of prevention in exchange for the what community gives
to the drug court defendants, and that is also helpful in their
treatment.
One last thing I would like to mention, and it is not
necessarily on point, but I believe it is very relevant, if I
may go over my time just a second.
Senator Sessions. Please go ahead. Yes.
Judge McMaken. Recently, I have been involved in an infant
mortality program. That is because there is strong research to
show that drug use is a prime cause for infant mortality, but
there is so much more involved in that issue. I strongly
believe that we need to work to get treatment to all women who
are involved prenatal drug use. I have an article, ``A Reason
for Hope.'' It describes some of the issues related to prenatal
alcohol and drug abuse and the cost, and I emphasize what Ms.
Leary mentioned earlier in this respect. The costs to society
as a result of that problem are huge. The consequences of what,
I am afraid, is a fairly widespread community acceptance of
drug use and abuse may affect more children than we really
know, and we are talking about resulting damage being costly
not just in medical expenses, but they are huge, but for other
directly related social costs such as public assistance and
special education services.
As you know, I am a father of an 8-year-old girl with Down
Syndrome who requires intensive special education assistance. I
also have a 6-year-old son who has ADHD who is gifted, but he
also requires a lot of attention as well. So I do understand
the difficulties of some of those problems on a firsthand
basis, but the special education expense alone is monumental,
and there is research, I believe, that justifies the statement
that children who are exposed to prenatal drug use often need
special education services and tend to be more impulsive. They
are more likely to use drugs. They are more likely to drop out
of school, and they have tendencies more often towards violent
behavior.
Senator Sessions. Is there a study on that? I have always
heard that.
Judge McMaken. In the article that I have included in my
testimony, there are references to a number of experts in that
field, yes, sir.
I believe that this is an issue directly related to this
committee's work, and I think it also is affected by what you
do in our drug courts, and we are trying to get more gender-
specific treatment and paying especially close attention to the
pregnant females, one of which we just graduated Friday, as a
matter of fact.
Senator Sessions. So a pregnant female just graduated. Is
there any doubt in your mind that that graduate was more likely
to have been drug free having gone through the court than if
she hadn't gone through the court?
Judge McMaken. I can say with a high degree of confidence
that we made a big difference. This was somebody who was with
us for about 20 months. In other words, she was over the 12-
month normal timeframe. She was very problematic, extremely
difficult. She was AWOL more than once, noncompliant in a lot
of ways, but she has made a tremendous turnaround. I feel very
confident that she is drug free today. I can't verify it now.
She is gone from our program, but I believe that baby will be
born drug free next month.
Senator Sessions. If she had not been subject to that
intensive supervision, you believe it is likely she would have
been heavily using drugs?
Judge McMaken. Her lifestyle was such that it would almost
be unavoidable.
Senator Sessions. Thank you very much, Judge McMaken. I
appreciate those comments and your great leadership.
[The prepared statement of Judge McMaken follows:]
Prepared Statement of Michael E. McMaken
WHAT IS A DRUG COURT?
For quite some time courts have struggled to find ways to more
effectively deal with the increasing volume of criminal cases,
especially those cases that are either drug offenses or drug-driven
crimes. The volume of criminal cases directly attributable to drug and
alcohol abuse is phenomenal and it has virtually overwhelmed the
criminal justice system. The number of prisoners in city and county
jails and in state and federal institutions is incredibly large.
Given the huge cost of housing a prisoner for a year, it is much
more fiscally attractive and beneficial to the community if we can find
ways of disposing of criminal cases AND providing treatment to reduce
the amount of drug abuse with its related social costs. Drug courts
provide an option for doing both at once. It is infinitely better to
keep a person out of prison, working and paying taxes rather than pay
$15,000.00 to $25,000.00 per year to feed, clothe, secure,
``entertain'', heat, cool, and provide medical care for, that person.
Specific details of the Mobile Drug Court program are described in
the document ``Drug Court Participation Requirements'' attached to this
testimony. The Mobile Drug Court ``Judgeship'' is not an official full-
time judicial position. I was elected to serve as a District Court
Judge and my regular duties in that respect have not really changed.
The District Court Criminal cases, and the ``Small Claims'' and
``District Civil'' cases are scheduled as usual and the Drug Court
cases must be fit in wherever and whenever that is possible. The Drug
Court cases are virtually exclusively Circuit Court prosecutions and a
huge percentage of them are prosecuted by solicitor's information
rather than indictments. As a result this takes a fair portion of the
caseload off of the prosecutors, judges and the Circuit Court criminal
jury dockets.
The following three paragraphs present a cursory overview of our
program, which will hopefully give you some feel for how we operate. A
defendant charged with a non-violent, drug-related (or ``drug-driven'')
felony criminal offense may elect to plead guilty and enter Drug Court
if their application is approved by the prosecution. After a guilty
plea is entered, the court defers sentencing and admits the defendant
to the court-based, three-phase, intensive outpatient, drug treatment
program, which is expected to last for one full year.
During this treatment program the defendant must attend weekly
group treatment sessions (the number diminishes from 3-4 to 1-2
depending on Phase), meet with his case-manager and treatment counselor
for individual review sessions, undergo frequent drug testing, attend 3
(5 in Phase I) NA, AA or CA meetings weekly, pay the treatment fee of
$1,500.00 (for the year) and appear in court as ordered by the Judge to
verify program compliance.
Court appearances may vary from as often as every 2-3 weeks to a
minimum of every 2 months depending on the defendant's performance. A
defendant must test drug-free for at least the six months prior to
graduation in order to complete the program. Failure to comply with
these requirements will result in a custodial prison sentence without
the need for further court proceedings. If the defendant successfully
completes the program, his guilty plea is set aside and his case is
dismissed at a formal graduation ceremony where his friends, family,
fellow drug court participants and the public can celebrate the happy
event.
FREQUENT JUDICIAL INVOLVEMENT
It is one thing for a treatment counselor or probation officer to
develop a relationship with a defendant over whom they have
responsibility. It is quite another for a judge to spend enough time in
court with a defendant to know very much about him or her. After
numerous court appearances and extensive reviews of performance
reports, it is the rule rather than the exception in drug courts for
judges to interact with a defendant in a meaningful way.
Another reason this program is very different from traditional
court proceedings is the fact that there are virtually no lawyers or
other legal representatives involved. The prosecutor and the defense
attorney are present at the plea dockets but they do not often
participate at status hearings. It is the Judge and the defendant * * *
one-on-one so to speak.
I frequently tell defendants when they plead guilty that they want
to be the person I do NOT know. They should want me to say: ``Who is
he?'' That will mean that I will have had very little opportunity to
learn about them because their performance will have been exemplary. It
is usually the ``problem children'' whose names I recall the most
vividly.
Sanctions can vary from lectures and scolding to incarceration for
violations of the treatment program requirements or sentencing if that
ultimately becomes necessary. At the same time, the Court encourages
and congratulates successful performance and accomplishments (such as
getting their Driver's License reinstated, registering to vote or
getting their (GED). Regular and intensive judicial interaction is
probably the most distinguishing feature of drug courts.
Intensive judicial participation may well be the factor that makes
THE difference for some defendants. When discussing scheduling of the
most recent graduation our staff was somewhat anxious that I put off
committing to a specific date. I replied that I was waiting to learn
when I would be in Washington, DC. I suggested that we could schedule
the ceremony and that they could proceed without me if I had to be
away. One counselor was horrified that I would even consider that. She
said some of the defendants would not want to graduate if I would not
be there. When I expressed amusement at that suggestion, the others
insisted that she was correct. They believe that the defendants want to
``show me'' that they can do it after a year or more of my
``tormenting'' them.
GRADUATION
The graduation ceremony, which is scheduled about every 2 months,
is a time of celebration by all parties and often a critical renewal of
the staff's energy and spirits. The defendant is afforded, and usually
takes, the opportunity to speak about their experience in the program.
This testimony is frequently the fuel needed to keep everyone going for
another two months because the program is very demanding and
challenging.
Graduation can be a very emotional time. Listening to them share
their journey is touching. Tears frequently flow freely. They often
break down when they personally and publicly thank their counselors and
case-managers for their efforts.
Having the defendants and their families thank you for putting them
in jail and essentially making their lives miserable at times can be a
truly humbling experience. They frequently share with the Drug Court
staff comments like:
``Thank you for giving me my daughter back; now I can
leave her alone in the room with my purse.''
``Thank you for helping my baby be born drug free!''
``Thank you for showing me a better way to live.''
``Thanks to you I have my wife (husband, child, parent
* * * or most importantly * * * my children) back.''
``I lost everything * * * my job, my family, my home *
* * and when I reached the bottom, drug court showed me the way
back up again.''
I especially recall one woman who, after long and
agonizing months of fruitless efforts on our part, failed the
program and was sentenced to the penitentiary while she was
pregnant. When she was released from prison she came back to
court one day and brought her baby girl by for us to see the
child that we had helped to be born drug free ... even though
for her that had to happen while she was in prison. Her
expression of gratitude and joy over the happy result left a
very memorable impression on me.
THE IDEA HAS SPREAD FAR AND WIDE
There are many drug court programs now but in February of 1993 when
the Mobile Drug Court began there were only a few around the country
and those were mostly in Florida and California. I believe that there
are approximately 450 programs around the country at this time and I
expect that more are being considered and organized all the time
Drug court programs have been very successful in many ways and they
have achieved a greater and much more wide spread acceptance now than
when they were first created. That is certainly true for our program
here in Mobile, Alabama. As good as he concept is, there is no doubt
that such programs can be improved. The better programs almost
certainly are constantly undergoing changes. In the beginning there was
a good deal of trial and error. Our greatest improvements have probably
come from our most painful mistakes.
HOW ARE WE DOING?
I agree that we must try to evaluate the success of drug court
programs and determine which formats or components are most effective
and achieve the best results. However, when reviewing and evaluating
them we must remember that there are many differences among the
programs.
I have tried informally and on an ad hoc basis to personally
evaluate how and where we are succeeding. ``Who is graduating and who
is failing?'' is an important question. The information is not readily
available in a database to evaluate our performance and we must
certainly improve that part of our programs. It goes back to the old
saying, ``When you are up to your waist in alligators, it is difficult
to remember that your original objective was to drain the swamp.'' My
sense is, and this is based on some statistical data gathered together
over a year ago, that we are succeeding most often in the cases where
the defendant has no prior felony convictions and their Drug Court case
is only an offense for possession of drugs. However, there are some
truly remarkable exceptions to that ``rule.''
We tried to pull together data on age, race, gender, type of
offense, criminal history, and number of appearances in court and
length of time in the program. On a limited basis, I do this personally
for every graduating class. That is to ensure that we are hitting our
target demographics as well as to try to remember and comment on each
graduate's ``story''. I also make a little ``State of The Drug Court''
address at graduation. This data needs to be maintained for every
participant (graduates and failures) and used to improve our selection
criteria and program content.
PROGRAM DEMOGRAPHICS
The figures that follow assume that all seventeen of the scheduled
graduates actually appear and graduate at 1:00 PM on Friday, September
29, 2000. This breakdown is only a very cursory examination of some of
the demographics of our graduates and I wish it could be more.
1,183 Defendants admitted to date
1,044 Defendants admitted to MDC more than one year ago
507 Defendants Sentenced
454 Defendants Graduated (43.4% of the 1,044)
395 Graduated Defendants w/No Prior Felony Convictions (87%)
59 Graduated Defendants w/Prior Felony Convictions (13%)
347 Graduated Defendants who had only Drug cases (76.4%)
21 Graduated Defendants who had Drug cases and other cases (4.6%)
86 Graduated Defendants who had only Other-Than Drug cases (18.9%)
334 Males to Graduate (73%)
120 Females to Graduate (27%) (When I last asked the Mobile Metro Jail
population was 12% female.)
265 Blacks to Graduate (58.%)
189 Whites to Graduate (41.6%)
29 Average Age of all Graduates
14.9 Average Number of Months the Graduate was in Drug Couort
The average graduate seems to match our original demographic target
fairly well. We seem to be fairly and appropriately treating male/
female, black/white, and younger/older defendants. Although I have no
statistical data to back it up, I also feel very strongly that we are
spread from the top to the bottom of the socio-economic scale. The
amount of community service that is done to defray drug court fees is
significant. At the same time, we have many defendants who pay the full
fee amount and a number of them are able to do it with east . . . if
they so choose.
It would appear that we might want to examine very carefully the
applications of those defendants who have other than Drug cases or
expend less energy on them while they are with us. Another conclusion
one might draw is that we might need to be very cautious about
accepting, or expending too much energy on, defendants with prior
felony convictions.
I believe that every drug court program could benefit from this
kind of self-examination process and that the Mobile Drug Court must
improve in this respect as well. We need to consistently evaluate our
performance, refine those policies that work best, change those that
are not successful and determine our recidivism rate to more fully
document and validate the program's usefulness.
Attached to this document is the 1997 ``Report to the Drug Court of
Mobile County: Comparing Drug Court Graduates to Non-Drug Court
Participants'', which was prepared by Professor G. David Johnson, PhD.
Dr. Johnson is the Interim Associate Dean in the College of Arts and
Sciences and a Professor of Sociology in the Department of Sociology
and Anthropology at the University of South Alabama.
Although this evaluation was not as comprehensive as one might
prefer, it did establish that the recidivism rate of the drug court
participants was lower than non-participants. This appears to be
consistent with reviews of other drug court programs. Dr. Johnson will
hopefully undertake a follow up evaluation of the program in the
future.
When comparing drug court programs please remember that they, as is
all politics, are ``local''. Drug Courts cannot exist without ``local
politics'' in their creation and continued existence. In the absence of
either an enlightened monarch or benign dictator there must be some
strong sense of community ``political will'' to finance, undertake and
preserve a drug court program. The drug addict lobby is neither very
popular nor especially powerful and it is up to the community leaders
(both elected and otherwise) to take the initiative on this front.
There must be some vision and courage among the local elected
governmental, judicial, law enforcement and other community leadership
to attempt to solve the drug problem by other than ``conventional
means.'' Those conventional means have not achieved a great deal of
success if one judges by the overwhelming availability, use, and
unfortunately widespread community acceptance of, illegal drugs.
HOW WIDESPREAD IS THIS PROBLEM?
I believe that it is generally accepted that the use of illegal
drugs occurs in all segments of the community. Drug and alcohol abuse
is oblivious to age, gender, race, education and socio-economic status.
In the Mobile program alone we have had as defendants two lawyers, one
Ph.D. Psychologist, the children of several lawyers and doctors, many
nurses, one former police officer, and the family members of quite a
few friends or acquaintances of the Drug Court staff. In one case we
even had a family member of one of our staff as a program participant.
The motivation to change the way drug-driven crimes are prosecuted
has its motivation in the perception that we have failed to a large
extent so far as well as in the obvious economic consequences of drug
crimes. Our courts are overloaded with these cases and the prisons are
overflowing with drug prisoners. We cannot build or staff enough
prisons to keep up * * * especially for habitual offenders and/or
sentencing guidelines in many courts.
DRUG COURTS ARE NOT ALL CREATED ALIKE
Since the drug court programs are all local there exist a variety
of philosophies and formats. While I do not pretend to have a
comprehensive overall understanding or personal knowledge of all the
existing programs in the country, it is my belief that many of the
programs vary greatly in how they are organized and how they work.
There are diversion, post-plea and combination programs.
Some only accept felony cases or misdemeanor cases, while
others take both kinds of criminal cases but no cases other than adult
criminal cases.
Occasionally drug courts involve dependency cases
(including child custody issues) in addition to criminal matters
however most are exclusively criminal courts.
Some programs treat juveniles only.
Some courts have been created for Native-American
defendants.
Some programs obtain drug treatment by contract with
outside providers while other courts hire their own drug counselors and
treatment staffs.
Some operate in-home drug testing labs while others do
not, but instead cooperate with exist in drug testing facilities.
Not all programs use the same type of drug testing
equipment, supplies, policies or procedures.
Some programs are smaller in scale with extremely
intensive monitoring and drug testing while others are much larger in
scale with less frequent contacts and/or drug testing programs.
Some programs are essentially loose coalitions of existing
community programs with informal or formal agreements regarding
referral and reporting for treatment and case management.
Programs require a commitment varying from only six months
to a year or eighteen months or perhaps longer.
Some programs may admit participants who want to continue
their methadone use but Mobile, for example, does not.
Some drug courts have frequent judicial review,
involvement and interaction with defendants while others may have less
judicial contact in favor of staff monitoring.
Some courts may have a full-time Drug Court Judge but many
are presided over by judges with other dockets as their primary
responsibility.
Some courts may operate with ``special'' judges (such as
referees or magistrates) selected by some means other than regular
judicial elections or appointments.
While some programs may have become institutionalized into
the local judicial structure others may continue to exist only due to
the personal commitments and dedication of key personnel or supporters.
EXPAND PROGRAM ACTIVITIES
I believe that we need to expand the activities of the Drug Courts
and make the programs and the Defendants give back to the community for
several reasons. First the community is offering the participants an
unparalleled opportunity to ``beat their case'' AND beat their drug
problem at the same time. Avoiding a felony conviction can be a
lifetime financial bonanza. Second, Mobile County for instance foots
the bill for a significant part of the cost of the program and deserves
to be compensated whenever possible. Third, the Defendants often need
to learn to start accepting responsibility for their own mistakes and
transgressions. Facing the consequences of their actions is often the
first step to true recovery.
COMMUNITY SERVICE WORK
In Mobile we have insisted on regular community service work as an
ongoing part of the treatment program. This is a two-fold effort.
First, in order to offer the more financially strapped defendants an
opportunity to pay their required contribution to the cost of
treatment, we have allowed them to perform community service work for
up to one-half of their obligation. This is a voluntary component of
the community service work. They sign up and work essentially on their
own schedule but they must regularly participate to verify their
efforts to be responsible for the payment of their fees.
PUNITIVE COMMUNITY SERVICE WORK
Second, there is also a Punitive Community Service Work project
every Saturday morning at 7:00 AM. This is an alternative to going to
jail for not complying with some drug court program requirement. It
helps to reduce the jail population and it makes the defendants reflect
more intensely on their less than successful participation in
treatment.
We try to focus on helping the Mobile County Schools with labor to
reduce their costs and improve the appearance of their grounds and
facilities. In addition to the schools we also work closely to assist
city and county parks, public housing, county and city special
projects, special community events and the county litter patrol.
This Punitive Community Service Program has been an ongoing project
for several years. It is an effort not only to modify behavior but to
also show the community that the program and the courts are working for
the benefit of everyone. The participants wear safety-vests which
reflect to the citizens the program's presence and involvement in their
neighborhoods.
``THIS IS MY STORY''
The ``This is My Story'' program is one of my favorite parts of
what the Mobile Drug Court does. We try to take drug court volunteers
(defendants) into the schools, church youth groups, social or civic
organizations (for example the Key Club convention in Mobile last year)
and any other place where the participants can share their
``testimony'' with the audience. This is primarily directed toward
children but not exclusively. We try to match our speakers with the
audience demographically to the greatest extent possible. It is
sometimes even more compelling when the speakers grew up in that
neighborhood or went to that school.
Our speakers (usually 3 to 6) tell how they got into trouble, why
they started using drugs, when they began and what happened as a result
of their drug activities. The most productive part is the question and
answer session during which the kids can interact freely with the
speakers. We do not do this nearly enough but it may well be the best
way we can make a significant contribution to the community in the long
run. I would like this to be done on a regular basis with the full
support of all of the Mobile County schools.
CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES ``INSPECTIONS''
We have taken the entire staff to several of our correctional
facilities on a number of occasions. I believe that this offers several
benefits. First, the staff gains a more complete appreciation of where
the defendants go if they fail. It can give them a better understanding
of why and how to work harder to help our Defendants succeed.
Second, it also gives them a better understanding of why the
program exists in the first place and enhances our relationship with
the Department of Corrections. The staff has an opportunity to interact
with the inmates and even visit with some of our prior participants,
which goes surprisingly well for the most part. This interaction is
highly educational and helpful for all of us.
Third, frequently the people who work with Drug Court do so because
of some personal experience or prior addiction problems themselves or
with family members or other people they love. If the staff member does
not already consider what they do as a kind of mission project it
offers an opportunity to make the staff into ``missionaries'' rather
than ``just'' employees. Many of the staff members feel this way about
their work.
WE NEED MORE GENDER SPECIFIC TREATMENT
Women often have more issues and are much more problematic program
participants. This is just not my gender-biased observation but it has
long been the consensus of the experienced female drug court staff
members. We must focus on providing more gender-specific treatment. We
need special treatment groups to focus on special programs in several
areas but this is never more important than with the women
participants.
We seem to have a fairly significant number of prostitutes with
drug and alcohol addiction problems and they have proven themselves to
be THE highest risk categories of drug court candidates. They and other
women participants often have long histories of repeated problems
concerning child custody (dependency due to abuse or neglect) and other
related issues. If those women never deal with their underlying
problems they are virtually condemned to repeat the cycle and the
result is inevitably another child at risk in the mother's unchanged
environment. They often have a child to replace the one who was
previously removed from their care.
Women may not be as willing to discuss certain sensitive issues in
groups where men are present. Some more difficult issues include sexual
abuse, domestic violence, marital problems, medical problems, emotional
or psychological issues and pregnancy matters. Pregnancy is an
especially critical issue for many important reasons.
WHAT DO WE DO WITH THE DRUG ABUSING PREGNANT WOMAN?
The abuse of alcohol and other drugs during pregnancy is
exceedingly dangerous and costly. The costs mount even after the baby
is delivered if the mother continues to use drugs because it very often
deprives the child of the nurturing and stimulation critical to proper
development and growth.
The costs are enormous for the child, the family and the community.
First, the child can be severely damaged physically and mentally. Drugs
are a significant cause of infant mortality and premature births. The
medical costs alone for the first year of life for a very low birth-
weight child, a low birth-weight child and a normal birth-weight child
vary dramatically. They can be in the range of $67,000.00 vs. $24,000
vs. $9,000.00 respectively.
Those figures do not fully take into consideration the damage done
to the child in the most critical growth and developmental third
trimester of pregnancy. The full cost of the future medical, emotional,
behavioral and developmental difficulties caused by this drug use are
more difficult to assess. The societal cost of special education,
juvenile delinquency, and future criminal behavior are speculative in
amount but most experts would agree that they are huge.
It is critical to consider that the prenatal effects of drug and
alcohol use have even bigger implications on the future behavior of
those children. Research has shown that they tend to be more impulsive,
have shorter attention spans, increased levels of anxiety and
depression and have difficulty concentrating. This all results in
significantly reduced levels of academic performance. Children with
these problems are much more likely to use drugs, tend toward violent
behavior and drop out of school.
The lesson to be learned is that prevention is crucial.
Identification of women at risk by their drug use during pregnancy and
their referral to appropriate treatment programs is essential to avoid
the ``wiring'' problems drug use will cause in their children.
If children are born with these developmental (and the inevitable
if subsequent behavior) problems, early intervention is imperative.
Proper early intervention services can help to address and mitigate the
results of the mother's drug use. The implementation of the Adoption
and Safe Families Act may be necessary in some cases but appropriate
services must be provided to these children.
PRISONS MAKE EXPENSIVE MATERNITY WARDS
Putting women in prison to ensure that their babies are born drug-
free and healthy is hardly a cost-effective solution. Although this
sometimes is the ONLY alternative and it might work exceedingly well in
desperate situations, there must be a better overall policy for
everyone's interests. The need for change is obvious especially
considering the critical lack of space for female prisoners and the
number of women who are held in county jails awaiting beds in the state
system. Some female inmates serve nearly their entire sentence while
waiting for a bed in the state penitentiary.
In addition, the state prison and the individual county jails do
not want to absorb the medical costs associated with the delivery of a
child. Other solutions must be found. This is true NOT just for women
with criminal cases but it is also true for all women who are pregnant
and who are abusing drugs and alcohol. Drug courts should play a role
in this area as well.
``THANKS FOR THE MEMORIES . . .''
After over seven years on this bench it never ceases to amaze me
when Drug Court graduates:
Come up to me in the parking lot at the Wal-Mart and say
``Judge! Remember me? Here is my card. I am in business for myself
doing small construction jobs and renovations. I am eighteen months
clean?''
Come up to me in the reception line at Dauphinway United
Methodist Church while we were waiting to say goodbye to the minister
who had just been appointed Bishop and say, ``Remember me? I am Carol.
These are my two girls and I want you to meet my mother'' and have them
thank me for what Drug Court did.
Stop me on the street as my wife and I are walking to a
wedding reception and say, ``Remember me. I have eleven months clean
now. I'm doing great.''
Greet me with a huge smile at Sam's where she works as a
door-checker. As she checks my cart when I go through the door and I am
trying to control my six-year-old and eight-year-old they say ``Hi. I
am still doing well. Thanks. Have a nice day.''
Call my office and say ``I am pregnant and doing great.
Will you marry us next week? It would mean a lot to me if you would
perform my wedding.''
Run out of a group of jurors on their way to lunch in
front of the courthouse and say. ``Hi. Can you believe it? I am on a
jury. Thank you!''
Every time I visit my oncologist his ``Angel of Mercy'',
the R.N. who administered my chemotherapy for six months, will hug me
with a smile and not have to say anything. Over a period of more than
two years both of her children graduated from Drug Court only to have
one die in a tragic automobile accident about six months later. There
is a special relationship there that needs no discussion but it is
certainly one I will value forever. For me she and her husband
epitomize the plight of loving and dedicated parents who struggle with
the problems of their children. I can vividly picture her mother
sitting quietly and patiently in every single court hearing both of her
grandchildren ever had with me * * * never once asking me for anything
* * * just watching and loving her grandchildren as hard and as
faithfully as she knew how.
``COST-BENEFITS ANALYSIS''?
Drug court treatment for a year is highly labor-intensive and
relatively expensive, but significantly less so than the cost of even
one year in prison; but that argument only considers the most basic
economic factors at play--especially the corrections budget. How great
are the much more intangible cost factors? What is the cost of human
suffering when we do fail or worse, when we do nothing? As uplifting as
the successes may be, the failures are equally discouraging.
WHAT IS THE COST OF DOING NOTHING?
Consider the lives of complete hopelessness led by some of our
defendants. It is difficult to imagine their situation. How can one
relate to a man or woman who has no horizon to their future? If your
future is Friday or Saturday night and your only objective is to find,
buy and use drugs, what does that say about the quality of your life?
What does that do to your family? What does it do to your children?
Removing the normal nurturing and stimulation from your children's
lives is devastating. Yet when possessed by the craving to abuse drugs
you do not think about taking care of your responsibilities. You care
only for one thing. You sacrifice everything to satisfy your desire for
drugs.
How do you feel when you sober up or come down from your ``high''
and realize that you have no idea where your children are living? Or if
they even have a roof over their heads? Or if they are hungry? Or if
they are safe? Or loved? Who is hugging them? Who tucks them into bed
at night? Do they even remember me? Are they alive? Can you feel the
despair of thinking ``What have I done? Again? Why do I do this? What
am I going to do?''
PAUSE AND REFLECT
While considering and preparing my testimony I received by email a
daily inspirational message from a service to which I subscribe. That
quote stuck me as appropriate to the issue at hand. It is reminiscent
of the New Testament reference to the fact that the Hebrews drank from
wells that they did not dig and ate olives from groves that they did
not plant when they entered the Promised Land.
A man has made at least a start on discovering the meaning of human
life when he plants shade trees under which he knows full well he will
never sit.--D. Elton Trueblood
What legacy do we want to leave for our children?
Senator Sessions. Judge Gebelein.
STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD GEBELEIN
Judge Gebelein. Senator, again I want to thank you for the
privilege of being here and speaking about drug courts. As has
been mentioned, in Delaware we do have a Statewide drug court
system now. We started the system back--we began in New Castle
County, where I am from, in 1993.
When we looked at the idea of creating a drug court, it was
after looking at criminal justice problems of substance abuse
in general, and we targeted two different groups of people to
put in drug courts. We targeted a diversionary group, a group
of people who are beginning their criminal careers who weren't
too seriously involved in crime, and that doesn't mean they
don't have big problems, but they weren't yet into the career
criminal status, and we created a diversionary-type drug court
for those individuals where they would waive their rights to a
trial, agree to a stipulated set of facts, and go into the drug
court program. If they fail, the judge holds a trial based only
on a stipulated set of facts. So it solves the problems of
coming back later.
Senator Sessions. Stipulated facts?
Judge Gebelein. Yes.
The other group that we decided to target were those people
who were on probation, had been around for quite a while, were
well into their criminal careers and clearly had a substantial
drug problem, and we targeted them because they were the
fastest growing number of people in our prisons and also the
ones who seemed to cycle through the system over and over again
without getting any treatment.
So we created a second-track drug court which is the one
that I preside over where, when you are arrested and you are on
probation, you come into my court, and we try to resolve the
new charge with a plea and a sentence that involves substantial
drug treatment resources. A lot of the individuals will be
going to jail, starting out their sentence in a therapeutic
community in the jail so that we can get a hold of them and get
their attention before they move back out into the community.
So, basically, they either do resolve all their charges or
they don't. In either event, they are going to probably end up
being sentenced to do the therapeutic community. We control
them, then, in the community afterwards through the drug court
model.
We have had some fairly good success with the people who
enter the program. We have had about, as the Senator mentioned,
a 62 percent completion rate of those that have gone in.
Senator Sessions. These are the older repeat offenders with
heavy drug problems?
Judge Gebelein. These are the heavy-duty people. We have
1,632 of them that went into the program in the first 5 years,
and 1,043 of those have graduated or have had a neutral
discharge, and there is about 3 percent of them that have a
neutral discharge because we require them to graduate to have a
job, a stable residence, have been drug free for 4 months. We
have a number of people who come in who have mental problems or
other disabilities that prevent from ever getting a job. We
can't graduate them because they don't meet the criteria, but
we don't think we should terminate them because they have no
control over why they can't meet the criteria. So they are
discharged neutrally at the end of the program.
We have been the subject of a number of studies. We had a
study that indicated that of the people who went through the
serious track, that is the post-sentencing track, of the
graduates of the program, less than 9 percent of them had been
arrested for a felony offense within the first 18 months after
discharge from the program, after graduation from the program.
Senator Sessions. In 18 months?
Judge Gebelein. Eighteen months.
Senator Sessions. Less than 9 percent rearrest in 18
months. That is pretty good.
Judge Gebelein. And with those that did not complete the
program, the rate was 27 percent rearrested for a felony within
they same period of time.
In the diversionary track, the numbers were better, as you
would expect them to be. It was less than 5 percent had been
arrested for a felony versus 17 percent for the non-completers
of the program.
We are currently undergoing a study as part of the national
study with regard to the older drug courts, and one of the
problems with any of these studies is that you have to get a
group together big enough to study, and if you are going to
take it out 2 or 3 years to see if it really has a post-program
effect, the number of programs that you can study is somewhat
limited, because as you can see from the chart, most of them
have come on line in the last 2 or 3 years. So that is one
problem.
The other problem is one that I think Senator Biden
mentioned, and that is that sometimes you are comparing apples
to oranges in these programs. The people who go into, for
example, my track of our drug court are very involved
individuals. They have about a 15-year history of drug use.
Most of them have three or more felony convictions. Compare
them to the other track. Obviously, the people have less
convictions, maybe one felony if any felonies and a 2- or 3-
year drug history. So you have to be careful in comparing those
different groups.
Senator Sessions. I certainly agree with that. I think that
is why what we have got is a hodgepodge of studies. It would be
difficult but not impossible I think to get some good
comparative studies. Excuse me.
Judge Gebelein. And I think those studies are ongoing right
now. As I said, we are being studied by, I believe it is the
NIJ study, but we are also being studied by a CSAT study of
substance abuse down the road, which is even harder to do
because you have got to try to get these people to come back
even after they are out of the program and drop urines and talk
about their substance abuse, and it is a tough job to perform
that evaluation, but they are doing that currently.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Judge Gebelein follows:]
Prepared Statement of Richard S. Gebelein, Delaware's Drug Court
During the late 1980's, Delaware along with most other states was
overwhelmed with drug cases. Like many other states, Delaware had
passed mandatory sentencing laws for drug offenders, and had increased
enforcement efforts aimed at drug activity. Under the auspices of the
Governor, the Criminal Justice Council and the State Sentencing
Commission, Delaware established a cross jurisdictional committee to
make recommendations on solutions to the problem of substance abusing
offenders and the crime they commit.
The Committee identified a number of problems with how substance
abuse treatment was provided to the population of criminal offenders.
Indeed, the Committee found that a lack of coordination and case
management of the offender and his/her treatment plan led to
inefficient use of resources, missing opportunities for meaningful
treatment, and offenders not receiving treatment (nor even being
identified as having a substance abuse problem) while under criminal
justice control. Finally, it was noted that there were gaps in the
treatment continuum.\1\ One of the most glaring deficits in the system
was the gap between prison based treatment and any aftercare in a
halfway house or community setting. Many offenders would relapse within
days or weeks after release before becoming engaged in treatment in the
community. Many would commit new crimes creating new victims, within
weeks of release.
In addition, the Committee was able to observe that the prison
population that was growing the fastest was also the most heavily drug-
involved--those who were incarcerated as a result of their failure on
probation or parole.\2\ All of these failed parolees and probationers
had been under the control of the correctional/criminal justice system
one or more times and most had not had any substance abuse treatment
while under supervision.
It was clear to the Committee that the correctional system and
treatment systems were equally fragmented, they lacked meaningful
coordination within each system as well as between the two systems.\3\
In those cases where a need was established and treatment was provided
it was done in a disjointed and ineffective fashion. Gaps resulted
because of authorization procedures, waiting lists, and communication
problems between criminal justice supervision and treatment providers.
There was no process in place for the criminal justice system to track
individual offenders in treatment, and no system for examining the
utilization and/or effectiveness of treatment for offenders overall.
The Committee also saw a need for a continuum of treatment that
would have to be coordinated by stable case management.\4\ This would
cause treatment to be started earlier, employed more efficiently, and
continued without gaps as the offender moved through complex levels of
custodial and community supervision, as well as through treatment that
included initial interventions, transitional, and aftercare services.
In Delaware, the TASC case management model was recommended as a means
to span the range of correctional interventions, as well as the full
range of institutional and community-based treatment programming. TASC
is a program model and a methodology designed to integrate the criminal
justice and treatment systems by providing client-centered services,
including screening, assessment, treatment planning and case management
services, referring clients to substance abuse treatment, other
services, monitoring client progress, and facilitating communication
with both justice and treatment.
Delaware was fortunate to have the opportunity to intensively study
its criminal offender population at all levels of supervision--both
institutional and community based--to identify substance abuse and
other treatment needs through assistance provided by the Office of
Justice Programs, US Department of Justice and private foundations.
This study was accomplished with Delaware was designing its system to
deal with these offenders. The study established that of all the
offenders under criminal justice control, those with the highest level
of need for substance abuse treatment were the probation/parole
violators who were incarcerated, and who would be reentering the
community. \5\
At the same time the Committee looked at the newly emerging drug
court model. At that time, the few existing drug courts were based upon
a diversion model that assisted in case management and brought
immediate treatment engagement to drug offenders in lieu of further
criminal processing. The committee recognized the advantages of this
approach and adopted it as one key element of Delaware's response to
this problem.
The Committee recommended the creation of a diversion model drug
court for low level offenders at the beginning of their criminal
career. These offenders could be tightly supervised and given treatment
at a relatively low cost per individual, $1500-$2000. Many could be
diverted not only from Court processes but from a life of crime.
This program has maintained a success rate of over 62 percent for
the 1425 offenders percent who have been assigned to the program during
the past six years.
The Committee also recognized that the drug court benefits,
including ongoing judicial involvement, immediate sanctions, strict
accountability and flexibility in sentence modifications as use of
rewards and graduated sanctions to encourage treatment could well be
adapted for use with the group of serious offenders (probation-parole
violators) who came back before the Courts after incurring new criminal
charges.
These, the offenders with the most need of treatment, could be
given the opportunity to resolve new charges in an expeditious fashion,
receive a treatment oriented ``addiction'' sentence, and then by
closely monitored and controlled both in custody and upon reentry to
the community.
Marrying the Drug Court model with a case management infrastructure
provided by TASC, Delaware designed its Fast Track--Drug Court. Since
many of those who agree to resolve their charges at Fast-Track will
begin their ``addiction'' sentence in residential treatment in jail (or
prison), Delaware's Fast Track-Drug Court has since 1994 been managing
those offender's re-entry into the community. The key to the success of
this program is good case management that stays with the offender as
that offender moves from Delaware's excellent prison based therapeutic
community program, (Key) into a half-way house program, (Crest or other
program), and then to intensive outpatient treatment without any break
or gap in treatment services. Encouraged and congratulated by the Court
at each step of this transition, the offender does not ``float'' after
the conclusion of one program and before the commencement of another,
with the high risk for relapse and/or recidivism that such
discontinuity often engenders.
Results for these serious offenders, many of whom have been in the
criminal justice system for years are encouraging. Of those placed in
the serious VOP Offender Drug Court, 1632 have either been discharged
(successfully or neutrally) or terminated (failed). Of these, 1043 have
graduated or been neutrally discharged. Neutral discharge is where
completion is impossible because of a non-criminal justice reason,
e.g., illness or death. Thus the success rate is close to 63 percent.
Those who successfully complete the program are about 50 percent less
likely to be rearrested for serious criminal offenses as other similar
offenders in the criminal justice system. \6\ The glue that holds this
system together is active case management provided under the TASC
model. This case management enables the drug court to address the many
problems in providing treatment to offenders. In particular, through
the TASC assessment and management, the Court can avoid placing
individuals into appropriate treatment, find alternative treatment
programs for those who need them, find additional community, government
and private treatment resources, and, provide the offenders with a
constant reference point throughout their journey through complex and
confusing criminal justice and treatment systems.
In Delaware, as in many jurisdictions, TASC expanded its bounds as
a program for diverting offenders to treatment, to a systems approach
that managed offenders wherever they were in the criminal justice
system. The expansion of TASC to serve this larger function is also
evidenced in programs such as CSAT's Criminal Justice/Treatment
Networks and the Break The Cycle Demonstration Project funded through
the National Institute of Justice with collaboration from many federal
treatment and justice agencies. These programs have TASC, or a similar
case management entity, as a core element to manage offenders and to
support both the criminal justice and treatment systems.
At it's most effective, TASC is an independent entity that is
interrelated to both treatment and justice systems through the court.
TASC functions to manage cases, but also to provide a forum for ongoing
planning and decisionmaking, and as a focal point for continued
dialogue and learning about substance involved and other complex
criminal client populations.
Recent a doctoral student at the University of Delaware has again
looked at our drug court, specifically targeting the difference between
``so called'' violent offenders and non-violent offenders who have
graduated from the court. She has found preliminarily that the drug
court model has had a positive impact on both these diverse groups. Her
thesis should be published soon and will provide, I believe, some
interesting discussion as to appropriate target populations.
It is, I believe, essential that we continue to study drug courts
and their results. We must continue to refine criteria for such courts
allowing however for local experimentation. Our VOP track was not
eligible for federal funding because it accepts some offenders with
convictions with violent offenses. Yet it has worked with these
offenders to reduce their recidivism.
The American Bar Association is building on the work done by NADCP
in it's ``key elements'' to draft ABA Standards for Drug Courts. That
is important. It is equally important, however, that Drug Courts have
the flexibility our federal system allows to try differing approaches
to a complex problem.
The Office of Justice Programs has provided seed money for these
local courts, acting within their diverse legal systems, to design and
implement Drug Courts that provide one of the best chances the Criminal
Justice System has to impact on the substance abuse problem and
ultimately upon the crime rate.
1. EFFECTIVE MANAGEMENT OF DRUG INVOLVED OFFENDERS, Drug Involved
Offender Coordination Committee, March 12, 1992, pp. 4-5.
2. A Coordinated Approach to Managing The Drug Involved Offender,
Treatment Access Center, March 11, 1994, pp. 12-14.
3. Effective Management of Drug Involved Offenders, Supra. At pp.
4-6.
4. Id., at pp. 8-11.
5. A Coordinated * * * at pp. 13-14.
6. The Delaware Drug Court: A Baseline Evaluation, Whillhite,
Stephen A., and O'Connell, John P., May 1998, pp. 40-45. In particular,
this first showed of program graduates re-arrested only 26 percent were
re-arrested for felonies compared to 56 percent of the non graduates
re-arrested for felonies.
Senator Sessions. OK. Thank you very much.
Dr. Belenko.
STATEMENT OF STEVEN BELENKO
Mr. Belenko. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
opportunity to speak with you today about my review of drug
court research and give you my perspective on the development
of performance indicators and outcome measures for drug courts,
as well as what we know about best practices for successful
drug courts.
First, in terms of what we know about the impacts of drug
courts, based on my review of existing research on drug courts
as well as some of the national drug court surveys that have
been done, the research to date suggests several conclusions.
First, drug courts provide closer and more frequent offender
supervision, that is, by drug tests, status hearings, and the
like than under the standard probation or pretrial supervision
that is typical for the population that is served by drug
courts.
In addition, drug courts are able to provide timely access
to treatment and related services under traditional criminal
justice system processing or supervision. These services
generally are not readily available, or if they are, they tend
to be delayed or occur later on in a case.
Second, the positive urinalysis rates and rearrest rates
are generally low for drug court participants while they are
under the drug court program supervision, especially for those
who end up graduating from the program. Several studies that
have compared in-program rearrest rates to other drug offenders
find reductions, though these rates vary across--as you
mentioned in your opening statement, vary widely across drug
courts.
Third, we know research on drug treatment outcomes has
consistently found that a longer time in treatment is
associated with better outcomes, and drug court program
retention is substantially longer than typically seen in
community-based treatment whether or not it is a criminal
justice-monitored treatment, but on average, as has been
mentioned, an estimated 60 percent of those who enter courts
remain in treatment for at least 1 year. Almost half of those
admitted end up completing the program. These retention rates
are much greater than the retention rates typically observed
for criminal justice clients, specifically, and community-based
treatment, more generally.
Senator Sessions. Now, could you summarize that again?
Community-based treatment is not as effective as----
Mr. Belenko. Well, in terms of treatment retention, the
retention rates that we see in drug courts, 60 percent--mostly
it is outpatient treatment, 60 percent still in after 1 year,
compared to one of the national treatment evaluations generally
of community-based treatment find that--the most recent one--
that 50 percent of those who enter outpatient drug treatment
are out of treatment within 3 months. So it is a dramatically
better retention.
Senator Sessions. When they are out of treatment. That
means they failed or haven't complied with the program.
Mr. Belenko. Either failed or completed, but they are not
in treatment.
Senator Sessions. Or they voluntarily dropped out.
Mr. Belenko. Correct.
Senator Sessions. And so you have a twice as high
completion rate.
Mr. Belenko. Roughly.
Third, the extent to which the rate--in terms of recidivism
key indicators for drug courts, the extent to which the rate of
new offending is reduced following program participation is the
most common outcome indicator used by drug courts, and their
ability to reduce recidivism while under supervision as well as
after finishing the program is a key to long-term acceptance
and viability of these programs.
Drug courts hold some promise in this area, in large part
because of their ability to retain offenders in treatment and
provide intensive treatment and supervision and other services,
and from the research on drug treatment, we know that longer
retention associated with the higher likelihood of treatment
completion, which is in turn predictive of reduced recidivism
and drug use.
Most of the evaluations that have compared 1-year post-
program recidivism for all drug court participants with a
comparison group find a lower rearrest rate for the drug court
group. Out of a total of 21 studies that I have found, 15 have
found a reduction in the 1-year rearrest rate. In rearrest
rates after participating in drug court, most of those are
after 1 year. In four studies, four of the 21, the rates were
similar between the drug court and comparison group, and in two
studies, the results vary depending on the measure used.
Unfortunately, in terms of other outcomes, there has been
very little substantive research to date about the impact of
drug courts on other key outcomes such as post-program drug
use, employment, family, and social stability.
Finally, an important question about drug courts is whether
the costs of operating these programs are lower than the
economic benefits that may occur because incarceration time is
reduced, because recidivism is lower, or drug use is reduced.
Research on treatment, drug treatment in other criminal justice
settings finds that generally these economic benefits are
greater than the cost of operating the treatment programs, and
several studies that I have reviewed do conclude that drug
courts do generate cost savings, especially from reduced
incarceration. Ms. Leary mentioned the study in Multnomah
County, Portland, OR, which was fairly comprehensive and found
a substantial economic benefit for that program.
Senator Sessions. Did I hear you say that treatment as part
of a drug court is more effective than treatment not part of a
drug court?
Mr. Belenko. In terms of retention, generally the treatment
retention rates are better in drug courts. We don't know yet
enough about the long-term impact.
Senator Sessions. For recidivist rates, you don't have
those numbers yet?
Mr. Belenko. In terms of retaining offenders in treatment,
drug courts do seem to do better than other forms of
supervision.
I want to talk for a couple of minutes about how we measure
the impact of drug courts on recidivism, and that is perhaps
the key performance indicator that most drug courts and policy
makers and funders are interested in. The existing research
unfortunately has a number of gaps in that area that relate, as
mentioned before, to the shortcomings of the information
systems that exist in most States and localities. As Senator
Biden mentioned, many States don't even have Statewide
computerized information systems.
There are also differences and difficulties in how we
measure recidivism, and there needs to be, I think, a more
common understanding about how we are going to measure
recidivism that includes the time periods, the type of measure,
whether it is reconviction, re-incarceration, or rearrest. Data
quality is a big issue in terms of the ability to access such
information. Often, it has to be done manually because of the
lack of information systems. The staff and funding is often not
there to conduct this effort, and I think a lot more needs to
be done to encourage States and localities to engage local
researchers in that effort. Gathering this information can be
very difficult, but as we all know, it is important.
Finally, let us jump ahead and talk about some of the
conclusions that we can draw from this research and what we
know about best practices, just another minute. We know despite
abundant research demonstrating that drug treatment can
significantly reduce drug use and crime, access to treatment is
typically quite limited for criminal offenders relative to the
need for such treatment. This has important implications.
Although some offenders can overcome their drug problems
without treatment or are able to obtain treatment on their own
or age out of drug use, most of them have difficulty escaping
from the cycle of drug use and crime without formal
interventions imposed and supervised by the criminal justice
system.
My research on substance abuse and the criminal justice
system indicates that within this overall context, drug courts
offer significant potential to effectively engage offenders
into long-term treatment and related services. Though the drug
court field has generally been very supportive of research and
evaluation, drug courts need to be encouraged to do a better
job of collecting and maintaining consistent, complete, and
accurate performance data. Key indicators such as clinical
assessment information, program completion, services, drug use,
criminal behavior, and health during program participation
should be routinely collected, maintained in a database, and
reported out in a way that is useful for policy makers and
funders.
After program participation ends, the periodic collection
of official recidivism data should be encouraged for drug
courts as well as for other offenders that might serve as a
comparison group, but the courts must recognize the need for
confidentiality protections, especially following drug court
participation.
Drug courts are still relatively new, and a number of
research gaps still exist that I discussed in my previous work;
however, the field has advanced sufficiently, and there is
other research on criminal justice-based substance abuse
treatment that can be applied to the drug court setting to
suggest several key elements for drug court structure and
operations that are likely to be associated with more effective
programs. Those include adherence to the 10 key components that
have been identified by OJP, clinical and other assessment of
participant problems and needs, case management, timely access
to a range of services, adequate information flow between the
treatment provider and the drug court, comprehensive staff
training that incorporates cultural sensitivity and competence,
measurable program objectives and targets with periodic review
of achievements, adequate data systems that allow ongoing
monitoring and evaluation, and an after-care component that
includes ongoing treatment services.
Finally, I believe that the question generally asked about
drug courts, which is, Do they work?, is not exactly the
appropriate question. There is sufficient research to suggest
that criminal justice-based treatment of sufficient duration is
effective. The more useful research and policy questions center
around understanding how to develop the most cost-efficient
treatment intervention of substance to all offenders that
maximize positive outcomes for largest number of participants
and to isolate the operational staff and individual client
characteristics that predict successful completion and positive
outcomes.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Belenko follows:]
Prepared Statement of Steven Belenko
My name is Dr. Steven Belenko, and I am a Fellow at The National
Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University. I
appreciate the opportunity to speak with the Subcommittee on Youth
Violence today about my work on drug courts and give you my perspective
on the development of performance indicators and outcome measures for
drug courts. I have been studying the impact of drug abuse and drug
offenders on the criminal justice system, and the policy and
programmatic responses to this problem, for more than 15 years. For the
past eight years I have had a particular interest in drug courts, and
have visited many around the country, studied their impact, and
reviewed numerous research reports on their effectiveness in reducing
illegal drug use and crime.
My remarks today will center on three areas: (1) The lessons
learned about the impact of drug courts on crime and illegal drug use;
(2) the need to identify and develop more useful performance indicators
for tracking drug courts' impact on recidivism; and (3) what is known
about best practices for drug court model.
THE IMPACTS OF DRUG COURTS
From the first program implemented in Dade County (Miami, FL) in
1989, the current generation of treatment drug courts has established
an importance presence in America's criminal court system. In many
jurisdictions, drug courts have become the intervention of choice for
linking drug- or alcohol-involved offenders to community-based
treatment and related clinical interventions. Although still only
serving a relatively small percentage of offenders with substance abuse
problems, drug courts have received considerable publicity, public
support, and government funding. According to the Department of
Justice, there were 508 operational drug courts \1\ as of June 2000; an
additional 281 were being planned. Drug courts are operating or planned
in all 50 states as well as the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico,
Guam, two federal jurisdictions, and 54 Native American Tribal Courts;
an estimated 200,000 drug offenders have entered drug court programs
since 1989 and 55,000 have graduated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 384 adult drug courts, 105 juvenile, 19 family, and 8
combination adult/juvenile/family.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The key goals of drug courts are to reduce drug use and associated
criminal behavior by engaging and retaining drug-involved offenders in
judicially-supervised treatment and related services; to concentrate
expertise about drug cases into a single courtroom; and to address
other defendant needs through clinical assessment, case management, and
linkages to services in the community.
The key components of drug courts typically include: 1. judicial
supervision of structured community-based treatment; 2. a dedicated
courtroom reserved for drug court participants; 3. timely
identification of defendants in need of treatment and referral to
treatment as soon as possible after arrest; 4. a team approach in which
all courtroom staff share the goal of assisting the participant to
achieve sobriety; 4. regular status hearing before the judicial officer
to monitor treatment progress and program compliance; 5. maintaining
defendant compliance through graduated sanctions and rewards; 6.
mandatory periodic or random drug testing; 7. structured treatment
phases; 8. establishment of specific treatment program requirements;
and 9. dismissal of the original charges or a reduction in the severity
of the sentence upon successful treatment completion.
The structure and procedures of drug courts provide closer and more
frequent supervision of offenders than typically seen under the
standard probation or pretrial supervision that most nonviolent drug
offenders experience, especially earlier in their criminal careers. The
studies and data on drug courts that I have reviewed indicate that
court appearance, drug tests, supervision and treatment contacts are
much more frequent under the drug court model than under other forms of
community supervision.
Drug courts trace their roots to a fairly lengthy history of
various mechanisms to link substance abuse treatment to the criminal
justice process, with direct antecedents dating back nearly fifty
years. The general concept of dedicating specified courtrooms solely to
drug cases is not new, and special drug case courtrooms operated both
in Chicago and New York City in the early 1950s. In the early 1970s,
when heroin was the primary drug of abuse among offenders, New York
City set up special ``Narcotics Courts,'' in response to the passing of
the punitive ``Rockefeller'' drug laws. Such narcotics courts, also
established in several other jurisdictions, were designed to help
ameliorate the anticipated impact on court dockets of an influx of new
drug cases and an increased demand for trials expected to be generated
by the new laws. For the most part, however, these earlier efforts
provided only limited access to drug treatment for offenders,
reflecting in part that they were generally designed to process drug
cases more efficiently, not to treat drug offenders for their addiction
problems. Other programs have been developed to engage defendants in
treatment, such as Treatment Alternatives to Street Crime, limited
diversion programs, conditions of pretrial release, conditions of
probation or in conjunction with intermediate sanctions. However, these
programs were often fragmented, inconsistently or inappropriately used,
or not viewed by the criminal justice system as sufficiently effective.
Supervision of treatment often rested on several agencies, and
consequently it was difficult to monitor treatment progress or
compliance with court-imposed conditions.
The drug court model incorporates a more proactive role for the
judge, who in addition to presiding over the legal and procedural
issues of the case, functions as a reinforcer of positive client
behavior. Although the judge is the central player in the program, most
drug courts seek to function as a team in which prosecutors, defense
attorneys and counselors work together to help offenders overcome their
drug problems and resolve other issues relating to work, finances and
family. Dr. Sally Satel has noted how the personality and role of the
judge is often seen as being a key factor in the success of a drug
court. Unlike the traditional courtroom role in overseeing court-
mandated treatment, the drug court judge plays a much more direct role
in monitoring an offender's treatment progress and compliance.
In the remainder of this section, I summarize what is currently
known about the impacts of drug courts on drug use and crime, gleaned
from my review of some 60 drug court evaluations.
The available research suggests several overall conclusions. First,
drug courts provide closer and more frequent offender supervision (e.g.
number of required court appearances, drug tests, supervision and
treatment contacts) than under the standard probation or pretrial
supervision that most nonviolent drug offenders experience, especially
earlier in their criminal careers. Second, program retention is
substantially longer than typically seen in community-based treatment,
whether or not criminal justice-monitored. Third, drug use and criminal
behavior are comparatively reduced while drug court participants are
under program supervision. Finally, most evaluations comparing one-year
post-program recidivism rates for all drug court participants and a
comparison group find a lower rearrest rate for the drug court.
However, the magnitude of the effects on recidivism varies across drug
courts and several evaluations have found no post-program impact on
recidivism. In addition, studies vary in the type and appropriateness
of the comparison group.
Retention in Treatment
Research on drug treatment outcomes has consistently found that a
longer time in treatment is associated with better outcomes. Retention
rates for drug courts are much greater than the retention rates
typically observed for criminal justice clients specifically and
treatment clients in general. On average, an estimated 60 percent of
those who enter drug courts remain in treatment (primarily outpatient)
for at least one year. Although most drug courts require a minimum
participation of one year, the percentage of all admissions that
actually graduate from drug court is somewhat lower than the one-year
retention rate. The 1997 General Accounting Office report on drug
courts estimated a minimum 48 percent average program completion or
graduation rate for those that enter drug court; that figure did not
include those who were still active in the drug court, so actual
graduation rates may be higher. These retention and completion rates
are much higher than generally found in community-based treatment
programs. For example, in a recent national treatment outcomes study
Dr. Dwayne Simpson and his colleagues at Texas Christian University
found that only half of those admitted to outpatient drug-free programs
stayed three months or longer. Another study of treatment retention
among parolees in New York State found that only 31 percent of parolees
referred to community-based treatment remained in treatment after six
months.
Elements of the drug court model (such as graduated sanctions and
rewards, judicial supervision, and responses to relapse) that account
for increased retention in treatment have not been studied but merit
further research. Several recent drug evaluations have analyzed the
factors associated with program dropout; the predictors of dropout
found in these studies (e.g., younger age, more prior polydrug use,
less employment) are similar to those found in the more general
treatment retention research. Factors found to affect successful
program completion in specific drug courts include having received a
GED, having alcohol or marijuana rather than cocaine as the primary
drug problem at admission, being employed full-time, being charged with
drug possession, number of group and case management counseling
sessions received, and having a stable residence and income source. A
study of the Multnomah County (OR) drug court found that longer time in
treatment lowered post-program recidivism. This finding is consistent
with general findings in the treatment outcome literature and suggests
that the positive impacts of drug courts may be increased by strategies
and procedures that increase the length of participation in treatment.
Drug use and Criminal Behavior under Drug Court Supervision
Positive urinalysis rates are generally low for drug court
participants. For the 13 courts reporting urinalysis test results in a
1998 national drug court survey, an average of 10 percent of the tests
were positive for illegal drugs. In contrast, in the same jurisdictions
the average percentage of positive tests for similar defendants not in
the drug court but under probation supervision was 31 percent. For
example, only 5 percent of urine tests for Santa Clara County (CA) drug
court participants tested positive, compared to 10 percent of tests for
non-drug court offenders in electronic monitoring, 13 percent of tests
for offenders on Intensive Supervision probation, and 25 percent of
tests for probationers under general supervision. Drug positive rates
were 9 percent for clients in the Ventura County drug court program, 4
percent in Escambia and Okaloosa County (FL), 6 percent in three New
Mexico drug courts, and 6 percent in the 13th Judicial District (Tampa,
FL) drug court. In the Second Judicial District Court (NM), 21 percent
of all drug court clients had a positive drug test compared with 38
percent of those on probation.
RECIDIVISM DURING DRUG COURT PARTICIPATION
Drug court evaluations have also found low rearrest rates during
the drug court program. For example, the reported incidence of rearrest
was only 3 percent in Santa Clara County (CA) and 12 percent in Ventura
County (CA). Not surprisingly, given that a new arrest is often a
trigger for program termination, in-program rearrest rates are higher
for program failures than for graduates. Seven percent of King County
(WA) graduates and 27 percent of failures had a rearrest during the
program, for a combined total of 20 percent. The percentages of clients
rearrested during the program were 12 percent of graduates and 52
percent of failures (32 percent overall) in Track 1 of the Delaware
drug court, and 8 percent of graduates and 41 percent of failures (20
percent overall) in Track 2. However, neither study included rearrest
data for clients who were still active in the program at the time of
data collection. The average annual number of arrests per person in the
Santa Barbara (CA) drug court decreased from 2.5 in the year prior to
admission to 1.4 during drug court participation.
Sanctions and Incentives
One of the unique components of drug courts is the use of
``graduated'' sanctions and incentives to hold participants accountable
for program noncompliance and to reward them for positive achievements.
Sanctions and incentives are viewed by drug court practioners as
crucial for maintaining compliance, treatment retention, and achieving
sobriety. However, although several drug court evaluations have
examined the delivery of sanctions and rewards, little is known about
their direct impacts on client compliance or retention, or about the
styles and behaviors of judges that promote compliance and retention.
Thus far, research in several jurisdictions has simply enumerated
sanctions and rewards. For example, 44 percent of the sanctions imposed
in the Cumberland County (ME) drug court were time in the jury box, 31
percent were some time in jail, and 7 percent were increased AA/NA
meetings. Among the incentives, 38 percent were advancement to the next
treatment phase, 30 percent were other rewards such as gift
certificates, and 16 percent were a reduction in the frequency of court
status hearings. In the Washington, DC drug court many participants
were remanded to jail, primarily for testing positive for drugs: 50
percent spent three days in jail and 22 percent were ordered to spend
at least a week in jail during their drug court participation. Even
successful participants are likely to be sanctioned: a jail sanction
was imposed for 46 percent of the graduates (average 0.9 per graduate)
and 77 percent of the nongraduates (1.6 per nongraduate) of the First
Judicial District (FL).
However, these findings yield little information about the
operational components of a drug court-based sanctions and rewards
system that are likely to result in higher compliance and completion
rates. According to Dr. Douglas Marlowe, these components may include
regularity and immediacy of sanctions, predictability, the ability of
the drug court to detect undesirable behaviors, and the need for
reinforcement structures that will increase the frequency of desirable
behaviors.
Post-program outcomes
Recidivism. As criminal justice-based interventions, it is not
surprising that most drug courts identify increased public safety as a
primary goal. The extent to which the rate of new offending is reduced
following program participation is the most common outcome indicator
used by drug courts. Their ability to reduce participant recidivism
while under drug court supervision as well as post-program is a key to
the long-term acceptance and viability of these programs. Drug courts
hold promise in this area in large part because of their ability to
retain drug-abusing offenders in treatment and provide intensive
treatment, supervision, and other services. Research on drug treatment
indicates that longer retention is associated with a higher likelihood
of treatment completion, which in turn is predictive of reduced
recidivism and drug relapse, and increased employment and community
reintegration.
A number of evaluations have compared post-program recidivism for
drug court graduates to a general comparison group, and found much
lower recidivism rates. However, it is more appropriate to compare
outcomes between all drug court participants (whether or not they
graduated) and a comparison group (unless comparison subjects are
specifically matched to graduates), although the differences would not
be expected to be as large as for graduates only.
Out of a total of 21 drug court evaluations that I have reviewed
that examined post-program recidivism with a comparison group, 15 have
found that the drug court reduced recidivism (usually after one year),
in four studies the rates were similar, and in two studies the results
were mixed depending on the measure used. The size of the reduction in
recidivism varies across studies. The different results may depend on
the comparison group used, the length of the follow-up period, the
recidivism measure, differences in the drug court structure or quality
of treatment services, and variations in the target population served.
Other Outcomes. Several studies have examined outcomes other than
recidivism, based on follow-up interviews with samples of drug court
participants and comparison sample defendants. For the Santa Barbara
(CA) drug court, a study comparing client problems at intake and after
12 months in the program found that the severity of drug court
participants' alcohol, drug, medical, legal, family, and psychological
problems were significantly lower than 12 months in the drug court.
In a study of the Madison County (IL) drug court, researchers
conducted post-program follow-up interviews with a sample of 48 drug
court dropouts and 50 comparison subjects (criminal justice clients who
failed to complete a residential treatment program). The results
indicated that the drug court dropouts had more drug and alcohol use
and more days of illegal activity. Although based on a small sample,
these findings are consistent with several other drug court evaluations
that have found comparable or higher recidivism rates for drug court
dropouts than comparison defendants.
Finally, a few evaluations have gathered employment data, and these
generally found that drug court participants are more likely to gain
employment while participating and upon graduation. The limited data in
this area make it difficult to draw many conclusions about the
employment effects of drug courts.
Economic costs and benefits
One important empirical question about drug courts is whether the
costs of operating such programs are lower than the economic benefits
that accrue because incarceration time is reduced, or because drug
treatment reduces the likelihood of relapse and recidivism. Research on
treatment in other criminal justice settings has concluded that
investments in treatment generate net economic benefits relative to
their costs. It could be reasonably hypothesized that economic benefits
would result from drug court operations, because some proportion of
drug court clients would have been incarcerated in the absence of the
drug court. Other drug courts serve a population that is primarily
probation-bound, but even this group would likely serve some time in
pretrial detention awaiting case disposition, or receive short jail
sentences in addition to probation, in the absence of a drug court. Net
cost savings could also result from reductions in recidivism, drug use,
use of entitlements, and foster care, as well as increases in
legitimate employment and improved health.
Several studies that I have reviewed concluded that drug courts
generate savings in jail costs, especially for pretrial detention. Cost
savings have also been found in probation supervision, police overtime,
and other criminal justice costs. However, studies that have factored
in projected cost savings due to the births to female drug court
participants of drug-free babies probably have inflated the actual
economic benefits attributable to the drug courts.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ This is because estimates of the long-term economic costs of a
drug-exposed baby vary widely, and the long-term impacts on the child's
development are uncertain. Second, attributing the cost savings to the
drug court assumes that the babies would have been born addicted had
the mother not been in the drug court. This is speculative, given that
offenders outside of drug court also may have access to treatment, and
that mothers may stop using drugs in the latter stages of pregnancy
even without participating in a drug court or other treatment program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Michael Finigan has estimated that a one-year admissions cohort
of 440 Multnomah County (OR) drug court clients reduced criminal
justice system costs by $2,476,760 over a two-year period (net of the
annual $1 million cost of operating the drug court program). Adding
savings in victimization, theft reduction, public assistance and
medical claims costs to the criminal justice costs, the drug court
reduced estimates state costs by $10,223,532 over two years following
drug court participation. Dr. Elizabeth Deschenes and her colleagues
found that the operational costs per client per day in four Los Angeles
County drug courts ranged from $14.53 to $21.50. The average annual
cost per client ranged from $3,706 to $8,924 for program graduates and
from $1,599 to $3,290 for non-graduates, substantially lower than
prison ($16,500 per year in California) or residential drug treatment
($13,000 per year), but more costly than standard probation ($1,200 per
year).
Finally, researchers at the Urban Institute estimated that the
graduated sanctions track of the Washington, DC drug court cost an
average of $10.78 per client per day ($3,248 per participant) and the
treatment track averaged $21.01 per day ($8,708 per participant). These
rates are comparable to those found in Los Angeles County, and are
substantially lower than the daily cost of incarceration in the
District of Columbia jail ($62.31 per day). The Washington, DC drug
court's sanctions track yielded a net economic benefit of $1,493,194
from averted crimes. Subtracting the program costs, this resulted in a
net benefit of $713,570, or $2,973 per participant.
MEASURING THE IMPACT OF DRUG COURTS ON RECIDIVISM
As mentioned earlier, a key performance indicator used to assess
the impact of drug courts is the extent to which participation in the
program reduces criminal activity. As documented in various evaluations
of individual drug courts, criminal activity tends to be relatively
reduced while participants are engaged in the drug court program. In
addition, most studies have found that the prevalence of rearrests is
reduced in the year following program participation. More generally,
because drug courts have excellent retention rates, and because time in
treatment is associated with more positive outcomes, it is reasonable
to hypothesize that drug courts will reduce criminal activity relative
to standard criminal justice processing, in which treatment access is
much more limited and retention rates lower.
However, existing research on drug courts has several important
gaps that limit our deeper understanding of their long-term impact on
crime. First, only a few studies have examined recidivism rates for
longer than one year (these studies have found a reduction in
rearrests). Second, although it is clear that those who graduate from
drug courts have much lower recidivism rates than those who fail, there
has been little research on the individual or program factors that are
predictive of rearrest. Finally, existing research often fails to
adequately define data sources, recidivism measures, or follow-up
period, making it difficult to interpret the findings.
There are two basic issues to consider. One is how to improve the
measurement of recidivism. Although most studies have relied on
rearrests contained in official criminal justice records, there are
numerous ways to measure criminal activity. Some examples include
reconviction, reincarceration, jail beds or jail days used, probation
and parole violations, and self reported criminal activity. With the
exception of the latter, these measures must be obtained from different
official databases of varying quality. One consideration of which
measure to use centers around these quality issues. Local (city or
county) law enforcement databases may not have complete arrest
information, especially when an arrest occurs in a neighboring county.
Multiple databases may need to be accessed, along with manual files,
raising concerns about the validity and reliability of official records
as measures of recidivism. State criminal history systems are of
varying quality and completeness, and some states do not have a common
fingerprint-based ID number that can be used to link arrest events over
time for the same offender. The main Federal criminal history database
(NCIC) contains arrest information from other jurisdictions but is
thought to be incomplete and to contain some inaccurate information.
Rearrest information, as well as probation violations, may be contained
in the databases of individual law enforcement agencies, requiring
manual searches of multiple databases or paper files in order to gather
complete recidivism information. Conviction information may not be
routinely entered into law enforcement information systems.
Gathering such information can be very costly, requiring
substantial staff time to collect, code, clean, and analyze. Collecting
self-reported criminal activity from drug court graduates and failures,
as well as comparison samples of offenders, while perhaps yielding more
comprehensive data on criminal activity, is even more costly to
achieve. Such followup interviews require a substantial investment in
research funds, a long time period, and a need for strict
confidentiality and due process protections.
The second issue revolves around the need for drug court programs
to routinely collect information on rearrest. Drug courts may do this
as a requirement of federal or local funding, to document their
effectiveness, or to gain support from local policymakers. However,
drug courts are rarely funded specifically to collect followup
information on their participants. In addition, many drug courts lack
adequate management information systems that would allow the routine
tracking of rearrests. The Drug Courts Program Office (DCPO) has
undertaken several initiatives over the past few years to encourage the
development of better data tracking systems, but as in much of the
criminal justice system, there is still a long way to go in this area.
Adequate data systems are also important for program monitoring,
process evaluations, impact evaluation, and cost analyses.
The question of how long to track drug court recidivism is a
difficult one. Although it is logical to think that longer followup is
better, this is not necessarily the case. It is also important to note
that drug courts should not be held to an impossible or unrealistic
standard. For example, why should we expect a one-year drug court
program to eliminate drug use and recidivism for all participants
forever? The important policy question is how drug courts do in
relation to other programs, other types of criminal justice
supervision, and traditional sentences. Further, the broader picture
suggests that we look at post-program outcomes in the context of
reduced crime and drug use, and cost savings, during the drug court
participation. That is, the impacts of drug courts must be measured in
terms of their total impact on client behaviors and outcomes, both
during and after program participation.
Drug addiction is a chronic, relapsing condition. Achieving long-
term sobriety often requires ongoing aftercare, additional treatment
episodes, participation in self-help group such as AA or NA, or
``booster'' treatment sessions. Because of funding and program capacity
constraints, few drug courts are able to provide ongoing aftercare
treatment or other services once a participant leaves the program.
Accordingly, it is unrealistic to expect that all drug court graduates,
let alone drug court participants in general, will avoid relapse or
criminal activity for the rest of their lives. Moreover, the population
served by drug courts tends to have multiple problems in addition to
their substance abuse issues. Unless education, employment, mental
health, housing, and similar problems are dealt with over the long
term, relapse is more likely over time.
It is also problematic to compare recidivism rates across different
jurisdictions. Local conditions vary greatly, as do law enforcement
practices and the nature of local illegal drug markets and drug
problems. Accordingly, the significance of a 25 percent one-year
recidivism prevalence for drug court participants may be quite
different in County A compared with County B. If the ``normal''
recidivism prevalence in County A for similar types of offenders not in
the drug court is 40 percent, then that drug court has had a
substantial impact on recidivism. If the ``normal'' rate is 20 percent
in County B, then that drug court has not been successful in terms of
the recidivism performance indicator. By similar logic, a drug court
with a 30 percent recidivism prevalence may have achieved a much
greater relative impact on reducing recidivism in the local
jurisdiction than a drug court in a different jurisdiction with a 20
percent recidivism prevalence.
For a number of reasons outlined above, recidivism should and will
remain a key indicator of drug court performance, and drug courts
should be encouraged to improve their collection and analysis of in-
program and post-program recidivism. But it is also important to be
realistic about the costs and limits of collecting such data. Few
programs funded by the DCPO have allocated sufficient funds or staff
resources to developing, improving, and maintaining participant
management information systems. Many drug courts do not receive DCPO
funding, and state or local support for collecting and analyzing
recidivism data is limited at best. DCPO already seeks some post-
program recidivism data through its required reporting forms, but
relatively few programs are able to provide such data. As drug courts
expand, it will be increasingly important to provide support and
technical assistance to drug courts to enhance their management
information systems. But because of ongoing technical problems with
local court and criminal history databases, we should be realistic
about what we can expect drug courts to be able to achieve without an
influx of substantial new resources for data collection.
Another area in which DCPO can be helpful is developing standards
for measuring and reporting recidivism. Such efforts are already
underway in conjunction with the National Drug Court Institute and
National Association of Drug Court Professionals and should continue to
be encouraged. These standards should include definitional guidelines,
but also guidance for quality control, followup time periods, data
reporting, and statistical analyses.
Finally, although this discussion has centered on recidivism as a
key performance measure, drug courts should be assessed using other
indicators as well. These include operational characteristics related
to program goals and objectives, such as number of clients enrolled,
ability to reach the target population, treatment and other service
delivery, drug test results, number and frequency of status hearings,
and treatment retention. At the client level, important performance
indicators include employment and income, vocational training, school
enrollment, child custody, health, number of days drug-free, and family
stability. Although operational data should be relatively easy for drug
courts to collect and maintain, obtaining periodic data on client
activities and outcomes often requires client interviews. The latter
are costly, raise concerns about confidentiality and human subjects
protections that must be considered, and require trained research
interviewers.
CONCLUSIONS
The enforcement of anti-drug laws and the consequences of drug
abuse and addiction have impacted the nation's criminal justice system
in profound ways over the past 25 years. Police departments and other
law enforcement agencies have paid increasing attention to drug crimes,
legislatures have passed more and more punitive laws against the use
and sale of illegal drugs, and access to treatment has been limited for
those subpopulations of drug users who are most likely to be targeted
by the criminal justice system for drug-related offenses. As a result,
burgeoning numbers of drug offenders have flooded jails and prisons,
and court and probation caseloads have mushroomed.
Yet, despite abundant research demonstrating that drug treatment
can significantly reduce drug use and related criminal activity for
many offenders, access to treatment is typically quite limited for
criminal offenders relative to the need. This is evidenced by treatment
utilization data from the national Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring
system, surveys of offenders on probation, and data from prison and
jail systems. For example, only 12 percent of probationers who had ever
used drugs were currently in a treatment program when surveyed, and
although as estimated 75 percent of state prison inmates are in need of
substance abuse treatment, fewer than 20 percent actually receive such
treatment.
Another problem is that aside from a few specialized programs such
as drug courts and prosecutorial diversion programs, the drug abuse
problems of offenders are rarely assessed until sentencing. Probation
and parole departments and correctional systems may screen and assess
for substance abuse problems, and judges may order treatment as a
condition of probation, but few actually receive such treatment. Fewer
still receive the long-term treatment and access to other services that
this population tends to need.
The lack of treatment opportunity for offenders has important
implications. Although some offenders can overcome their drug problems
without treatment, are able to obtain treatment on their own, or age
out of drug abuse, most have difficulty escaping from the cycle of drug
abuse and crime without formal interventions imposed and supervised by
the criminal justice system. And offenders tend to be from communities
and families that have limited resources or insurance with which to
access treatment on their own.
My research on substance abuse and the criminal justice system
indicates that within this overall context, drug courts offer
significant potential to effectively engage offenders into long-term
treatment and related services. I believe that encouraging and
expanding investments in court-monitored treatment models, and
continuing to study their impacts, could yield a substantial reduction
in crime and drug use, and a concomitant reduction in taxpayer costs.
Compared with the enormous economic and social costs of building and
operating the jails and prisons that house hundreds of thousands of
offenders with substance abuse and addiction problems, programs such as
drug courts have the potential to result in a greater impact for much
less money.
Although the drug court field has generally been supportive of
research and evaluation, drug courts should be encouraged to do a
better job of collecting and maintaining consistent, complete, and
accurate performance data. Key indicators such as assessment and
clinical profiles, program completion, services received, drug use,
criminal behavior, and health during program participation should be
routinely collected, maintained in a database, and reported on in a way
that is useful for policymakers and funders. Both individual-level as
well as aggregate data are needed. After program participation ends,
the periodic collection of official recidivism data might be encouraged
for drug courts (as well as for other offenders that can serve as
comparison groups). But the courts also must recognize the need for
confidentiality protections, especially following drug court
participation. Thus recidivism rates should be reported in aggregate
form, and understood in the context of the expected long-term impacts
of drug court programs, and relative to recidivism rates for similar
offenders who did not go through a drug court program. In addition,
most local jurisdictions will need significant new resources in order
to be able to collect, maintain, and analyze accurate and complete
recidivism data.
Drug court and other relevant local staff need to be trained to
accurately maintain program and client records and conduct regular
quality assurance reviews. Without a substantial financial and
philosophical commitment to maintaining accurate and complete
computerized information systems, it will be difficult to continue to
document the impacts and costs of drug courts, or to determine how
their operations can be improved.
Drug courts are still relatively new, and a number of research gaps
still exist that I have described in more detail in my previously
published reviews. However, the field has advanced sufficiently (and
other research on criminal justice-based substance abuse treatment can
be applied to the drug court setting) to suggest a number of key
elements for drug court structure and operations that are likely to be
associated with more effective programs. These ``best practices''
include:
Adherence to the 10 ``Key Components'' of drug courts
outlined in the 1997 OJP/DCPO monograph
Clinical and other assessment of participant problems and
service needs
Case management
Timely access to a range of drug treatment and related
services
Adequate information flow between treatment provider(s)
and drug court
Comprehensive staff training (cross-training) that
incorporates cultural sensitivity and competence
Measurable program objectives and targets, with periodic
review of achievements
Adequate data systems that allow ongoing monitoring and
evaluation
An aftercare component that includes ongoing treatment
services as needed, employment and educational services
Finally, I believe that the question generally asked about drug
courts (``Do drug courts work?'') is not the appropriate question.
There is sufficient research to suggest the effectiveness of criminal
justice-based drug treatment of sufficient duration that adheres to
research-based practice (see the NIDA publication Principles of Drug
Addiction Treatement). The more useful research and policy questions
center around understanding how to develop the most cost-efficient
treatment interventions for substance-involved offenders that maximize
positive outcomes for the largest number of participants. For example,
what aspects of drug courts work best for which clients under what
conditions? What is the ideal drug court program structure for which
target population? How can treatment retention be maximized? How can
treatment and related services be delivered most efficiently and with
the most impact? What are the characteristics of clients who complete
the program? What are the characteristics of clients who remain drug-
and crime-free?
Senator Sessions. Thank you.
Dr. Goldkamp.
STATEMENT OF JOHN S. GOLDKAMP
Mr. Goldkamp. Mr. Chairman, greetings from Philadelphia,
and especially we would like to give our regards to our
honorary third Senator from Pennsylvania, Senator Biden.
It is a pleasure to be here. I have been involved in
research on drug courts and on the impact of drug courts on the
system and on participants for about a decade, starting with
the first evaluation NIJ funded with the State Justice
Institute in the early 1990's, continuing with the long-term
evaluations of the Las Vegas and Portland, OR, drug courts, two
of the oldest and longest operating drug courts, continuing
also with the evaluation of the Philadelphia drug court, and
helping with the planning of the evaluation of the San
Francisco drug court.
In addition, through the funding from the Drug Court
Program Office of OJP, we have conducted focus groups with drug
court participants in six cities around the country from San
Bernadino, Portland, Las Vegas, Miami, and Seattle to Brooklyn.
So we have captured the views of those who have gone through
and asked them if they are experiencing what everybody thinks
that they are experiencing. We found that to be very valuable.
So my comments come from this background of being familiar
with the field and engaged in research from the beginning. I am
much older now, but I have had a long time to think about these
as these charts have grown.
Drug courts can and do work, but not all drug courts and
not under all circumstances. I would like to focus my comments
on sort of an agenda for research and what we have been
learning from our research. As I see it, the job of drug court
research involves three components: first, to understand
clearly what drug courts are, what they mean to accomplish, and
that differs widely across the country; second, to assess
whether they work in a general sense and if they are cost
effective in doing so and their effects on larger systems in
which they are located; and, third, if they work, how, when,
and why they work, and if they don't, why not.
In our research, we have been pursuing these questions
through the use of the drug court--I am afraid to say it--
typology that focuses on--focuses the research on the key
structural ingredients of the drug courts so we move beyond the
general to the specifics so that we can begin to learn what
works.
Drug courts differ in a number of ways. They differ in the
target problems they are designed to address and the target
populations they choose to enroll, in the extent to which they
enroll their target populations or hit the targets, in the ways
in which they modify normal court processes, the question of
diversion versus post-conviction and so forth. We are beginning
to get some evidence on that, I believe. They differ in the
structure and content of the treatment services that they
deliver. They differ in the responses to performance of
participants and the accountability that they employ in their
courts, incentives as well as sanctions, and they differ in
productivity, and by productivity I mean crime reduction,
substance abuse reduction, costs, employment, return to the
justice system, results per resources expended. Finally, they
differ in the extent to which they have system support, not
only among criminal justice and health and other Government
partners, but within the judicial, executive, and legislative
branches.
You have seen from Mr. Belenko's review that there is
plenty of evidence to suggest the support of the notion that
drug courts can work. I agree--as a researcher who has
conducted and is conducting studies of drug courts, I agree in
a general sense, but we are now learning about the conditions,
thanks to the NIJ, more recent NIJ-funded research, the
conditions of their effectiveness. This requires attention to
the interplay of the dimensions that I just listed. We are now
at a more complex level of investigation, and I think Assistant
Attorney General Leary was alluding to the work now that is
underway and perhaps not completed.
It is also clear that drug courts have had a major--in
style, philosophy, and method, have had a major effect on many
other justice procedures. It has stimulated a wave of
innovation that has spread to other areas where a helping and
problem-solving approach has been seen to be useful and
appropriate. This now includes domestic violence courts, family
courts, community courts, and, now more recently, mental health
courts and reentry courts, all of which could not have happened
without drug courts. So it is the principal innovation, and so
in that sense, asking now whether drug courts work is
irrelevant to the reform that has followed. That genie is out
of the bottle. There is a new way of doing things that has
enough of a foothold around the country that we have a new
paradigm, new methods, and new approaches to some of the
problems of people who are in the criminal justice system.
I have to say that under the leadership of Marilyn Roberts,
the Drug Court Program Office of OJP has played a major and
appropriate role in giving leadership to the development of
drug courts in several ways: first by requiring minimum
standards of operation in awards made to new and existing
courts; second, by providing high-quality technical assistance
and training for developing courts and supporting and
encouraging peer networks; and, third, by encouraging
evaluation results as a part of the drug court process on the
local and national levels, separate from and in collaboration
with the National Institute of Justice. And Director Roberts
has done this at the DCPO all while respecting the local origin
of drug courts, respecting the diversity of drug courts around
the country, and resisting playing the heavy role of we are the
Federal Government and we will tell you how to be a drug court.
I believe this is in part due to the fact that Attorney General
Reno had a hand in developing the first drug court in the
country in Miami back when she had another job in 1989, and she
has been sensitive to the issues of drug courts and their
promise, I think, since that time.
But because the drug court model has great promise
reflected in the growing track record in the United States--and
abroad, by the way--does not now mean just because there are
hundreds of them that all drug courts in all situations are
appropriate. The need now is to develop clearer notions of best
practices in drug courts. What about them really makes a
difference and what about them doesn't? This requires research
that moves beyond the generalities, as Mr. Belenko said, of do
they work, which is still a relevant question, to more
specifically how and why, and I think that in our research in
Portland and Las Vegas, taking a longitudinal approach, looking
at drug courts over a long period of time, seeing their ups and
downs, linking that to outside factors that the Assistant
Attorney General was talking to, such as changes in
prosecutorial policies, jail overcrowding, moving away from the
single drug court model for judges, all have an impact.
The courts we studied have really been very, very tough and
have held participants to sort of a tough standard of
accountability. Graduation rates are reasonably low. It is not
a walk. Graduates always do better than non-graduates in
looking at rearrests over
1-, 2-, and 3-year periods. In our use of comparison groups, we
find generally lower rates of rearrest over 1-, 2-, and 3-year
periods, particularly for drug offenses; however, the
significance and the magnitude of differences varied by the
time periods studied from year to year as different internal
and external changes affected the courts' operations.
Our focus groups with drug court participants have reviewed
some important consonance between what drug court participants,
drug addicts believed and what drug court designers believe.
First, in our focus groups, we have seen that they are very
tough populations who have lots and lots of problems. They look
at this as an opportunity that they have never had before. They
find it hard to believe that somebody in the justice system is
giving them an opportunity to try. They believe the single
judge is God's gift to drug treatment. They very much recommend
strict accountability and drug testing. They hate drug testing,
but they say, You take drug testing away and we will beat you.
This is what they say. They are strongly motivated by both
incentives and by sanctions, not just sanctions and not just
jail. The rewards for forward progress and the sense of
achievement is something that seems very important to them, but
they particularly wanted to avoid jail, and the loss of
employment and custody of children associated with conviction
and imprisonment are great deterrents to them.
An important finding that emerges from our research is that
downtown drug courts are really addressing a collection of
principal neighborhoods in urban settings and that this
suggests the drug courts might enhance their effectiveness by
developing links to specific neighborhood settings, for
example, collaborating with other community justice
initiatives, community policing, community court or community
prosecution, and community health.
Issues for court research that I think are the most
important remaining, I have nine of them, and I can do it
quickly. First of all, the multi-year studies have revealed a
great deal about the changing dynamics of drug courts and the
variation of their impact over time. We should build on these
longitudinal findings. Second, yes, we need more studies, more
in-depth studies, but we need to focus to mind the studies that
we have now in more depth. Third, we need to now understand the
influence of extant contextual factors, prosecutorial policy in
Las Vegas, taking a judge out of a drug court and assigning
other kinds of officials in Portland, and to understand the
impact of the ingredients of the drug court model on its
effectiveness.
We should follow up with individuals, but it is very
expensive and very difficult. When we are looking at drug-
addicted, mentally ill, and often homeless participants, it is
a real assignment, and it is very difficult and raises all
sorts of issues. Focus groups are a tool that should be used
more frequently. They have a lot to say about our understanding
of drug courts.
Finally--not finally. Two more points: Drug court research
should focus on aspects of the drug court typology to move
beyond the general question of studying if it works to
increasingly studying how and when and under what conditions it
works. The variation depends on external factors and internal
factors, and we are learning about them, and it is important.
Our Phase II research tries to look into the box of drug
court treatment now to determine the relative importance of
some of the ingredients of the drug court model, going to drug
court, attendance at treatment, the duration and type of
treatment, the use of incentives and sanctions, the impact of
the jail sanction. All of these are assumptions the drug court
model makes. We are only beginning now to tease out the
relative effects. This should be increasingly a focus of
research.
Drug court research should expand to follow participants
and comparison groups through the other social services
involved here, including welfare, public health, treatment, and
other primary health care and other systems. And, finally, drug
courts have an important community justice implication. Drug
court effectiveness would be enhanced if they incorporated this
knowledge to develop linkages to these principal neighborhoods
that would support successful treatment under sometimes very
difficult circumstances. Research should turn to the assessment
of innovative courts that forge these community linkages.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Goldkamp follows:]
Prepared Statement of John S. Goldkamp
The effect of the drug court movement on courts and the justice
system over the last 11 years may turn out--with more historical
distance--to have been one of the major justice reforms of the last
part of the 20th century in the United States. Its impact on treatment
systems that have traditionally failed to address the needs of criminal
justice populations may also prove to have been powerful, as the
movement compelled them to reconfigure and redirect resources to the
most challenging populations of substance-involved citizens. Since the
pioneering efforts of Miami justice officials establishing the nation's
first drug court in the summer of 1989, the growth of the drug court
movement--with upwards of 400 courts reportedly now in operation in the
United States alone--has been extraordinary by any measure.
To the traditional criminal court and drug treatment practices that
drug courts were designed to improve upon, the substance of the drug
court model of court innovation represents paradigm shift away from a
predominantly punitive orientation toward substance abuse and drug-
related crime of the last decades to one that focuses on treatment,
investment in human potential, second (and third) chances and
restoration. Although there are common elements shared by most drug
courts, proliferation of the drug court model is not explained by the
wholesale adoption of a fixed, ``cookie-cutter'' approach in the many
jurisdictions across the nation. Predictably, the original Miami model
evolved in its successive applications to other settings, and was
itself transformed in substance and procedure as the basic model
traveled across the United States and to locations abroad. The drug
court methodology has been adapted to grapple with other problems
associated with criminal court populations, including community issues,
domestic violence and mental health. The substance of the drug court
movement has directly and indirectly spawned a variety of related
innovations, so that one can now speak of ``problem-solving'' or
``problem-oriented'' courts \1\ to refer to a more active, ``hands-on''
judicial and justice-system philosophy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This term was employed by John Feinblatt of the Center for
Court Innovation in New York to refer to the growing family of
innovations in court systems deriving from the drug court model. See
New York Chief Judge Judith Kaye's commentary in Newsweek, October 11,
1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The challenges for research in gauging the full impact of drug
courts on the philosophy of justice, the operations of the justice
system, the function of the criminal and civil courts, not to mention
the health and behavior of addicted criminal offenders are simply huge.
In earlier discussions, we have argued that evaluation of drug courts
should be tied to a clear understanding of their goals and that
assessment of their impact can best be understood through a conceptual
framework--a working typology--that identifies key ingredients thought
to be responsible for their advertised results. Recognizing their
diversity, we have argued that meaningful assessment of impact must be
guided by a clear understanding of what drug courts ``are'' and ``what
they are not''.
Without such a framework to isolate the critical instrumental
elements of the approach, findings from scattered evaluations will
accumulate like apples and oranges and other ingredients for a mixed
fruit salad of research. The result is that the practice-oriented
consumer of the research is then left to weed through diverse findings
from disparate studies to identify directions or themes relating to
drug court effectiveness. With these challenges in mind, we organized
our recent research (Goldkamp et al., 2000) studying the evolution and
impact of two of the earliest and longest-operating drug courts in
Portland, Oregon, and Las Vegas, Nevada, according to the elements of
the drug court typology.\2\ In this fashion we hoped to produce
findings with both a high degree of internal validity, as we seek to
know what makes a particular drug court work, and sufficient external
validity, as we seek ambitiously to test the effects of the structural
elements of the innovation across settings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ These elements on which drug courts differ include (1) Target
problem, (2) target population; (3) screening--reaching the target; (4)
modification/adaptation of court processing and procedures; (5)
structure and content of treatment; (6) responses to performance in
treatment--participant accountability; (7) productivity of the drug
court; (8) extent of system-wide support. (See Goldkamp, 2000.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The need to sort out the effects of the critical operating
components of the drug court model in widely different settings around
the nation (and abroad) and the contextual dynamics of growth and
change make the evaluation research task complex. Its apparent
complexity, however, should not serve as a distraction from the need to
answer some very basis questions, such as ``Do drug courts work?'' and
``if so, how?''
WHAT IS A DRUG COURT?
The problem of answering the drug-court effectiveness question must
begin with an understanding of what a drug court is. We have described
its basic elements as involving a new working relationship between the
criminal court and health and treatment systems carried out within the
boundaries of the criminal court's jurisdiction. In comparison with
methods previously in existence in the justice system, the aims of the
drug court model are much less punitive, and more healing and
restorative in nature. Its unorthodox and, in historical context,
iconoclastic methods have been characterized as an informal operation
of the courtroom, where direct exchanges between the participant and
the judge are common and between counsel for the state and the defense
are non-adversarial. The courtroom was conceived as a therapeutic
vehicle (a theatre in the ``square'') with the judge at the center
leading the treatment process. Under this model, it was widely believed
that the role of the judge, with its symbolism and authority, would
serve to galvanize the treatment process into a more powerful and
accountable form of rehabilitation than previously (or recently)
available in the criminal justice setting. The drug court model's
emphasis is not on the disposition of the criminal case, but instead on
the treatment of drug-addicted offenders whose cases, when treatment
was successful, could often be dismissed. The ``key components'' of the
drug court model identified by practitioners are well laid out in a
monograph sponsored by the Drug Court Program Office of the U.S.
Department of Justice (NADCP, 1997) and described in a host of
brochures produced by the National Association of Drug Court
Professionals.
POSITIVE FINDINGS OF DRUG COURT IMPACT
I understand you heard testimony by Dr. Stephen Belenko who has
reviewed studies of drug courts, large and small, to identify common
themes in their findings. You are aware, then, that he believes that
the thrust of findings from assorted studies is generally supportive of
the drug court innovation and points to positive results. Although the
body of research is growing, the research process is still in its
relatively early stages--after all the drug court movement itself is
only 11 years old--and has only begun to move beyond considerations of
general impact (lower crime rates among participants) to examination of
the specific impact of ingredients of the drug court model.
As one who has been conducting drug court research in the field for
a decade, my conclusion is that drug courts can and do have an
important impact on substance abuse and offending and represent an
important new direction in criminal justice, drug treatment and health.
My focus has been on understanding how they work and under what
circumstances they best realize their impact. Because the drug court
model has great promise, reflected in its growing track record in the
U.S. and abroad, does not mean, now that there are several hundreds of
them, that all drug courts in all situations are effective--or even
appropriate. The need to develop clearer notions of ``best practices''
in drug courts--what about them really makes a difference and what
doesn't--requires that research move beyond the generalities of asking
``do they work?'' to move specific consideration of ``when they work,
under what conditions, how and why?''
LEADERSHIP OF THE DRUG COURT PROGRAM OFFICE OF THE OFFICE OF JUSTICE
PROGRAMS
The history of the impressive development of the drug court
movement has been strongly influenced by congressional funding of drug
courts and the effective leadership demonstrated by the Drug Court
Program Office of the Office of Justice Programs under the current its
director Marilyn Roberts and, in its early days, under Timothy Murray.
The DCPO has structured the funding of new programs to require some
basic standards of operation and has supported high-quality training
and technical assistance programs to ensure that strong drug courts
would result. That office has not only encouraged strict standards in
the development of the ``key components'' guidelines for drug courts
but has emphatically stressed the importance of evaluation by offering
training to local evaluators in drug court issues and practices, by
requiring local evaluation to be linked to newly funded programs, and
by working with the National Institute of Justice to sponsor major,
national-level formal evaluation of drug courts.
OUR DRUG COURT EVALUATION RESEARCH
As one of those involved in drug court research on all levels over
time, my research at the Crime and Justice Research Institute in
Philadelphia has sought to understand the workings of the basic drug
court model and its variations (employing a drug court typology of
critical elements as a helpful framework) and to asses the impact of
drug courts. More recently we have begun to sort out the relative
contribution of elements thought to be critical in their operation, so
that the further development of drug courts can build on a knowledge
base of most effective practices.
Our large-scale evaluations of drug courts have focused on drug
courts in Miami, Portland, Las Vegas and Philadelphia. I conducted the
first in-depth evaluation of a drug court, the nation's first drug
court in Miami, in the early 1990's. Since then we have assisted in the
development of drug courts and provided training, in particular we have
assisted in the planning and evaluation of the Philadelphia Treatment
Court led by the Honorably Louis Presenza, and are currently completing
a long-term study funded by the National Institute of Justice of two of
the nation's oldest and longest operating drug courts in Las Vegas,
Nevada, (under the direction of the Honorable Jack Lehman with the
assistance of one of the nation's drug court treatment leaders, John
Marr), and Portland, Oregon (in collaboration with the Honorable Harl
Haas, District Attorney Michael Schrunk and Metropolitan Public
Defender Him Hennings).
In addition, through funding from the Drug Court Program Office of
the Office of Justice Programs, we have conducted focus groups with
drug court participants in six cities (San Bernardino, Portland, Las
Vegas, Miami, Seattle and Brooklyn) to capture the views of the
citizens who have first hand experience in drug courts as participants.
My comments about drug courts and how they work, then, come from this
background of research in the field and close familiarity with the
development of the drug court movement from its beginnings in Miami in
1989.
HIGHLIGHTS FROM THE PORTLAND (MULTNOMAH COUNTY) AND LAS VEGAS (CLARK
COUNTY) DRUG COURTS (NIJ NATIONAL DRUG COURT EVALUATION I)
Much of the knowledge we gained derives from our long-term study of
the Portland and Las Vegas drug courts under the National Institute of
Justice ``National Evaluation of Drug Courts (I). The scope of
evaluation of these two drug courts, two of the oldest and longest
operating courts, extended from their beginnings (Portland, 1991; Las
Vegas, 1993) through 1997 with follow-up of one, two and three years
(depending on the years studied). The in-depth longitudinal approach to
the study of drug courts--the first time ever--has provided an
opportunity to examine these courts as they began implementation,
developed and matured, and then faced changes over time in aspects of
the basic drug court model. The Phase I findings show not only that,
when the core elements of the drug court model were effectively
implemented, the drug courts had the impact anticipated, but also that
their effectiveness was influenced by outside factors (such as changes
in drug laws, emergency jail crowding decrees, prosecutorial policy and
judicial staffing of the drug courts).
In both sites graduates consistently were rearrested less
frequently during one-,
two- and three-year follow-up periods than non-graduates overall and
during each year studied.
When contrasted with the performance of comparison group
drug defendants, drug court participants produced generally lower rates
of rearrest in the one, two and three year follow-up period,
particularly for drug offenses; however, the significance and the
magnitude of the differences varied by the time period studied (from
year to year) as different internal and external changes affected the
courts' operation.
FOCUS GROUPS OF DRUG COURT PARTICIPANTS
Focus groups of drug court participants in each site confirmed
several important assumptions of the drug court model:
Challenging target populations: that the participants were
generally very seriously involved in substance abuse, often having long
histories of abuse and failure in treatment;
Multi-problem treatment needs: that they often suffered
from co-occurring disorders (e.g. mental illness);
Accepted the opportunity: that they saw the drug court
experience as a unique opportunity, were impressed that ``someone would
want to help,'' and were responsive to positive incentives offered by
the drug court treatment process;
Critical importance of the single drug court judge: that
they viewed the single drug court judge as the main and most important
element of the treatment experience that made it different from other
experiences in court or treatment;
Accountability and Responses to Performance: that
participants considered drug testing and accountability it provided as
key to the treatment process; and that they were strongly motivated
both by incentives (rewards for progress and the sense of achievement
that came with it) and sanctions employed by the drug court. They
particularly wanted to avoid jail, convictions, and the loss of
employment and custody of children associated with conviction and
imprisonment.
DRUG COURTS AND SPECIFIC NEIGHBORHOODS
Both the longitudinal study and discussions with drug court
participants in the focus groups revealed that ``downtown'' drug courts
deal with residents of several distinct principal neighborhoods within
each jurisdiction that differed by race/ethnicity and the drug and
crime problems associated with them. This suggests that drug courts
might enhance their effectiveness by developing links to specific
neighborhood settings, for example, in collaboration with community
policing, community court or community prosecution initiatives.
SELECTED FINDINGS FROM THE SITES
Portland
The Multnomah County Drug Court (the S.T.O.P. program)
enrolled about 4,620 participants from 1991 (its pilot year) through
1998, an average of about 577 per year. From 1995 through 1998,
enrollments exceeded 600 per year, peaking in 1997 at 734 participants.
36 percent of enrolled participants graduated within two
years overall, although this rate varied by time-period cohort.
Drug court graduates were rearrested notably less
frequently than non-graduates over the entire study period and when
each yearly cohort was examined during one-, two- and three-year
follow-up periods; 35 percent of graduates were rearrested within three
years compared to 61 percent of non-graduates. The differences were
largest when rearrests for drug offenses were examined.
When contrasted with the records of comparison group drug
defendants, drug court participants showed generally lower rearrest
rates at over the one year follow-up period and lower rearrest rates at
the three-year mark for three of the four time-period cohorts studies.
The magnitude and significance of the differences, however, varied by
time period.
The most difficult (less effective) periods for the drug
court were during the initial start-up period (1991-92), when an
initial treatment provider had to be discarded and a new provider
adopted, and from 1996 through 1997, when the chief judge dropped the
core drug court judge approach and assigned non-judge personnel and/or
frequent rotation of many different judges into the drug court.
Las Vegas
The Clark County Drug Court enrolled 3,364 participants
from 1993 through 1998, an average of about 556 per year. From 1996
through 1998, enrollments exceeded 600 per year, peaking in 1998 at 755
participants.
34 percent of enrolled participants graduated within two
years overall, although this rate varied by time-period cohort; it was
lowest when the court shifted toward guilty plea cases.
Drug court graduates were rearrested notably less
frequently than non-graduates over the entire study period and when
each yearly cohort was examined during one-, two- and three-year
follow-ups; 46 percent of graduates were rearrested within three years
compared to 76 percent of non-graduates. The differences were largest
when rearrest for drug offenses were examined.
When contrasted with the records of comparison group drug
defendants, drug court participants showed generally lower rearrest
rates at over the one year follow-up period and generally lower
rearrest rates at the three-year mark; overall 65 percent of drug court
participants had been rearrested three years after entering drug court
compared to 79 percent of comparison group drug defendants. The
magnitude and significance of the differences, however, varied by time
period.
The most different period for the drug court was beginning
in 1996 when prosecutorial policy changed from encouraging diversion to
requiring guilty pleas from participants to enter the drug court. This
not only changed the kind of participant entering drug court to a
higher risk participant with more extensive prior histories, but also
appeared to reduce the participant's incentive to successfully complete
court. Charges could not be dismissed at the end of the process as they
previously could be when the main emphasis was on a pre-conviction
diversion approach.
ISSUES FOR RESEARCH
Drug Court Performance over Time: The multi-year study of
drug courts has revealed a great deal about the changing dynamics of
drug courts and variations in impact over time. Single time-period
studies generalize from a single time period, which may produce
misleading results (depending on whether it was a particularly good or
bad year). We should build on these longitudinal findings.
The Importance of Contextual Factors. External, contextual
factors, such as prosecutorial policy regarding drug court entrance
(requiring guilty pleas) in Las Vegas and judicial staffing (moving
away from the dedicated drug court judge) in Portland--have important
impacts on the effective operation of the drug court and need to be
studied more closely.
Follow-up of Individuals: Individual follow-up of
participant and non-participants (control group defendants) over time
is desirable but very difficult and expensive because of the challenges
associated with locating people over time and the sample attrition that
occurs.
Focus Groups of Drug Court Participants: Focus groups of
drug court participants represent a plausible, low cost and more
immediate--though less systematic--method of gaining feedback on the
drug court experience and from the point of view of those who
experience the programs. This approach to gathering knowledge about the
actual (as opposed to the intended) effects of drug courts should be
given a higher priority.
The Framework of the Drug Court Typology: Drug court
research should focus on aspects of the drug court typology to move
beyond the general question of studying only ``if it works'' to
increasingly studying how and when it works, as effectiveness appears
to vary over time and circumstance in these two sites. The variation
depends on external factors as well as the relative deployment of
important elements of the drug court model.
Studying the Effects of Elements of the Drug Court Model:
Our phase two research tries to look into the ``black box'' of drug
court treatment to determine the relative effects, for example, of drug
court appearances, treatment attendance, duration and type, use of
incentives and sanctions, and, particularly, the impact of the jail
sanction on outcomes. Examination of the relative impact of these
ingredients can explain how drug courts work and why, and facilitate
efforts to build on the effective elements.
The Community Justice Implications of Downtown Drug
Courts: Downtown drug courts (like the Portland and Las Vegas Courts
studied) have clear implications for community justice efforts, as
analysis shows they disproportionately deal with participants from
several principal neighborhoods within the cities. These neighborhoods
differ in race and ethnicity, in crime and the kinds of problems
prevalent. Drug court effectiveness would be enhanced if they
incorporated this knowledge to develop linkages to these neighborhoods
that would support successful treatment under sometimes very difficult
circumstances.
Added Emphasis on In-Depth Analysis of Current Data:
Research should not only add to the long-term changes and effectivenes
of established drug courts, but should look at existing data from long-
term studies in more in-depth.
REFERENCES
2000--Goldkamp, John S. ``The Drug Court Response: Issues and
Implications for Justice Change.'' 63 Albany Law Review 923-961.
Appended to testimony.
2000--John S. Goldkamp and Cheryl Irons-Guynn. Emerging Judicial
Strategies for the Mentally Ill on the Criminal Caseload: Mental Health
Courts in Fort Lauderdale, Seattle, San Bernardino, and Anchorage. A
Report on Community Justice Initiatives. (Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance.)
2000--Goldkamp, Michael D. White and Jennifer Robinson.
Retrospective Evaluation of Two Pioneering Drug Courts: Phase I
Findings from Clark County, Nevada, and Multnomah County, Oregon. An
Interim Report of the National Evaluation of Drug Courts.
(Philadelphia: Crime and Justice Research Institute.) Executive Summary
appended to testimony.
2000--John S. Goldkamp, Michael D. White and Jennifer Robinson.
``Do Drug Courts Work: Getting Inside the Drug Court Black Box,''
submitted to the Journal of Drug Issues. Appended to testimony.
2000--John S. Goldkamp, Michael D. White and Jennifer Robinson.
``Context and Change: the Evolution of Pioneering Drug Courts in
Portland and Las Vegas (1991-1998),'' submitted to the Journal of Law
and Policy. Appended to testimony.
2000--John S. Goldkamp, Michael D. White and Jennifer Robinson.
Participant Perspectives: Highlights from Focus Groups or Drug Court
Participants in Brooklyn, Miami, Seattle, Las Vegas, Portland and San
Bernardino. Unpublished report submitted to the Drug Court Program
Office, U.S. Department of Justice, Appended to Testimony.
1999--Goldkamp, John S. ``When is a Drug Court Not a Drug Court?''
in C. Terry (ed.), The Early Drug Courts: Case Studies in Judicial
Innovation. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications. Appended to
testimony.
1999--Goldkamp, John S. ``The Origins of the Treatment Drug Court
in Miami.'' in C. Terry (ed.), The Early Drug Courts: Case Studies in
Judicial Innovation. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications. Appended to
testimony.
John S. Goldkamp, Ph.D.--Dr. Goldkamp is Professor of Criminal
Justice at Temple University and heads the Crime and Justice Research
Institute in Philadelphia. His research focuses broadly on discretion
in criminal justice and innovation in the courts, with a special
emphasis on treatment and alternatives to confinement. Over the last
decade some of his research has dealt with the drug court movement,
beginning with the first comprehensive evaluation of the nation's first
drug court in Miami, Assessing the Impact of Dade County's Felony Drug
Court (with Doris Weiland), and a Department of Justice white paper,
Justice and Treatment Innovation: The Drug Court Movement (1994). Since
this time he has assisted in the planning and evaluation of
Philadelphia's Treatment Court, The implementation of the Philadelphia
Treatment Court: A Descriptive Analysis of Early Stages of
Implementation. (1997), has written on the drug court movement and its
evaluation (``The Origins of the Treatment Drug Court in Miami'' and,
``When is a Drug Court Not a Drug Court?'' in C. Terry (ed.),, The
Early Drug Courts: Case Studies in Judicial Innovation, 1999); ``The
Drug Court Response; Issues and Implications for Justice Change,'' 63
Albany Law Review 923-961, 2000), and two recent articles (``Do Drug
Courts Work: Getting Inside the Drug Court Black Box,'' submitted to
the Journal of Drug Issues, Summer 2000; ``Context and Change: the
Evolution of Pioneering Drug Courts in Portland and Las Vegas (1991-
1998),'' submitted to the Journal of Law and Policy, Summer 2000). He
serves as a drug court evaluation resource for Pennsylvania's emerging
drug courts through the Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and
Delinquency. With his colleagues (Robinson and White), he has recently
completed a first report on the NIJ-sponsored retrospective evaluation
of two the nation's oldest and longest-operating drug courts in
Portland and Las Vegas (Retrospective Evaluation of Two Pioneering Drug
Courts: Phase I Findings from Clark County, Nevada, and Multnomah
County, Oregon, 2000) and has conducted focus groups of drug court
participants in six jurisdictions in the United States. He is assisting
the San Francisco Drug Court in planning in evaluation. He is
conducting a five-year evaluation of Philadelphia's Criminal Justice
Treatment Network for Women through CSAT and has recently completed a
BJA monograph (with Cheryl Irons-Guynn) on the nation's first mental
health courts (Emerging Strategies for the Mentally Ill in the Criminal
Caseload: Mental Health Courts in Fort Lauderdale, Seattle, San
Bernardino, and Archorage). He serves as the law reporter for the
American Bar Association Pretrial Release Standards Task Force as it
revises it standards relating to pretrial release, detention and
adjudication alternatives, including drug courts and other problem-
solving courts, such as community, mental health and family courts.
Senator Sessions. Thank you, Mr. Goldkamp. I appreciate those
comments, but we are under a rule. We have gone a tad over. I hope we
won't go to jail for it. We will keep the record open for any other
statements or questions that may be offered.
An objection has been made. Members of the other side have been
objecting to committee hearings during this Senate session. You can
hold a hearing for 2 hours, but then you have to stop. So that rule has
been invoked. It is part of an unfortunate obstruction around here and
makes life more difficult in my view, but we live with our rules as we
find them.
So we will adjourn, but I would appreciate it and think it
appropriate that we can continue to discuss matters in a non-hearing
context. I see there is a table over there. If this panel would join me
at the table, and if anybody wants to stand around and pull up a chair
and listen, I would like to continue this discussion. We had one good
hearing here, and I met back in my office with some people, and we
learned more discussing in my office than we did in the 2 hours in the
panel.
So if you will join me if you have time, I would appreciate it. We
are adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:37 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4754A.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4754A.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4754A.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4754A.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4754A.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4754A.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4754A.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4754A.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4754A.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4754A.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4754A.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4754A.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4754A.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4754A.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4754A.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4754A.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4754A.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4754A.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4754A.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4754A.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4754A.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4754A.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4754A.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4754A.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4754A.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4754A.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4754A.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4754A.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4754A.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4754A.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4754A.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4754A.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4754A.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4754A.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4754A.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4754A.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4754A.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4754A.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4754A.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4754A.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4754A.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4754A.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4754A.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4754A.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4754A.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4754A.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4754A.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4754A.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4754A.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4754A.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4754A.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4754A.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4754A.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4754A.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4754A.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4754A.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4754A.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4754A.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4754A.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4754A.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4754A.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4754A.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4754A.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4754A.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4754A.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4754A.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4754A.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4754A.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4754A.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4754A.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4754A.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4754A.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4754A.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4754A.074
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
----------
Prepared Statement of Judge Jeffrey S. Tauber, on Behalf of the
National Drug Court Institute
INTRODUCTION
The importance of a substantial federal presence in providing
training and assistance to the drug court field cannot be
underestimated. Due to the limited but critical resources provided to
the drug court field through the federal government, we can point to
unprecedented growth in the number of drug courts, from approximately
50 when federal assistance began in 1995, to over 700 drug courts in
existence or being planned today. Truly, the Drug Courts Program Office
(DCPO), Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, in
collaboration with other federal agencies, has done a remarkable job in
providing technical assistance and funding to the field. Federally
funded technical assistance and training are necessary as DCPO funded
programs bring the knowledge and expertise of the best practitioner-
trainers to drug courts throughout the nation.
Not only are the trainings themselves highly effective, but they
prove cost effective as well. The sharing of information, experiences,
and lessons learned is an invaluable cost and time saving tool in and
of itself. Developing the curriculum and then training the trainers who
will teach their colleagues in workshops around the country saves
valuable resources. Individual state organizations and administrative
offices do not need to search out and develop trainings and seminars
for practitioners in their area and unnecessarily expend resources and
duplicate efforts. Rather, the extraordinary expertise and experiences
developed locally in specific jurisdictions may be showcased on a
national level and shared among colleagues. What is most important to
remember, however, is that the sharing of information, lessons learned,
innovative curricula, and the expertise of highly effective
practitioners has happened only through the advent of federally funded
workshops and trainings. Therefore, increased federal funding for
training and technical assistance must be the highest priority for
federal assistance to this rapidly expanding field.
STANDARDIZATION
Technical assistance and the funding that makes this assistance
possible is critical to the development of effective, standardized drug
courts. Although drug courts are unique to each jurisdiction, the
development of nationally recognized standards across drug court
programs is necessary in order to insure the effectiveness of drug
courts nationally. For example, through technical assistance provided
at regional research and evaluation workshops like those conducted by
NDCI, drug court practioners and evaluators are able to learn from the
experiences of their colleagues who have already conducted drug court
evaluations, and discuss standards and definitions of terms such as
success, failure, retention, recidivism, and cost analysis.
DCPO has taken the lead in supporting and promoting standardization
projects in order to provide jurisdictions with the tools necessary to
sustain their programs. Previously under a grant from DCPO, the
National Association of Drug Court Professionals (NADCP) convinced the
National Association of Drug Court Professionals Drug Court Standards
Committee, which produced Defining Drug Courts: The Key Components, in
January 1997. The Key Components provide guidelines, or 10 components,
that are central to the drug court model and implementing an effective
drug court. The Key Components have become a national model for drug
courts, and promote competency that is available to practitioners
across the nation. It should be noted that many state judiciaries,
including California and Florida, have adapted the Key Components in
their rules and court. Additionally, the Conference of Chief Justices,
representing all 50 chief justices, recognized the effectiveness of the
10 Key Components of drug court in its resolution of August 19, 2000,
endorsing drug courts and other problem solving courts. Still, it is
important that performance standards are developed and the Key
Components are revisited to include ``best practices'' for drug courts.
NDCI has also sought to identify standardization needs that are
critical to the advancement and future of evaluation. A meeting of the
drug court research advisory committee, held in partnership with the
National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) in September 1998, identified
several critical and immediate needs of the research and practitioner
communities in relation to drug court research and evaluation. The
following standardization needs are among those identified by the
committee: Standardization and research terms (Data Dictionary);
Standardization of minimum data sets; Definition of characteristics of
target populations; Definition of research variables needed for local
drug court jurisdictions; Definition of differences between fine level
data (court information) and program data (evaluation data/information)
for local jurisdictions; Definition of process evaluation vs. outcome
evaluation (what questions should they answer). Increased funding for
DCPO technical assistance and training must be provided to support the
development of standards and best practices for drug court research and
evaluation.
RESEARCH & EVALUATION
NDCI and DCPO realize that continued research and program
evaluations are crucial; in short, drug court programs must be able to
justify their program's utility in order to sustain it. Drug courts
often have very little funding for evaluation because they are unable
to demonstrate the program's effectiveness, even though the very future
of drug court programs depend upon it.
Many drug court programs currently struggle with their evaluations.
Practitioners need to recognize the importance of evaluation and the
costs associated with it. Practitioners also need to know what to look
for in an evaluator, what to expect from an evaluator, the importance
of developing a good working relationship with an evaluator, the
elements of data collection, and the development of a credible data
collection system. In turn, evaluators need to be educated about the
program, management, communication, problem solving, team building,
organizational skills, data collection, needs assessment, case
management, intensive substance abuse treatment skills and offender
supervision are all important to the drug court team member. The range
of required skills and the diversity of education and experience
histories of incumbents support the need for the NDCI comprehensive
drug court practitioner training series designed and delivered by
experienced practitioners.
Each training provides an innovative, interactive framework for
education and an important new tool for educators to use during the
training. For example, while traditional judicial training provides
information on substantive law and court procedures, the NDCI
comprehensive judicial training design focuses intensively on the
judges' communications skills and his or her ability to positively
impact the offender's drug usage and criminality in the drug court
setting.
Over 100 video segments (typically running between one and three
minutes) of 30 different drug courts have been integrated into the
training curriculum, and are the cornerstone of NDCI comprehensive drug
court practitioner trainings. In small facilitated group discussions as
well as in plenary sessions, participants review and analyze drug court
situations on video tape, as real drug court judges deal with such
critical issues as implementing sanctions and dealing with relapse.
To date, NDCI has trained 312 drug court practitioners from 47
states and Guam, Puerto Rico, Ireland and Australia. By the end of
2000, that number may be us many as 600. On a scale of one to seven,
96% of judicial participants rank the training as a six or seven and
67% rank the training with the highest possible score. The mean score
thus far for the four NDCI judicial trainings is a 6.57 out of a
possible score of 7.
Due to NDCI's successful skills-based, discipline specific training
program for drug court practitioners, NDCI has embarked on a new
training project for DCPO. DCPO provided the funding for a series
workshops for recipients of DCPO planning grants, and has collaborated
with the NDCI to provide 25 workshops for 59 (45 adult drug courts, 14
DUI drug courts) grantee jurisdictions. Next year NDCI, in
collaboration with DCPO, intends to provide jurisdictional trainings
for over 100 drug court programs nationwide.
All of the workshops discussed above are held at NADCP Mentor Court
sites and are designed to provide planning grantee jurisdictions with
the tools necessary to plan and implement an effective drug court. The
first in the series, the ``Introductory Workshop,'' focuses on
educating the judge and coordinator about drug court fundamentals,
respective roles and responsibilities from the planning process through
implementation and operation as well as team building and team leading.
The second in the series, the ``Skills-based, Discipline Workshop,''
focuses on comprehensively educating the entire jurisdictional team on
specialized drug court issues and how they relate to the individual
disciplines of the drug court team. Focus is also given to the roles of
each discipline and those functions through the drug court planning,
implementation and operation phases. Finally, the workshop enables the
team to begin a Jurisdictional Action Plan Outline. The final workshop,
the ``Operational Workshop,'' focuses on the Jurisdictional Action Plan
and the tasks therein, set by the jurisdiction, outlining the plan to
implement a drug court.
NADCP MENTOR COURT NETWORK
Established in partnership with DCPO in 1996, the NADCP Mentor
Court Network provides a cost-effective approach and relies on locally
or regionally centered education rather than on-site technical
assistance. Local practitioners volunteer much of the resources and
expertise used in the network. The Mentor Court Network is comprised of
a number of effective teaching sites and trainers whose practitioners
have proven expertise, teaching experience, and organizational skills.
The sites are presently selected through a collaborative process by
which DCPO and NADCP visit mentor site candidates and reach agreement
as to the appropriateness of individual sites as mentor programs.
Potential mentor sites are reviewed for competence and cost
effectiveness, geographic and ethnic diversity, population density,
drugs of choice, and community participation and support.
By relying on broad-based regionally centered networks, NADCP
avoids the expense of flying consultants around the country. Instead,
it nurtures local and regional leadership, moving the focus away from
the national to the local level where the practitioners and most of the
resources are found.
Since its inception in 1996, the Mentor Court Network has:
Grown from seven sites to 25 in 2000;
Expanded to include Community Oriented Policing Services
(COPS) sites, which are courts that have innovative linkages with law
enforcement;
Been the primary training network for DCPO planning and
implementation grantees;
Trained nearly 5,000 practitioners since the Network's
inception; and
Gained international recognition from and provided
training to delegates from other countries.
SCHOLARSHIP
DCPO and ONDCP support a variety of publications and the
distribution of other information through NDCI and other organizations.
NDCI has developed the National Drug Court Institute Review (NDCIR), a
journal published twice per year, that provides technical, scientific,
and legal articles to the drug court practitioner in a clear and
understandable form. NDCI is also known for its monograph series,
focusing on specific topics in order to bring a discussion of the
issues to practitioners across the country. NDCI's monographs include
DUI/Durg Courts: Defining a National Strategy, Development and
Implementation of Drug Court Systems, and Reentry Drug Courts. NDCI
also publishes The Institute, a technical assistance and training
newsletter, three times a year. Finally, NDCI disseminates the Drug
Court Practitioner Fact Sheet series, which provides a one page brief
focused on issues important to the practitioner such as evaluation,
coercion in drug courts, methamphetamine, buprenorphine, and juvenile
and family drug courts, among others.
CONCLUSION
Whether trainings and workshops have been developed and put on by
NDCI, or by NDCI in collaboration with organizations such as SEARCH,
the Justice Management Institute (JMI), the Drug Court Clearinghouse
and Technical Assistance Project at American University, or the
National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, the common thread
and ingredient for success has been the financial support and
commitment of federal agencies such as DCPO and ONDCP. Federal funding
provided by DCPO has provided the backbone of technical assistance in
the areas of research and evaluation, drug court practitioner training,
and standardization in critical areas of the drug court field.
Standardized practices in research and evaluation will provide the
basis for ascertaining which drug court programs, and which components
of drug court programs, are most effective, and which need improvement.
Standardized practices in the training of drug court team members will
insure that those team members are equipped with the knowledge and
skills necessary do not only administer an effective program, but also
use evaluation findings to recognize the need for, and implement,
improvements in that program. Finally, standardized practices made
possible through increased federal support for technical assistance and
training saves limited resources and allow those resources to be
focused on providing critical assistance to as many drug courts and
drug court practitioners as possible throughout the United States.
the development of the national drug court institute
Historically, education and training in the drug court field has
only been available at regional workshops and national conferences,
where analysis and commentary were limited to anecdotes and personal
accounts. The newness of the field and the lack of resources inhibited
the development of a drug court institute.
That situation has changed. Hundreds of programs have been
implemented over the last several years. Scholars and researchers have
begun to apply the rigors of scientific analysis to the drug court
model, and now evaluations exist on dozens of drug court programs.
Recognizing that in order to survive the drug court field needed
strong educational, research and scholarship components, the Office of
National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) provided initial funding for a
drug court institute. On December 13, 1997, ONDCP Director General
Barry McCaffrey announced the creation of the National Drug Court
Institute (NDCI) in the Roosevelt Room at the White House.
In collaboration with ONDCP, the Drug Courts Program Office (DCPO),
Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, has been
instrumental in the development of NDCI, which provides training,
scholarship, and research skills to the field.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4754A.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4754A.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4754A.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4754A.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4754A.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4754A.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4754A.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4754A.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4754A.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4754A.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4754A.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4754A.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4754A.087
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4754A.088
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4754A.089
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4754A.090
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4754A.091
Prepared Statement of Susan Turner, Ph.D., on Behalf of the RAND
I have been asked to prepare a written statement on drug court
research for the Subcommittee on Youth Violence. I serve as the
Associate Director for Research and the Director for the Sentencing and
Corrections Center for RAND Criminal Justice. Our mission is to conduct
research, analysis, and demonstrations that help policymakers and
communities reduce violence and substance abuse. Over the past 10
years, I have been involved in a number of evaluations of drug courts
across the country; currently RAND Criminal Justice is conducting a
national evaluation of 14 drug court programs. The 14 drug court
programs were funded by the Drug Courts Program Office (DCPO); the
evaluation is funded by the National Institute of Justice with funds
transferred from the Drug Courts Program Office. My statement will
focus on two major themes: (1) what we have learned to date from the
national evaluation and our plans for continuing that work and (2) an
assessment of the current state of research on drug courts.
THE 14-SITE NATIONAL EVALUATION
The national evaluation was designed as a two-phase effort. We have
just completed the first phase. We anticipate beginning the second
phase later this year. The first phase was designed to (1) develop a
conceptual framework of drug courts; (2) describe program
implementation of the 14 drug courts; (3) determine program
``evaluability'' (the extent to which programs can support a strong
evaluation) for each participating jurisdiction; and (4) develop
specific plans for a Phase II evaluation of each program's impact and
success. I discuss three of these below that are directly relevant to
my statement: the framework, program evaluability, and the Phase II
evaluation.
NEED FOR A DRUG COURTS FRAMEWORK FOR EVALUATION
Today approximately 500 drug court programs are operational
nationwide. These programs differ in terms of target populations,
treatment programs, drug testing regimes, sanctions imposed, etc. And
because drug courts differ on these dimensions, it is important to know
whether particular drug court characteristics are more or less
effective than others. Despite ongoing surveys of drug program
characteristics conducted by the American University, the development
of the ``key drug court elements'' (Drug Court Program Office), and a
working typology of drug courts for research purposes developed by Dr.
John Goldkamp, we argue that drug court research currently has no
unifying perspective regarding the structural and process
characteristics of drug courts that can be used to link drug court
components with outcomes. We propose a framework to assist researchers
in this effort.
Building on previous work in the field, our analysis of the 14
courts and their operating environments results in a framework with
five dimensions: leverage, population severity, intensity,
predictability, and rehabilitation emphasis. The first two dimensions
are structural characteristics of drug court. The other three
dimensions are process characteristics. They describe what happens to
participants as they proceed through the drug court program.
Leverage refers to the nature of consequences faced by incoming
participants if they later fail to meet program requirements and are
discharged from drug court. Thus leverage depends, perhaps heavily, on
the court's entry point--pre-plea, post-plea, or probation. In pre-plea
or deferred prosecution courts, entry to the program occurs before an
offender is required to enter a plea. Upon completion of all program
requirements, the charge is reduced or dropped. Pre-plea courts may
have limited leverage because participants have not pleaded guilty and
may have no sentence pending. Moreover, after pre-plea participants are
discharged for noncompliance, the case may be too ``cold'' to reopen.
In post-plea or deferred judgment courts, however, entry to the program
occurs only after an offender pleads guilty. Upon program completion,
the plea can be stricken and the case dismissed. But if an offender
fails the program, his/her case moves directly to sentencing and
possible incarceration. Thus the stakes are high, and leverage strong,
in a post-plea drug court.
Population severity refers to characteristics of offenders deemed
eligible to enter drug court. This dimension is based on a distinction
between drug courts set up to target a hardcore population of addicted
and persistent offenders (one extreme) and drug courts dealing with
lightweight offenders, whose offense history is short and relatively
minor and whose drug use is ``recreational'' (the other extreme). The
latter may be routed to drug court not so much because they need
intensive treatment/supervision but because the local criminal justice
system views the drug court as a welcome new resource for processing
cases. This possibility is perhaps most apparent when the target
population is first-time or lightweight offenders, system resources are
stretched thin, and prosecutors are using the drug court essentially as
a way to move cases through the system. Of course many drug court
populations fall between the high- to low-severity extremes. Because
eligibility for drug court and, more importantly, the participants'
likelihood of success may depend on lifetime patterns of drug use and
crime as well as on the instant offense, we believe that both current
and lifetime indicators of misconduct should be used in gauging
population severity.
Intensity refers to requirements for participating in and
completing drug court. These always include urine testing, court
appearances, and drug abuse treatment. Other obligations may be imposed
as well, such as employment, suitable housing, completion of a G.E.D.,
and payment of fines or restitution. It is important to note that
intensity does not refer to requirements actually met by the
participant. That is affected by self-selection. Neither does intensity
refer to what happens to the noncompliant participant. That too is
affected by self-selection in a sense; additional requirements are
triggered by actions of the participant. Instead, we focus on a
dimension of drug court itself: what participants understand to be the
minimum requirements for program completion.
Predictability reflects the degree to which participants believe
their behavior will be detected by the court, and know with high
probability how the court will respond to their behavior. For example,
courts with less variability in their response to each positive drug
test are more predictable; participants are more likely to know what
will probably happen to them if they test positive one, twice, and so
on.
The final dimension in our framework is the emphasis placed on
rehabilitation as against other court functions, including case
processing and punishment. This dimension takes on particular
significance in light of legal philosophies known as restorative
justice and therapeutic jurisprudence, in which criminal justice is
viewed more as a therapeutic tool and less as a formalistic and
essentially punitive one. To a greater or lesser degree, most drug
courts reflect these philosophies.
Our hypotheses regarding the linkage between these dimensions and
outcomes for drug court are straightforward. Those programs that exert
more leverage over their participants, target offenders with less
severe problems, provide intensive services, are more predictable in
their rewards and sanctions and provide a more rehabilitative focus
should show more favorable outcomes. Additionally, our framework
provides a wide range of indicators, currently collected in the field,
for each dimension.
EVALUABILITY OF 14 PROGRAM SITES
Our Phase I was designed to assess each of the 14 participating
jurisdictions to determine whether they could support solid evaluation.
In other words, can we compare outcomes for drug court participants
with outcomes of similar offenders who did not participate in the
program? Does the program routinely gather information on drug court
participation, treatment, sanctions, and outcomes? Are these data
recorded in a consistent and accessible fashion? To answer these
questions, researchers made site visits to each of the 14 programs,
interviewed staff and judges, observed drug court programs, visited
treatment programs, and gathered information on data management
information systems.
Ideally, each drug court would have been able to meet the
requirements of process and outcome collection specified in the DCPO
``Program Guidelines and Application Information.'' These include the
collection of information on drug court participants (and to the
fullest extent, non-participants) including: demographic
characteristics, substance abuse history, vocational and educational
status; mental health history, criminal justice history, treatment
needs, etc.; measures of program implementation and process, including
program intervention receive, participation in treatment (including
motivation and actual attendance records for each program component),
status at completion of drug court, service needs at discharge from
program, etc. Programs were strongly urged to design, implement and
maintain an automated database for recording these variables.
In addition, programs were alerted to the requirements of a
national evaluation. Drug court programs were instructed to anticipate
providing the following additional information for an national
evaluator: substances abuse treatment and support services completion
rates, counselor ratings of extent of participant attendance and
engagement in treatment, program components and improvement over time
in life skills acquisition, psychological and emotional functioning,
educational and employment status, participant satisfaction with the
treatment program, reports of substance abuse, results of urinalysis,
data and nature of violations and arrests, positive social adjustment,
and counselor ratings and extent of participant attendance and
engagement in aftercare components and referrals services following
completion of the drug court program.
Our site visits revealed that programs staff were unaware of the
federal requirements to collect the data for evaluation--original grant
writers did not share application requirements with program staff. Site
visits and analyses revealed that none of the 14 programs has gathered
the full range of measures specified by DCPO in a single database for
both the drug court and a comparison group of offenders. This is not to
say that sites were uninterested in gathering information or in
evaluation or their drug courts. To the contrary, all were keenly
interested in determining whether or not their programs were effective.
However, it appears that a great deal of staff time is devoted to the
day-to-day operations, coordination among agencies, provision of
services, etc., leaving little time for staff to develop database
systems and record a vast array of measures for participants. In
addition, program staff often do not have the training or backgrounds
in research and must contract out the work to outside evaluators.
Looking across programs, we found that in several sites, no local
evaluation of the program had been conducted; in half the sites, no MIS
system recorded the required data elements--records were maintained
solely on paper. In terms of classic process and outcomes studies, most
sites could offer the following types of data using quasi-experimental
evaluation designs that could only be accomplished with fairly
intensive data collection effort:
Background characteristics. Often computerized, sometimes
paper and pencil screening and/or treatment files provide these
characteristics for drug court participants; generally less complete
paper and pencil data would be available for comparison groups.
Process data. Urinalysis results are generally available
and often computerized (particularly if TASC is part of the team);
services received are computerized in about half the sites. In many
sites, detailed information about treatment participation and
activities would need to be gathered from individual treatment program
files--not necessarily kept by the drug court itself.
For process measures, virtually all information currently available
is official record; no data on participant's self-reported
satisfaction, perceptions or other behaviors are available; information
on counselor perceptions is also not available. In general self-
reported process variables would need to be collected by external
evaluators--they are not being collected by the sites. These measures
are necessary for testing theoretical hypotheses about why the drug
courts may be effective. Without them, we can't tell why the drug court
did or did not produce the effects it desired.
Outcome data. All sites are able to report the termination
status of drug court participants, although this is not automated at
all sites. The most frequently used outcomes are officially-recorded
recidivism, gathered from criminal history databases or probation
files. Remaining drug free, as measured by negative urine tests is
another commonly used outcome measure. Referral to and completion of
programs after drug court termination are not available.
PHASE II PLANS
The original intent for Phase II was to conduct separate outcome
evaluations in each of the 14 sites. However, given the large effort
that would be required to conduct such evaluations; the limited amount
of routinely collected data, and the real possibility of noncomparable
comparison groups, we have decided this may not be the best way at the
present time to advance the state of knowledge on drug courts'
effectiveness. Rather, we propose to pool existing data from drug court
programs to examine the relationship between program characteristics,
participant characteristics and outcomes. Using only drug court program
data (not comparison groups since they are few, often poor and require
a great deal of work to construct), we hope to identify as many data
sets as possible from a representatives set of drugs court programs and
conduct exploratory analyses to answer a slightly different question.
Instead of the question typically asked in a traditional outcome
research design--does a drug court reduce use and crime compared to
routine criminal justice processing, we have turned the question
slightly to ``what are the characteristics of drug courts that seem
most able to reduce drug use and crime?'' With this approach, we can
also test out our framework components of leverage, severity,
predictability, intensity and rehabilitation and their relationships to
drug court participant outcomes. To the best of our knowledge the
proposed study is the first of its kind in which data re pooled from a
moderate to large number of drug courts across the country to examine
overall effects on drug court outcomes.
CURRENT STATE OF RESEARCH ON DRUG COURTS
Over the past several years, Dr. Steven Belenko has compiled
findings from drug court evaluations. According to his 1999 review,
drug courts: handle serious offenders with multiple problems,
provide more comprehensive supervision and monitoring,
compared to other treatment programs, increase treatment
retention, reduce drug use and criminal behavior while
offenders are in drug court reduce recidivism following
program completion generate savings in jail costs, especially
for pretrial detention
At the same time, however, we don't understand very well the impact
of specific drug court components for a number of reasons. First, many
evaluations do not use strong research designs. Few have incorporated
random assignment--a design in which we can be assured that observed
differences between drug court participants and other offenders are the
direct result of drug court participation--and not due to
characteristics of the offenders themselves. Rather, quasi-experimental
designs are used in which it may be difficult to parse out effects due
to offender characteristics from the drug court program itself.
Second, drug courts as implemented, are a ``package'' of treatment,
sanctions and incentives, drug treatment, judicial involvement, etc.
When we observe a positive outcome for the court, we have logical
inference problem--was it the treatment, was it the judge, was it the
sanctions? Unless research designs do a better job of testing the
impact of individual drug court components, we cannot know for sure how
key elements impact offender outcomes.
Third, the richness of process and outcome measures needs to be
improved. Many studies have used a limited range of ``implementation''
and ``success' measures, with recidivism being the most frequently
outcome measure. Knowing two- to three-year outcome information on not
only recidivism, but actual drug use, employment and job skills, and
other psycho-social measures would greatly improve our knowledge of the
impact of drug courts on offender's lives.
Finally, as indicated earlier, drug court programs themselves do
not often have the ability to conduct ongoing evaluations of their
programs. MIS are often not well developed nor capture consistent data
across programs. Program staff are not trained in evaluation; many
programs must rely on assistance from outside researchers to gather
both process and outcome measures, often on a ``one-shot'' effort.
Continuing evaluation is beyond the ability of most programs, given
current expertise and resources.
Many of these issues are not unique to drug courts. We face the
same constraints in understanding the effectiveness of many criminal
justice innovations, from intensive supervision probation, to universal
drug testing and sanctions, to programs for the mentally ill offender.
However, given the widespread adoption of drug courts across the
country and resources devoted to their operation, we must be able to
conduct credible evaluations on their impacts to help inform the policy
debate about their place in sentencing and corrections.
[Submissions for the record follow:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4754A.092
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4754A.093
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4754A.094
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4754A.095
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4754A.096
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4754A.097
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4754A.098
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4754A.099
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4754A.100
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4754A.101
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4754A.102
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4754A.103
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4754A.104
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4754A.105
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4754A.106
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4754A.107
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4754A.108
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4754A.109
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4754A.110
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4754A.111
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4754A.112
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4754A.113
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4754A.114
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4754A.115
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4754A.116
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4754A.117
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4754A.118
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4754A.119
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4754A.120
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4754A.121
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4754A.122
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4754A.123
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4754A.124
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4754A.125
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4754A.126
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4754A.127
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4754A.128
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4754A.129
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4754A.130
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4754A.131
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4754A.132
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4754A.133
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4754A.134
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4754A.135
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4754A.136
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4754A.137
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4754A.138
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4754A.139
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4754A.140
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4754A.141
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4754A.142
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4754A.143
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4754A.144
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4754A.145
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4754A.146
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4754A.147
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4754A.148
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4754A.149
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4754A.150
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4754A.151