In the United States, drug courts are specialized court docket programs that aim to help participants recover from substance use disorder to reduce future criminal activity. Drug courts are used as an alternative to incarceration and aim to reduce the costs of repeatedly processing low‐level, non‐violent offenders through courts, jails, and prisons. Drug courts are usually managed by a nonadversarial and multidisciplinary team including judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, community corrections, social workers and treatment service professionals. Drug court participants include criminal defendants and offenders, juvenile offenders, and parents with pending child welfare cases.
History The first drug court, in Miami-Dade County, was designed by Chief Judge Gerald Wetherington, Judge Herbert Klein, then State Attorney Janet Reno, and public defender Bennett Brummer for nonviolent offenders to receive treatment. This model of court system quickly became a popular method for dealing with an ever-increasing number of drug offenders. Between 1984 and 1999, the number of defendants charged with a drug offense in the federal courts increased 3% annually, from 11,854 to 29,306. By 1999, there were 472 drug courts in the United States. By 2005, that number had increased to 1262, with another 575 drug courts in the planning stages.
Operations Drug courts operate under a model that combines intensive judicial supervision, mandatory drug testing, escalating sanctions, and treatment to help offenders with substance use disorders break the cycle of addiction and the crime that accompanies it. In 1997, the National Association of Drug Court Professionals published Defining Drug Courts: The Key Components, designed to provide courts with a model which can be adapted to fit the specific needs of the community.
Key components Drug courts integrate alcohol and other drug treatment services with justice system case processing. Using a non-adversarial approach, prosecution and defense counsel promote public safety. Participants must waive their due process rights to a speedy trial and sign a pre-emptive confession before being allowed to participate. Eligible participants are identified early and promptly placed in the drug court program. Drug courts provide access to a continuum of alcohol, drug, and other related treatment and rehabilitation services. Abstinence is monitored by frequent drug testing (including alcohol). A coordinated strategy governs drug court responses to participants' compliance. Ongoing judicial interaction with each drug court participant is essential. Monitoring and evaluation measure the achievement of program goals and gauge effectiveness. Continuing interdisciplinary education promotes effective drug court planning, implementation, and operations. Forging partnerships among drug courts, public agencies, and community-based organizations generates local support and enhances their effectiveness.The National Association of Drug Court Professionals Drug Court Standards Committee. (1997, January). Defining Drug Courts: Ten Key Components. U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs.
Recidivism rates Some studies, largely those produced by drug court professional associations, show that recidivism rates for drug court clients are lower than those of standard dockets. The average recidivism rate for those who complete drug court is between 4% and 29%, in contrast to 48% for those who do not participate in a drug court program. A 2003 recidivism report by the Urban Institute and Caliber Associates called "Recidivism Rates For Drug Court Graduates: National Based Estimates", representative of over 17,000 annual drug court graduates nationwide, found that recidivism rates for Drug Court participants one year after graduation is a mere 16.5% and only 27.5% after two years. In a nationally representative sample of more than 2,000 graduates from 95 different drug courts, the average re-arrest rate was only about 16% in the first year after leaving the program and 27% after the second year.Roman, J., Townsend, W., & Bhati, A. S. (2003). Recidivism rates for Drug Court graduates: Nationally based estimate - Final report. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute and Caliber. This compares highly favorably to typical recidivism rates on conventional probation, in which roughly 46% of offenders commit a new offense and over 60% commit a probation violation.Langan & Cunniff. (1992). Recidivism of felons on probation. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Justice Statistics. A recent study of nine courts in California found that re-arrest rates over a four-year period were 29% for drug court participants (and only 17% for drug court graduates) as compared to 41% for similar drug offenders who did not participate in drug court.Carey, S. M., Finigan, M., Crumpton, D., & Waller, M. (2006). California Drug Courts: Outcomes, Costs, and Promising Practices: An Overview of Phase II in a Statewide Study. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, SARC Supplement 3, 345-356. Another study of four adult drug courts in Suffolk County, Massachusetts, found that drug court participants were 13% less likely to be re-arrested, 34% less likely to be re-convicted, and 24% less likely to be re-incarcerated than probationers who had been carefully matched to the drug court participants using "propensity score" analyses.Rhodes, W., Kling, R., & Shively, M. (2006). Suffolk County Court Evaluation. Cambridge, MA: Abt Associates.
Costs and benefits There is mixed evidence on whether drug courts save money or cost more per participant than traditional courts. Studies in the mid-2000s computed the average cost savings per participant. Results revealed average cost savings ranging from nearly $3,000 to over $12,000 per client. Depending upon the size of a given program, in some counties, the aggregate cost savings exceeded $7 to $9 million per year.Aos, S., Miller, M., & Drake, E. (2006). Evidence-based public policy options to reduce future prison construction, criminal justice costs, and crime rates. Olympia, WA: Washington State Institute for Public Policy. About 120,000 individuals are treated annually in drug courts, which creates more than $1 billion in annual savings. Overall, it is estimated that the current adult drug court treatment program produces about $2.21 in benefit for every $1 in costs, for a net benefit to society of about $624 million. Studies have shown that 1.5 million arrestees who are probably guilty (the population most likely to participate in court-monitored substance use disorder treatment) are at risk of a substance use disorder. Treating those 1.5 million at-risk arrestees through drug court would cost more than $13.7 billion and return benefits of about $46 billion.Bhati, A. S., Roman, J. K., & Chalfin, A. (2008, April). To treat or not to treat: Evidence on the prospects of expanding treatment to drug-involved offenders. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute.
In 2013 the National Institute of Justice performed a Multisite Adult Drug Court Evaluation that assessed the cost-effectiveness of the Drug Court Model in comparison to the normal probationary program. The National Institute of Justice assessed that for every $1.00 spent there was $1.50 in benefits. This more current literature contradicts the previously held belief by The Urban Institute that assessed in 2004 that cost-benefit was $2.00 for every $1.00 spent. This means that the current literature believes that there is no statistical significance between the cost-effectiveness of the current drug court model as opposed to the ordinary court probation model.
On the other hand, there are many studies by non-partisan research institutions which show that drug courts are cost-positive. In a meta-analysis of 86 drug courts, which includes the full cost of rehabs and wrap-around services and drug court externalities, the Brookings Institution concluded in 2012 that the benefits of drug court "probably [do] not" outweigh its costs, noting that "on average, drug court will cost $5,000 more per participant than is yielded in benefits, and there is only a 14% chance that benefits will exceed costs".The Brookings Institution. North Carolina Law Review. www.dccrimepolicy.org/.../BAMCBA1-post-copy-edit-6-2-11_3.pdf, 2012. Similarly, the UK Ministry of Justice concludes that drug courts are cost-positive by £4,633 per participant.UK Ministry of Justice, http://findings.org.uk/count/downloads/download.php?file=Matrix_8.txt, 2011
Juvenile drug court Drug courts not only apply to adults but to juveniles as well. The need for a juvenile drug court can be indicated by the extent of a drug being associated with delinquency, the ability of the juvenile justice system to use treatment, supervision, and other services, as the accountability that the juvenile and the service providers are given by the juvenile justice system.Cooper, Caroline S. (2001, May). Juvenile Drug Court Programs. Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grants Program Bulletin. Established in 1995, the first juvenile drug court in the United States was in Wilmington, Delaware.O'Connell, Nestlerode, & Miller (1999, October). Evaluation of the Delaware Juvenile Drug Court Diversion Program. U. S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs. https://www.jrsa.org/awards/winners/98_Evaluation_of_the_Juvenile_Drug.pdf As of 2020, there were 300 juvenile drug courts across the 50 states and Washington, D.C.National Drug Court Resource Center. (2020, May). Treatment Court Count Map.
National Association of Drug Court Professionals The National Association of Drug Court Professionals (NADCP) is a non-profit organization founded in 1994 to reduce the negative social impact of substance use, crime, and recidivism. The NADCP advocates for the establishment, growth, and funding of drug courts and provides for the collection and dissemination of information. In 1997 the National Drug Court Institute (NDCI) was established by the Office of National Drug Control Policy as part of NADCP. NDCI is funded through the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) within the U.S. Department of Justice, and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) within the U.S. Department of Transportation. NDCI provides comprehensive drug court training series for practitioners and disseminates research, evaluations, and relevant commentary. NDCI stages over 130 training events each year.Huddleston, C. W. III., Marlowe, J.D., Ph.D., D., Casebolt, R. (2008, May). Painting the Current Picture: A National Report Card on Drug Courts and Other Problem-Solving Court Programs in the United States. Washington, D.C.: National Drug Court Institute.
Criticism and controversies In recent years, drug courts and drug court research have become the subject of significant criticism. Academic research questions both the constitutionality of drug courts and the potential denial or limitation of defendants' rights caused by the drug court model.See research published by Mae C. Quinn, former drug court prosecutor and current head of criminal law at Washington University in St. Louis. e.g., . Others, such as former drug court Judge Morris Hoffman, have theorized that drug courts "cause net widening due to the increased willingness by police to arrest offenders should they receive treatment versus jail time and an increased willingness by offenders to try drugs when facing less serious legal consequences."Hoffman, Hon Morris, JD. "The Drug Court Scandal". North Carolina Law Review. 2000.