Drug Courts

"If you don't like paying for jails, if you don't like a waste of tax dollars, then you'll like the concept of drug courts. This is an initiative that's been working."

- General Barry McCaffrey, former Director of the Office of U.S. National Drug Control Policy -

What Is a Drug Court?
Program Benefits
California Drug Court Standards
Funding for Drug Courts
Evaluation
Perspectives on Drug Court
Resources

Of Current Interest

PROCLAMATION BY THE PRESIDENT: NATIONAL ALCOHOL AND DRUG ADDICTION RECOVERY MONTH (AUGUST 2005) (DOC, 42 KB)
September marks the beginning of the 16th annual National Alcohol and Drug Addiction Recovery Month which honors those individuals who have overcome addiction to alcohol and other drugs and to offer hope to those who have yet to embark on the journey. Recovery Month also recognizes family and community members who support recovering individuals.

NADCP is proud celebrant of Recovery Month and we applaud President Bush's proclamation on August 29, 2005, in support of National Alcohol and Drug Addiction Recovery Month, 2005.

U.S. Senate Passes Resolution in Support of National Drug Court Month (05/12/05)
For the first time in the history of drug courts, the Senate passed a resolution yesterday in support of National Drug Court Month. This unprecedented legislation which was introduced by Senator Biden (D/DE), Senator Coburn (R/OK), and Senator Sessions (R/AL) designates May 2005 as "National Drug Court Month". This is a fitting tribute to the more than 10,000 drug court professionals contributing to the fight against substance abuse and related crime and to the over 16,000 individuals who graduate from drug courts annual. For the more than 70,000 active drug court participants S. Res. 136 is a testament to their struggles and successes on the road to recovery.

S. Res. 136

  Whereas drug courts provide the focus and leadership for community-wide, antidrug systems, bringing together public safety professionals and other community partners in the fight against drug abuse and criminality;
  Whereas the results of more than 100 program evaluations and at least 3 experimental studies have yielded definitive evidence that drug courts increase treatment retention and reduce substance abuse and crime among drug-involved adult offenders;
  Whereas the judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, substance abuse treatment and rehabilitation professionals, law enforcement and community supervision personnel, researchers and educators, national and community leaders, and others dedicated to the movement have had a profound impact within their communities; and
  Whereas the drug court movement has grown from the 12 original drug courts in 1994 to 1,621 operational drug courts as of December 2004: Now, therefore, be it   Resolved, That the Senate--
  (1) designates the month of May 2005 as ``National Drug Court Month''; and
  (2) encourages the people of the United States and interested groups to observe the month with appropriate ceremonies and activities.

Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) Releases 2005 Drug Court Grant Program (2/2005)

Janet Reno Visits Local Drug Court (12/2004)
Former U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno (right) chats with Superior Court of Marin County Presiding Judge Terrence R. Boren and Administrative Office of the Courts Collaborative Court Program Manager Nancy Taylor during a December 2 visit to the Marin County court. Reno praised Superior Court of Marin County judges, commissioners and drug court professionals for their good work on drug courts. A long-time advocate of collaborative justice programs, Reno helped create the first drug court in the nation after she was elected the first woman district attorney of Dade County, Florida. (Photo: Janice Hughes)

State Partnerships Support Dependency Drug Court (12/2004)
There is a growing sense in California that dependency drug court is an effective means of improving the foster care system by fostering local partnerships to bring about Systemwide change. Several California dependency drug courts have improved local foster care by coordinating with county child welfare agencies. Agencies often include dependency drug court in their System Improvement Plans as mechanisms to increase the number of successful family reunifications, reduce the length of time a child is in foster care, and reduce the rate of maltreatment recurrence.

In an attempt to further enhance the reach of dependency drug court, the California Department of Social Services recently dedicated $1.8 million to support dependency drug courts in several California counties. The California Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs and the California Judicial Council partnered with the Department of Social Services in order to support this statewide initiative. Nine counties of varying size and geography received grants to implement or enhance local dependency drug courts. It is estimated that these courts will serve more than 1,500 parents during the 2005 program year.

Local Courts Take Up Youth DUI-Drug Court Initiative (12/2004)
In October 2004, Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) staff released a request for proposal (RFP) to invite the trial courts to compete for one of three mini-grant awards to develop and implement their own post-plea or post conviction DUI court model (based on the collaborative justice drug court model) that targets either young adults or juvenile hard-core drinking and driving offenders. The funding for these mini-grants is made possible by the State Office of Traffic and Safety (OTS.)

Youth Drinking and Driving Court Project (Contra Costa County Superior Court): The Youth Drinking and Driving Court Project is a program developed to address the pressures and needs of youth between the ages of eighteen through twenty-one. The project will provide education and group counseling to participants convicted of driving under the influence and other drinking-related crimes. The course content will include written and video educational materials, guest speakers and special assignments that target at risk youth who abuse alcohol.

VORS Model Program for Juvenile Hard-core Drinkers and DUI Offenses (Los Angeles County Superior Court): The Juvenile Court will contract with Centinela Youth Services to adapt its research based victim-offender mediation process to motivate juvenile hard-core drinkers to participate in a treatment program that combines substance abuse counseling with opportunities for youth and parents to talk openly about the problem of alcohol.

DUI-Teen Court-South Santa Barbara County/North Santa Barbara County (Santa Barbara County Superior Court): Santa Barbara County Superior Court will pilot prosecution programs that divert first-time misdemeanor alcohol and drug offenders from formal juvenile court to the county's teen courts. The pilot program will provide intake and assessment to 125 referred youth and their parents and provide hearings to 100 youth who agree to the conditions for participating in the project.

"Stay Safe" Project (Sonoma County Superior Court): The trial court will contract with Routes For Youth to develop a drinking and driving educational component for youth involved with the Sonoma County Teen Court. The trial court will design and implement a new replicable Root System component to the existing teen court program that will educate approximately 100 high-risk Teen Court youth on the dangers of drinking and driving and DUI offenses. Participating youth will also be trained on refusal and negotiation skills necessary to avoid harmful situations as well as alternative ways to manage stress and relax.

What is a Drug Court?

Drug treatment courts were developed in Florida in the early 1990s as an alternative to traditional criminal justice prosecution for drug-related offenses. These courts combine the close supervision of the judicial process with resources available through alcohol and drug treatment services. The two goals of these programs are to reduce recidivism of drug-related offenses and to create options within the criminal justice system that tailor effective and appropriate responses for offenders with drug problems. The courts have served as a catalyst to modify traditional treatment-delivery systems and design more effective interventions for this population.

Adult drug courts provide access to treatment for substance-abusing offenders in criminal, dependency, and family courts while minimizing the use of incarceration. They provide a structure for linking supervision and treatment with ongoing judicial oversight and team management. The majority of drug courts include initial intensive treatment services with ongoing monitoring and continuing care for a year or more. Dependency drug courts address substance abuse issues that contribute to removal of children from the care of their parents. Drug courts in family court address the impact of substance abuse on child custody and visitation.

Juvenile drug courts incorporate the same underlying components of adult drug courts. However, the inclusion of additional elements, such as more intensive supervision that is coordinated and holistic, are critical to their effectiveness. Special issues that must be addressed in juvenile drug court include identifying the individual needs of each juvenile offender; increasing accessibility and management of medical, mental health, treatment, and other community services; and fostering the participation of youth and their families.

Drug courts have gained wide acceptance, even at the national level. General Barry McCaffrey, former director of the Office of U.S. National Drug Control Policy, said, "If you don't like paying for jails, if you don't like a waste of tax dollars, then you'll like the concept of drug courts. This is an initiative that's been working."

In his keynote address at the San Francisco Drug Court graduation ceremony on December 17, 2002, Chief Justice Ronald M. George said, "Drug courts are a great example of what real collaboration in the justice system can accomplish. These unique courts are an effective way for trial courts and other justice system agencies to work together to reduce drug-related offenses, improve lives, and protect communities."

In June 2002, California drug courts were honored by the National Association of Drug Court Professionals in recognition of their National Drug Court Month activities. See In the News.

Back to Top

Program Benefits

Drug court programs are considerably more effective than traditional criminal prosecution methods, according to the U.S. Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Assistance Drug Court Clearinghouse, which surveyed 20 drug court programs in effect for at least one year. The results are contained in the two-volume report Drug Courts: An Overview of Operational Characteristics and Implementation Issues. Among the findings are the following:

• Recidivism has been significantly reduced among drug court program participants;
• Drug use has significantly decreased among drug court participants while they are involved in the program;
• An unanticipated beneficial effect has been the birth of a significant number of drug-free babies to women enrolled in drug court programs;
• Many programs are now expanding their targeted population based on the success of their initial implementation experience;
• Prosecutors and law enforcement officials have shown significant support for drug court programs and, in a number of jurisdictions, have contributed asset-forfeiture funds to augment available treatment resources; and
• Drug court programs are extremely cost-effective, with the average treatment costs ranging from $900 to $1,600 per participant, compared with an average cost of $5,000 per defendant for a minimal period of incarceration.

Second Chances, Better Lives
For nearly a decade, drug court programs in California have given drug offenders a chance at treatment rather than incarceration. This photo essay celebrates the collaborative effort of program participants, the courts, and the community to help drug courts succeed.

Back to Top

California Drug Court Standards

The Judicial Council adopted section 36 of the California Standards of Judicial Administration, Guidelines for Diversion Drug Court Programs, effective January 1, 1998, which provides clarification specifically for preplea diversion drug courts under Penal Code section 1000.5. (A preplea diversion program allows criminal proceedings to be suspended while the defendant participates in a program involving counseling, drug testing, education, or other requirements. If the defendant successfully completes the program, the criminal charges are dismissed.)

In addition to these minimum standards, courts are encouraged to look to the nationally accepted guidelines from the National Association of Drug Court Professionals (NADCP) Defining Drug Courts: The Key Components, which elaborate on drug courts' purpose and performance measurements. The guidelines include the following:

1. Drug courts integrate alcohol and other drug-treatment services with justice system processing.
2. Using a nonadversarial approach, prosecution and defense counsel promote public safety while protecting participants' due process rights.
3. Eligible participants are identified early and promptly placed in the drug court program.
4. Drug courts provide access to a continuum of alcohol, drug, and other related treatment and rehabilitation services.
5. Abstinence and use of alcohol and other drugs are monitored by frequent drug testing.
6. A coordinated strategy governs drug court responses to participants' compliance.
7. Ongoing judicial interaction with each drug court participant is essential.
8. Monitoring and evaluation measure the achievement of program goals and gauge effectiveness.
9. Effective drug court operations require continuing interdisciplinary education.
10. Forging partnerships among drug courts, public agencies, and community-based organizations increases the availability of treatment services, enhances drug court effectiveness, and generates local support.

Back to Top

Funding for Drug Courts

Comprehensive Drug Court Implementation (CDCI) Act

The CDCI Act of 1999, passed by the California Legislature, provides funding to drug courts, including those for (1) juvenile offenders; (2) parents of children who are detained by or dependents of the juvenile court; (3) parents of children in family law cases involving custody and visitation issues; (4) criminal offenders; and (5) other drug court systems approved by the Drug Court Partnership Executive Steering Committee. The State Budget for fiscal year 2000-2001 provided $10 million for this previously unfunded act. The act mandates that the Judicial Council and Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs collaborate on the design and implementation of the program. Courts are required to provide a 10 percent match for years one and two and a 20 percent match for years three and four.

Drug Court Partnership Act

The Drug Court Partnership Act of 1998 established a drug court demonstration program funded through four-year grants. Annually, the Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs (ADP) grants $7.6 million to 34 counties in support of adult postplea drug courts. This funding has been extended through 2002-2003, with participating courts to focus on felony drug offenders.

Data collection for the Drug Court Partnership program evaluation began in the spring 1999 and was completed in the winter 2001. As mandated by statute, the Drug Court Partnership presented process information in a March 1, 2000 interim report to the Legislature. The council approved the report at its January 26, 2000 meeting. At its January 30, 2002 meeting, the council approved the final report, which ADP released to the Legislature on March 1, 2002. The report documents avoided costs and other beneficial outcomes of drug courts, such as reduced criminal involvement, employment and educational achievements, and increased family involvement. Among its findings:

• 70 percent of participants had used drugs five or more years, with an average of two arrests (one conviction and incarceration) per participant in the two years prior to drug court.
• Drug court participant arrest rate was 85 percent lower in the two years after entering drug court than in the two years prior to entering drug court
• Drug court participant conviction rate was 77 percent lower in the two years after entering drug court than in the two years prior to entering drug court
• Drug court participant incarceration rate was 83 percent lower in the two years after entering drug court than in the two years prior to entering drug court
• 96 percent of drug tests of participants during drug court were negative

For more information on the Comprehensive Drug Court Implementation Act and Drug Court Partnership Program, visit the Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs Web site .

Back to Top

Evaluation

California Drug Courts: A Methodology for Determining Costs and Avoided Costs

In 1998 the AOC received a Drug Courts Program Office (DCPO) grant from the federal Department of Justice to establish a method for evaluating adult drug court programs in California. This study focuses on the economic evaluation of collaborative justice courts. The evaluation is divided into three phases. In phase I the AOC is evaluating three adult drug courts, one each in Butte, San Diego, and Los Angeles Counties. In phase II, the AOC will evaluate an additional six courts and will test the model developed in the first phase. A third and final phase, expected to begin in early 2004, will establish a protocol for continuous court-level evaluation of these programs.

The evaluation looks at publicly funded costs as "opportunity cost" resources. A systematic opportunity cost approach estimates resources that might be available for use in other contexts. For example, if substance abuse treatment reduces the number of times a client is subsequently incarcerated, the local sheriff may see no budget change but will have an opportunity cost resource in the form of an available jail bed. Drug courts and other collaborative justice courts are reported to provide such opportunity cost resources.

Drug court and other collaborative justice court programs also use what are known as "borrowed" or "donated" resources. Staff in the courts and other participants in the collaborative justice team, such as the prosecutor, defense counsel, probation, and treatment participants, "donate" time and the courts "donate" resources, or shift them from other projects to the operation of collaborative justice programs. These resources and the efficiencies in case management that they may produce are considered in the cost-benefit study protocols.

This study is designed to assist courts in determining which practices work best for which groups and yield the most results per dollar of investment. The study will thus enable courts to fine-tune their programs for maximum success with minimum dollar inputs.

Drug Courts Reduce Crime, Costs
A new statewide study shows that drug courts provide substantial savings to the criminal justice system by reducing prison and jail costs, victimization costs, and recidivism. First established in California in 1993, drug courts use a collaborative approach to justice and provide an alternative to incarceration for substance abusers.

Back to Top

Perspectives on Drug Court

Drug Court Efficacy vs. Effectiveness (11/2004)
By Douglas B. Marlowe, J.D., Ph.D.

Back to Top

Resources

Media Kit Available to Help California Courts
The Administrative Office of the Courts has prepared a media kit for California courts to assist them with planning and implementing local outreach efforts during National Drug Court Month in April. The kit contains media tips, samples of news releases, a certificate of appreciation, and an invitation to a courthouse tour. Drug Court Media Kit, (PDF, 93 KB) For a copy of the media kit, contact Dave Bressler at 415-865-7703 or dave.bressler@jud.ca.gov.

California Drug Court Directory
For a copy of the directory or for more information, contact Dave Bressler at 415-865-7703 or dave.bressler@jud.ca.gov.

Bureau of Justice Assistance

National Association of Drug Court Professionals (NADCP)

OJP Drug Court Clearinghouse and Technical Assistance Project

Research on Drug Courts: A Critical Review 2001 (PDF)