DRUG COURTS

Justice and Mercy supports the practice of drug courts, which has proven to be effective in reducing recidivism rates and providing cost-effective and holistic incentives benefiting public safety, family health, and individual stability.

Studies have shown that recidivism rates have dropped dramatically in all areas where drug courts have operated. These studies reflect recidivism reductions in some locations from 50% to as low as 4%. Other recent reports reveal that arrest and conviction rates for persons in the two-year period after entering drug court programs were respectively 85% and 77% lower than in the two prior years.

A significant number of participants tested during the drug court programs were found to be clean, and more than 75% of drug court graduates have obtained and retained employment.

Other positive factors include the increased number of families regaining custody of their children and an overwhelming higher rate of drug-free baby births achieved by female drug court participants.

Economically, the program has shown substantial benefits, with as much as $10 savings realized for every $1 invested in establishing and maintaining drug court programs. Reports from all areas indicate that initial investments are recouped by overall savings at some point subsequent to establishment of new drug courts.

These data are compelling and justify efforts to establish drug courts at local levels. Drug courts are functioning in all states, however, Pennsylvania lags behind most other states for number of local areas participating in these programs. In addition, PA is one of the few states which has not yet passed some form of legislation for establishing and operating drug courts and other specialty courts. Justice and Mercy encourages the development and passage of state legislation and the ongoing support and expansion of drug courts throughout Pennsylvania.

Various data and reports relating to the cost savings and effectiveness of drug courts can be found at U.S. Department of Justice web sites such as the National Institute of Justice web site at www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij, www.ojp.usdoj.gov, and the Bureau of Justice Assistance Drug Court Clearinghouse Project at www.american.edu/justice/drugcourts.  In addition, the www.jointogether.org/sa/news/summaries web site has numerous articles substantiating the many benefits and effectiveness of drug courts nationwide.

The success of drug courts is thought to be due to a variety of reasons and the overall methodology used to organize and implement drug courts. A cohesively structured "team approach" to provide all needs is used by most counties as an alternative to incarceration primarily for non-violent offenders. A study of drug courts nationwide and reports received from individual states at the Department of Justice confirms that drug courts are consistently successful and all are achieving cost savings as well as other benefits subsequent to implementation. Benefits achieved are both tangible and intangible, and many lives are being restored for previously non-productive offenders needing rehabilitation and other assistance.

Much coordination between judiciary officials and other key players in Pennsylvania has taken place in recent months to plan for expanded implementation of drug courts and to assist in planning for future successful drug court implementation. The question of "why drug courts actually work" has been discussed at these various forums, and the success of drug courts is thought to be due to a variety of reasons. For example, during the Treatment Court Symposium held on January 19, 2005 at the Harrisburg Hilton, several factors were discussed which were considered to at least partially account for successful drug court programs.

During this conference, three different speakers emphasized the need to properly evaluate the type of treatment needed for each individual with drug abuse problems. Drug and alcohol providers consistently stated that careful evaluation is essential for each individual being considered for participation in a drug court program. Long term residential treatment may be required for individuals with a long term history of drug abuse, and speakers cautioned that outpatient treatment alone is often unsuccessful. In addition, coordinated teamwork is needed by treatment counselors, judiciary, community service officials, employers, probation, other law enforcement, and corrections personnel to effectively rehabilitate individuals and reduce recidivism.

Some of the courts in PA have recognized the need to distinguish between appropriate methodology for various types of addiction problems for offenders, and have established specialized courts accordingly. For example, the establishment of DUI Specialty Courts is expanding in our state. One of the speakers at the January 19, 2005 Sumposium in Harrisburg from the National Highway/Traffic Safety Administration advised that these DUI Courts are better addressing the neds for repeated offenders with DUI violations and alcohol abuse problems. Therefore, it is highly possible that the use of specialized courts such as DUI and Juvenile Drug Courts in addition to Adult Drug Courts is better serving the needs of individual clients and one reason that these courts are successful.

Another guest speaker at the Harrisburg Symposium on January 19th, 2005 credited at least some success of drug courts to the practice of nominal "rewards" earned by participants in these programs. Some county programs include a provision to reward client behavior and progress with small gift certificates to such places as McDonalds. Also, weekly or other periodic mandatory appearances before judges resulting in acknowledgment of individual progress and praise from the judges is appearing to help motivate clients to continue their progress. Motivation via nominal rewards as well as sanctions for inappropriate behavior is considered essential for continued participation and progress by clients.

A subsequent annual conference of the PA Association of Drug Court Professionals was held in Harrisburg on March 23 and 24, 2006 to discuss actions underway in our state to expand and improve drug court establishment in more counties. Coordinative support for drug courts in PA is growing. For example, the PA District Attorney Association is now supporting drug courts in PA and the National Association of Drug Court Professional has developed a supportive relationship with the Office of National Drug Court Policy and SAMSHA - these are potential funding assistance channels via financial grants. Representatives from 21 counties attended this conference, which indicates increased local interest in establishing new drug court programs. If individuals are interested in obtaining information concerning specific county participation in drug court programs, they may wish to contact the recently hired drug court state coordinator, Ms. Kaethe Schumacher, who works for the Administrative Office of PA Courts in Philadelphia at kaethe.schumacher@pacourts.us, or a request may be sent to one of the members of the PADCP, Patti Muck at pattiprismin@yahoo.com. 

In June 2006, the National Institute of Justice, Washington, DC published a special report titled "Drug Courts: The Second Decade." This report emphasizes a need to provide a structure that links supervision and treatment with legal sanctions which will effectively motivate defendants to enter programs and REMAIN in treatment long enough to realize benefits. The report mentions a year or more minimum period required for treatment to be effective. Therefore, once again, the need for longer term rehabilitation programs are advocated. This report also states that the National Drug Control Strategy Update issued by the White House in 2004 hailed the creation of drug courts as "one of the most promising trends in the criminal justice system." The report also mentions some of the reasons that drug courts work to include a balanced system of sanctions and rewards applied consistently to participant behaviors; establishing well-defined written protocols on program processes (complete understanding of expectations from participants and sanctions for non-compliance); responsible screening and assessment of individuals referred to the program; timely urinalysis results; and providing participants with incentives to remain in the program. A copy of this report can be obtained at www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/pubs-sum.

The National Insitute of Justice also recently assisted in presenting an on-line seminar hosted by Harvard University in November 2006 titled "Drug Courts Re-examined". Various experts such as the Executive Director, National District Attorneys Association, the Director for Maryland Alcohol and Drug Abuse Administation, and the Research Director, Center for Court Innovation (National Institute of Justice) were among the leaders conducting this event. This seminar was intiated at the request of the Presidential Office of National Drug Court Policy (ONDCP, Washington, DC) to evaluate current status of drug courts.

The focus of the agenda of this on-line seminar was a re-evaluation of whether drug courts were working and if so, how successful were they found to be? Experts have concluded that the degree of results vary greatly between areas, however, drug courts do remain a highly effective tool in those areas studied. This conclusion is also supported by the results of the GAO Review of Adult Drug Courts conducted in 2005. This GAO report was also discussed by conference participants and the favorable findings of this report were reiterated. (Web site for this report is www.gao.gov/new.items/do5219.pdf.) The "bottom line" of this seminar research/evaluation effort and comments received from various participants was that there was "solid empiracal evidence for drug courts continuing to be successful" and that actions need to be taken to reach more people with these programs. Some improvements that can possibly be made in future expansion are better clinical integrity (valid treatment specifics for individual participant needs); more effective training for team members; and reducing costs in drug courts already operating. The conclusions for expanding these programs was unanimous between all participants, and this expert panel recommendation should help justify and support continued ONDCP favorable positions for budgeting for grants to more communities wishing to implement drug courts.

In summary, drug courts have repeatedly been shown to be an effective means of reducing recidivism and rehabilitating individuals with drug abuse problems. However, "old ways of doing business" and repeating ineffective treatment programs need to be changed, which sometimes brings reluctance from communities to participate in these programs. Until changes are brought about to expand the roles of judiciary and other officials and recognize the need for more effective and possibly longer term rehabilitation programs, our prisons will remain overcrowded. An effective and coordinative "team approach" is also essential for these programs to work. The individual factors mentioned above which contribute to successful drug court programs will be difficult to achieve if ALL players are not willing to assume the progressively new roles they need to play in the overall operation of a cohesive and effective drug court program.


Justice & Mercy is deeply grateful to Patricia Muck, Member of the Pa. Association of Drug Court Professionals, Drug Court Advocate and Member of the Pa. Prison Society, for her invaluable help in providing insight and information on drug courts in Pa.