PAINTING THE CURRENT PICTURE - University of Texas at ...socialwork.utexas.edu/.../ari/pdf/PaintingtheCurrentPicture2005.pdf · Executive Office of the President, was established

4900 Seminary Road, Suite 320Alexandria, VA 22311

(703) 575-94001-877-507-3229

(703) 575-9402 Faxwww.ndci.org

NATIONAL

DRUG COURT

INSTITUTE

PAINTING THECURRENT PICTURE:

A NATIONAL REPORT CARD

ON DRUG COURTS AND

OTHER PROBLEM SOLVING

COURT PROGRAMS IN THE

UNITED STATES

MAY 2005 • VOLUME I, NO. 2

NATIONAL

DRUG COURT

INSTITUTE

C. West Huddleston, III

Judge Karen Freeman-Wilson (ret.)

Douglas B. Marlowe, J.D., Ph.D.

Aaron Roussell

About the Office of National Drug Control Policy (www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov)The White House Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), a component of theExecutive Office of the President, was established by the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988.

The principal purpose of ONDCP is to establish policies, priorities, and objectives for the Nation’sdrug control program. The goals of the program are to reduce illicit drug use, manufacturing, and trafficking, drug-related crime and violence, and drug related health consequences. To achievethese goals, the Director of ONDCP is charged with producing the National Drug Control Strategy.The Strategy directs the Nation’s anti-drug efforts and establishes a program, a budget, and guide-lines for cooperation among Federal, State, and local entities.

By law, the Director of ONDCP also evaluates, coordinates, and oversees both the internationaland domestic anti-drug efforts of executive branch agencies and ensures that such efforts sustainand complement State and local anti-drug activities. The Director advises the President regard-ing changes in the organization, management, budgeting, and personnel of Federal Agenciesthat could affect the Nation’s anti-drug efforts and regarding Federal agency compliance withtheir obligations under the Strategy.

About the Bureau of Justice Assistance (www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bja)The Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice,supports law enforcement, courts, corrections, treatment, victim services, technology, and prevention initiatives that strengthen the nation's criminal justice system. BJA provides leadership,services, and funding to America's communities by emphasizing local control; building relation-ships in the field; developing collaborations and partnerships; promoting capacity buildingthrough planning; streamlining the administration of grants; increasing training and technicalassistance; creating accountability of projects; encouraging innovation; and ultimately communicatingthe value of justice efforts to decisionmakers at every level.

About the National Association of Drug Court Professionals (www.nadcp.org)The National Association of Drug Court Professionals (NADCP) was established in 1994 as the premier national membership and advocacy organization for drug courts. Representing over16,000 drug court professionals and community leaders, NADCP provides a strong and unifiedvoice to our nation’s leadership. By impacting policy and legislation, NADCP creates a vision ofa reformed criminal justice system. NADCP’s mission is to reduce substance abuse, crime, andrecidivism by promoting and advocating for the establishment and funding of drug courts andproviding for the collection and dissemination of information, technical assistance, and mutualsupport to association members.

About the National Drug Court Institute (www.ndci.org)The National Drug Court Institute (NDCI) is the educational, research and scholarship arm of the National Association of Drug Court Professionals (NADCP), and is funded by the WhiteHouse Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP); the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA)and the National Institute of Justice (NIJ), U.S. Department of Justice; and the National HighwayTraffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), U.S. Department of Transportation. In addition to stagingover 130 state of the art training events each year, NDCI provides on-site technical assistance andrelevant research and scholastic information to drug courts throughout the nation.

Volume I, Number 2

Painting the Current Picture:A National Report Card on Drug Courtsand Other Problem Solving CourtPrograms in the United States




Aaron Roussell

May 2005

ii

Copyright © 2005, National Drug Court Institute

Design and printing: Xanthus Design, Washington, DC

National Drug Court Institute

Painting the Current Picture: A National Report Card on Drug Courts and OtherProblem Solving Court Programs in the United States Volume I, Number 2.

This document was prepared under Cooperative Agreement Number 2005-DC-BX-K003 from the Bureau of Justice Assistance, U.S. Department of Justice, withfunding from the Office of National Drug Control Policy, Executive Office of thePresident. Points of view or opinions in this document are those of the authorsand do not necessarily represent the official position of the U.S. Department ofJustice or the Executive Office of the President.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic,mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior writtenpermission of the National Drug Court Institute.

Judge Karen Freeman-Wilson (Ret.), Executive DirectorC. West Huddleston, III, DirectorNational Drug Court Institute4900 Seminary Road, Suite 320Alexandria, VA 22311Tel. (703) 575-9400Fax. (703) 575-9402www.ndci.org

Prepared by the National Drug Court Institute, the education, research, andscholarship affiliate of the National Association of Drug Court Professionals.

Drug courts perform their duties without manifestation, by word or conduct, of bias or prejudice, including, but not limited to, bias or prejudice based upon race, gender,national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, language, or socioeconomic status.

iii


The National Drug Court Institute (NDCI)wishes to acknowledge all of those who havecontributed to this annual publication. NDCIalso extends a special thanks to all of thoseindividuals, organizations, and jurisdictionsthat completed the survey instrument onwhich this publication is based (see Table VII).

NDCI is grateful to the Office of NationalDrug Control Policy of the Executive Office of the President and the Bureau of JusticeAssistance at the U.S. Department of Justice for the support and guidance that made thispublication possible.

AuthorsC. West Huddleston, III is the Director of theNational Drug Court Institute. Mr. Huddlestonis a Board-licensed counselor with 13 years ofclinical experience at the county, state, andfederal levels. Previously, Mr. Huddleston workedthroughout the Tennessee and Oklahomacorrectional systems developing and managingsubstance abuse units, as well as codevelopingand administering two drug courts.

Judge Karen Freeman-Wilson (ret.) is theExecutive Director of the National Drug CourtInstitute, as well as Chief Executive Officer ofthe National Association of Drug CourtProfessionals. Previously, Judge Freeman-Wilson served as Attorney General of theState of Indiana, as well as a drug court judgein Gary, Indiana.

Douglas B. Marlowe, J.D., Ph.D. is theDirector of Law & Ethics Research at theTreatment Research Institute (TRI), and anAdjunct Associate Professor of Psychiatry at theUniversity of Pennsylvania School of Medicine.Dr. Marlowe is a lawyer and clinicalpsychologist who has received several researchgrants from the National Institute on Drug

Abuse and the Center for Substance AbuseTreatment to study the effects of drug courtsand other specialized programs for drugabusing offenders.

Aaron Roussell is a research coordinator withthe National Drug Court Institute. Mr. Roussellworks with federal implementation andenhancement drug court grantees to ensure that guidelines for local drug court research are implemented.

ReviewersNDCI especially wishes to express its sinceregratitude to those individuals who contributedto, and/or reviewed drafts of, this document:

Greg A. Berman, Director, Center for Court Innovation

Hon. William F. Dressel, President, National Judicial College

S. Kay Farley, Director, National Center forState Courts, Government Relations Office

Hon. Peggy Fulton Hora, Superior Courtof California, County of Alameda

Hon. Louis J. Presenza, President Judge,Philadelphia City Municipal Court

StaffFinally, NDCI expresses its gratitude toCarson L. Fox, Esq., Carolyn Hardin, M.P.A.,Cary Heck, Ph.D., Carolyn A. LeeDecker,Hon. William G. Meyer, and MeghanWheeler, M.S., who made invaluablecontributions to this document.

Acknowledgments

v

Introduction............................................................................................................................vi

Drug Courts: A National Phenomenon ...................................................................2

Drug Court Capacity............................................................................................................7

Drug Courts: New Evidence ...........................................................................................8

Drug-Free Babies..................................................................................................................8

Problem Solving Courts: Emerging Permutations...........................................9

Definitions of Problem Solving Courts..................................................................10

Drug Court Legislation and State Appropriations........................................14

Resource Organizations.................................................................................................19

References.............................................................................................................................20

End Notes...............................................................................................................................22

CONTENTS

Figure I Timeline of Drug Courts and Other Problem Solving Courts in the United States.............................................................................1

Table I Operational Drug Court Programs in the United States........................3

Table II Drug Court Types by Year................................................................................3

Table III Number & Type of Operational Drug Court Programs in the United States...........................................................4

Figure II Total of 1,621 Operational Drug Courts in the United States...........................................................................................5

Figure III Operational Drug Court Programs in the United States........................6

Table IV Drug Court Systems: Taking the Model To Scale..........................................7

Figure IV Survey Results: Top Reasons Limiting Statewide Drug Court Capacity..........................................................................................7

Figure V Keeping the Fidelity of the Drug Court Model ........................................10

Table V Drug Court Legislation & State Appropriations .....................................15

Table VI Number & Type of Operational Problem Solving Court Programs in the United States........................................................16

Figure VI Total of 2,558 Operational Problem Solving Courts in the United States..........................................................................17

Table VII Primary State Points of Contact and Survey Respondants.................18

TABLES AND FIGURES

Painting the Current Picture: A NationalReport Card on Drug Courts and OtherProblem Solving Court Programs in theUnited States1

Published annually, this report provides anupdate of drug court and other problemsolving court activity in every state, territory,and district in the United States since therelease of the inaugural issue of Painting theCurrent Picture: A National Report Card on DrugCourts and Other Problem Solving Court Programsin the United States in May 2004.

Volume I, Number 2 provides summary resultsfrom the 2004 National Survey on DrugCourts and Other Problem Solving Courts,conducted by the National Drug CourtInstitute (NDCI) in the last half of 2004 andending on December 31, 2004.

The NDCI National Survey instrument wassent to a Primary Point of Contact (PPC) in each state2 in July 2004. To this end, eachrespective state identified for NDCI either theperson responsible for tracking state drugcourt activity or the person most familiar with the state’s drug court operations. Therepresentative organizations ranged from theState Supreme Court (e.g., Louisiana), theAdministrative Office of the Courts (e.g.,Missouri, California), the Governor’s Office(e.g., Texas), the Single State Agency forAlcohol and Drug Services (e.g., Oklahoma) or independent state commissions (e.g.,Maryland). In those instances in which a statedid not have a designated statewide drug courtcoordinator or director, the state Drug CourtAssociation or Congress of State Drug CourtAssociations was asked to identify a PPC.

In addition to forwarding the surveyinstrument to an identified state drug courtPPC, NDCI also courtesy-copied the surveyinstrument to, on average, 2 additional officialsin each state, totaling 168 surveyors nationwide.These included the president of the state drugcourt association, designated members of theCongress of State Drug Courts Associations,National Association of Drug CourtProfessionals (NADCP) Board Members, andother individuals possessing comprehensiveknowledge regarding drug court and otherproblem solving court activities in their state.Once NDCI received the completed surveyfrom the PPC, the data were compiled andforwarded back to the PPC and other surveyorsfor final confirmation to ensure a thorough and accurate snapshot of the number and typeof operational drug courts and other problemsolving court programs in the United States as of the concluding date of the survey.

Specific to this volume and in addition toreporting the type and aggregate number ofoperational drug courts and other problemsolving court programs throughout the UnitedStates, sections are dedicated to major drugcourt research scholarship since the release ofVolume I, as well as state-specific drug courtlegislation and the amount of each state’sappropriation supporting such court programs(Table V). This year’s report also provides keyinformation about drug court models,populations, and capacity, as well as the numberof confirmed drug-free babies born to activefemale drug court participants in 2004. Finally, anew feature found in this volume includes a listof national organizations serving as a resource tothe drug and other problem solving court field.

vi

Painting the Current Picture: A National Report Card on Drug Courts and Other Problem Solving Court Programs in the United States

Introduction

1

National Drug Court InstituteFi

gure

I

Tim

elin

eof

Dru

gCo

urts

and

Oth

erPr

oble

mSo

lvin

gCo

urts

inth

eU

nite

dSt

ates

1989

Heig

htof

crac

kco

cain

eep

idem

icin

the

U.S.

Firs

tdru

gco

urto

pens

inM

iam

i,Fl

orid

a

1990

Spen

ding

onco

rrect

ions

exce

eds

$26

billi

onna

tiona

lly

1991

5dr

ugco

urts

inex

iste

nce

Drug

offe

nses

acco

untf

or31

perc

ento

fall

conv

ictio

nsin

stat

eco

urts

Stat

epr

ison

cost

sfo

rlow

-le

veld

rug

offe

nder

sex

ceed

$1.2

billi

onan

nual

ly

1992

10dr

ugco

urts

inex

iste

nce

One-

third

ofw

omen

inm

ates

inst

ate

pris

ons

are

drug

offe

nder

s

Firs

twom

en’s

drug

cour

top

ens

inKa

lam

azoo

,M

ichi

gan

1993

19dr

ugco

urts

inex

iste

nce

Drug

offe

nder

sac

coun

tfor

60pe

rcen

toff

eder

alpr

ison

ers

Firs

tcom

mun

ityco

urt

open

sin

Man

hatta

n,N

ewYo

rk

1994

40dr

ugco

urts

inex

iste

nce

U.S.

tota

linc

arce

ratio

nfig

ure

tops

1m

illio

n

Cong

ress

pass

esVi

olen

tCr

ime

Cont

rola

ndLa

wEn

forc

emen

tAct

(the

Crim

eBi

ll)

Nat

iona

lAss

ocia

tion

ofDr

ugCo

urtP

rofe

ssio

nals

(NAD

CP)f

ound

ed

1995

75dr

ugco

urts

inex

iste

nce

Drug

Cour

tsPr

ogra

mOf

fice

(DCP

O)es

tabl

ishe

din

U.S.

Depa

rtmen

tof

Just

ice

NAD

CPho

lds

first

Nat

iona

lDr

ugCo

urtT

rain

ing

Conf

eren

cein

Las

Vega

s,N

evad

aFi

rstD

WIc

ourt

open

sin

Dona

Ana,

New

Mex

ico

Firs

tjuv

enile

drug

cour

top

ens

inVi

salia

,Cal

iforn

iaFi

rstf

amily

drug

cour

top

ens

inRe

no,N

evad

a

1996

139

drug

cour

tsin

exis

tenc

e

2ou

tof3

polic

ech

iefs

favo

rcou

rt-su

perv

ised

treat

men

tove

rpris

onfo

rdr

ugab

user

s

Firs

tSta

teDr

ugCo

urt

Asso

ciat

ion

inco

rpor

ated

inCa

lifor

nia

Firs

tNAD

CPM

ento

rDru

gCo

urte

stab

lishe

d

Firs

tfel

ony

dom

estic

viol

ence

cour

tope

nsin

Broo

klyn

,New

York

1997

230

drug

cour

tsin

exist

ence

5.7

mill

ion

peop

lein

the

U.S.

are

unde

rcrim

inal

just

ice

supe

rvis

ion

Cong

ress

ofSt

ate

Drug

Cour

tsof

NAD

CPho

lds

itsfir

stm

eetin

g

Firs

ttrib

alhe

alin

gto

wel

lnes

sco

urto

pens

inFo

rthal

l,Id

aho

NAD

CP,D

CPO,

and

the

Bure

auof

Just

ice

Assi

stan

ce(B

JA)r

elea

seDe

finin

gDr

ugCo

urts

:The

Key

Com

pone

nts

Firs

tmen

talh

ealth

cour

top

ens

inBr

owar

dCo

unty

,Fl

orid

a

1998

347

drug

cour

tsin

exis

tenc

e

Nat

iona

lDru

gCo

urt

Inst

itute

(NDC

I)fo

unde

d

Fede

ralf

undi

ngfo

rdru

gco

urts

reac

hes

$40

mill

ion

forF

Y19

99

1999

472

drug

cour

tsin

exis

tenc

e

U.S.

tota

linc

arce

ratio

nfig

ure

tops

2m

illio

n

10th

anni

vers

ary

ofth

efir

stdr

ugco

urt

Nat

iona

lDis

trict

Atto

rney

’sAs

soci

atio

npa

sses

reso

lutio

nin

supp

orto

fdr

ugco

urts

Nat

iona

lShe

riff’s

Asso

ciat

ion

pass

esre

solu

tion

insu

ppor

tof

drug

cour

ts

2000

665

drug

cour

tsin

exis

tenc

e

Firs

tJuv

enile

and

Fam

ilyDr

ugCo

urtT

rain

ing

Conf

eren

cehe

ldin

Phoe

nix,

Arizo

na

Amer

ican

BarA

ssoc

iatio

nre

leas

esPr

opos

edSt

anda

rd2.

77-P

roce

dure

sin

Drug

Trea

tmen

tCou

rts

Conf

eren

ceof

Chie

fJu

stic

es/C

onfe

renc

eof

Stat

eCo

urtA

dmin

istra

tors

pass

esre

solu

tion

insu

ppor

tofp

robl

emso

lvin

gco

urts

(CCJ

/COS

CA)

2001

847

drug

cour

tsin

exis

tenc

e

NAD

CPan

dth

eN

atat

iona

lCo

unci

lofJ

uven

ilean

dFa

mily

Cour

tJud

ges

rele

ase

Best

Stra

tegi

esfo

rJu

veni

leDr

ugCo

urts

2002

1,04

8dr

ugco

urts

inex

iste

nce

Firs

tcam

pus

drug

cour

top

ens

atCo

lora

doSt

ate

Univ

ersi

ty

DCPO

mer

ges

into

BJA

2003

1,18

3dr

ugco

urts

inex

iste

nce

1,66

7pr

oble

mso

lvin

gco

urts

inex

iste

nce

The

Nat

iona

lIns

titut

eof

Just

ice

repo

rtsdr

ugco

urt

reci

divi

smra

tes

are

aslo

was

16.4

perc

entn

atio

nwid

eon

eye

araf

terg

radu

atio

n

2004

1,62

1dr

ugco

urts

inex

iste

nce

2,55

8pr

oble

mso

lvin

gco

urts

inex

iste

nce

NAD

CPho

lds

10th

Annu

alDr

ugCo

urtT

rain

ing

Conf

eren

ce

CCJ/

COSC

Are

affir

ms

supp

ortf

orpr

oble

mso

lvin

gco

urts

bypa

ssin

gse

cond

join

tres

olut

ion

As of December 31, 2004, there were 1,621drug court operations in the United States(Table I). Remarkably, the growth does notappear to be slowing down. Currently, 215jurisdictional teams are formally planning adrug court (Pierre, 2005), and another 263jurisdictions submitted applications to the

Bureau of JusticeAssistance (BJA), U.S.Department of Justice in response to the 2005Drug Court DiscretionaryGrant solicitation(Mankin, 2005). In total, the number of

2


“Drug courts are one of the most significant criminal-justice system initiatives in the past20 years,” according to John Walters, Director of the Office of National Drug ControlPolicy (Walters, 2005). As demonstrated by the timeline on page 1, drug courts havegrown exponentially, quickly becoming a national phenomenon. Drug courts representthe coordinated efforts of the judiciary, prosecution, defense bar, probation, law

enforcement, treatment, mental health, social services, andchild protection services to actively and forcefully interveneand break the cycle of substance abuse, addiction, andcrime. As an alternative to less effective interventions, drugcourts quickly identify substance abusing offenders and

place them under strict court monitoring and community supervision, coupled witheffective, long-term treatment services (Huddleston, Freeman-Wilson, & Boone, 2004).

In this blending of systems, the drug court participant undergoes an intensive regimenof substance abuse and mental health treatment, case management, drug testing, andprobation supervision while reporting to regularly scheduled status hearings before ajudge with specialized expertise in the drug court model (Fox & Huddleston, 2003). In addition, drug courts may provide job skills training, family or group counseling, and many other life-skill enhancement services.

No other justice intervention brings to bear such an intensive response with suchdramatic results—results that have been well documented through the rigors of scientificanalysis. From the earliest evaluations, researchers have determined that drug courtsprovide “closer, more comprehensive supervision and much more frequent drug testingand monitoring during the program than other forms of community supervision. Moreimportantly, drug use and criminal behavior are substantially reduced while offendersare participating in drug court” (Belenko, 1998; 2001). To put it bluntly, “we know thatdrug courts outperform virtually all other strategies that have been attempted for drug-involved offenders…” (Marlowe, DeMatteo, & Festinger, 2003).

Drug Courts: A National Phenomenon

The number of operationaldrug courts has increasedby 37 percent in the pastyear alone.

There were 1,621 drugcourt operations in theUnited States (Table I).

3


operational drug courts has increased by 37 percent in the past year alone (Table II and Table III). It is clearthat drug court and drugcourt principles are

becoming institutionalized as a way of doingbusiness in the courts.

Now numbering 811, adult drug courtscomprise the majority of operational problem

solving court programs in the United States (Table III and Figure II).However, unlike the firstgeneration of adult drugcourt programs, which

tended to be diversionary or pre-plea models,69 percent of adult drug courts today have a

probationary or post plea condition,suggesting that drug courts are working moreoften with a higher-risk offender population.This trend seems quite appropriate in light ofresearch conducted by the Treatment ResearchInstitute at the Universityof Pennsylvania, whichconcluded that high-riskclients who have moreserious antisocialpropensities or drug-usehistories performedsubstantially better indrug court when they were required to attendfrequent status hearings before the judge(Marlowe, Festinger, & Lee, 2004).

The increase in probationary or post-plea drugcourts can also be explained by the fact thatincreasing numbers of drug courts are treatingtarget populations that require a post-convictionprobationary sentence. This is especially truefor drug courts that accept impaired drivers or offenders who are being released from jail or prison custody. Combined, new DWI andreentry drug courts represent almost a 200percent percent increase from December, 2003.

Table I

Operational Drug Court Programs in the United States

Year To Date3

1989 1

1990 1

1991 5

1992 10

1993 19

1994 40

1995 75

1996 139

1997 230

1998 347

1999 472

2000 665

2001 847

2002 1,048

2003 1,183

2004 1,6214

Table II

Drug Court Types by Year

12/31/03 12/31/04

Adult: 666 811

Juvenile: 268 357

Family: 112 153

DWI: 42 176

Reentry: 42 68

Tribal: 52 54

Campus: 1 1

Total 1,183 1,621

More than 16,200participants graduatedfrom drug court in 2004.

69 percent of adult drugcourts today have a probationary or post plea condition.

Combined, new DWI and reentry drug courtsrepresent almost a 200 percent increasefrom December, 2003.

Tabl

eIII

Num

ber

&Ty

peof

Ope

rati

onal

Dru

gCo

urt

Prog

ram

sin

the

Uni

ted

Stat

es(D

ecem

ber

2004

)4

Alab

ama

1815

150

11

10

00

00

0

Alas

ka12

50

00

11

53

20

00

Arizo

na39

86

212

313

33

00

00

Arka

nsas

2625

232

10

00

00

00

0

Calif

orni

a15

891

578

3922

04

40

02

0

Colo

rado

188

00

61

20

00

10

0

Conn

ectic

ut3

33

00

00

00

00

00

Dela

war

e14

93

63

00

00

00

20

D.C.

52

11

11

01

01

00

0

Flor

ida

9042

2427

2817

01

10

02

0

Geor

gia

2918

414

61

04

40

00

0

Guam

21

01

10

00

00

00

0

Haw

aii

104

44

41

00

00

01

0

Idah

o40

2222

010

11

62

40

00

Illin

ois

3817

00

30

01

10

017

0

Indi

ana

1812

111

40

01

01

01

0

Iow

a11

6–

–3

10

00

00

10

Kans

as4

10

12

01

00

00

00

Kent

ucky

4330

3030

112

00

00

00

0

Loui

sian

a39

2423

115

00

00

00

00

Mai

ne14

55

06

21

00

00

00

Mar

ylan

d18

77

09

10

00

00

10

Mas

sach

uset

ts30

1717

05

00

10

10

70

Mic

higa

n67

25–

–14

52

2121

––

–0

Min

neso

ta7

54

52

00

00

00

00

Mis

siss

ippi

129

82

20

01

01

00

0

Mis

sour

i12

453

3523

1810

019

217

024

0

Mon

tana

132

02

24

41

01

00

0

Neb

rask

a9

44

14

00

11

00

00

Nev

ada

246

60

43

45

50

02

0

New

Ham

pshi

re7

00

05

00

22

00

00

New

Jers

ey20

1515

04

10

00

00

00

New

Mex

ico

336

66

133

56

60

00

0

New

York

165

7979

05

280

510

510

11

Nor

thCa

rolin

a25

1514

55

21

22

00

00

Nor

thDa

kota

72

20

30

20

00

00

0

Ohio

6127

––

1912

03

30

00

0

Okla

hom

a47

3131

010

23

11

00

00

Oreg

on28

1616

166

20

42

20

00

Penn

sylv

ania

158

53

30

02

20

02

0

Puer

toRi

co**

77

––

––

0–

––

––

0

Rhod

eIs

land

71

01

41

00

00

01

0

Sout

hCa

rolin

a27

120

012

30

––

––

–0

Sout

hDa

kota

40

00

00

40

00

00

0

Tenn

esse

e53

3635

113

10

33

00

00

Texa

s41

2417

126

31

30

30

40

Utah

2512

58

56

02

02

00

0

Verm

ont

32

11

01

00

00

00

0

Virg

inIs

land

s0

00

00

00

00

00

00

Virg

inia

2614

140

83

01

10

00

0

Was

hing

ton

3513

112

106

51

10

00

0

Wes

tVirg

inia

10

00

10

00

00

00

0

Wis

cons

in6

33

21

02

00

00

00

Wyo

min

g43

1212

68

21

2020

00

00

Tota

ls1,

621

811

558

214

357

153

5417

690

861

681

Tota

lDru

gCourts

AdultPost

-Plea

Pre-P

leaJu

venile

Fam

ilyTr

ibal*

DWI

Desig

nated

DWI

Hybrid

DWI

Campus Ree

ntryDru

gCourt

Feder

alJu

dicial

Distric

t

Tota

l Dru

gCourts

AdultPost-P

leaPre

-Plea

Juve

nileFa

mily

Trib

al*

DWI

Desig

nated

DWI

Hybrid

DWICam

pus

Reentry

Drug

Courts

Feder

alJu

dicial

Distric

t

*200

4tri

bald

ata

was

deriv

edfro

mth

eAm

erica

nUn

ivers

ityDr

ugCo

urtC

lear

ingh

ouse

and

Tech

nica

lAss

istan

cePr

ojec

t.(2

004,

Nov

embe

r9).

Sum

mar

yof

drug

cour

tact

ivity

byst

ate

and

coun

ty.W

ashi

ngto

n,DC

:Aut

hor.

5


gure

II

Tota

lof

1,62

1O

pera

tion

alD

rug

Cour

tsin

the

Uni

ted

Stat

es(D

ecem

ber

2004

)5

WA 35

OR

28

CA 158

NV

24

ID 40

MT

13

WY

43

UT

25

AZ

39N

M 33

CO 18

ND 7

SD 4 NE 9

KS 4 OK

4 7

MN 7

WI

6M

I67

ME

14

NH 7

MA

30

CT3

RI

7

VT 3

NJ

20

DE

14

MD

18

DC 5

NY

165

PA 15

WV 1

VA 26 NC

25SC 27

IL 38IN 18

OH 61

KY

43

TN53

IA 11

MO

124

AR

26 LA 39

MS

12A

L18

GA

29

FL 90H

I10

AK 12

TX 41

New

Engl

and

Mid

-Atla

ntic

VI 0

PR 7

GU 2

6


Figure III

Operational Drug Court Programs in the United States

1,621 drug courts: a 37 percent increase from one year ago!

1,621 drug courts: a 37 percent increase from one year ago!

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Year

Nu

mb

ero

fC

ou

rts

Drug Court CapacityCertainly such an increase in drug courtssuggests that the need for real solutions to

issues such as substanceabuse, child abuse andneglect, and driving underthe influence is being met.In fact, more than 70,000drug court clients are beingserved at any given time,

throughout the United States and its territories.7

In addition, more than 16,200 participantsgraduated from drug court in 2004.8 Given that only approximately two-thirds of thejurisdictions provided usable data on theseitems, the actual number of clients being servedby drug courts nationally is certainly higher.

Implementing new drug courts is undoubtedlyone way to expand capacity and reach more

people in need. However, starting new courtsis only part of the answer. To truly reduce agiven community’s crime and substance abuseproblem, each drug court may have to expandits capacity to achieve its full impact.

Many drug courts throughout the nation haveovercome capacity barriers by expanding their

7


Table IV

Drug Court Systems: Taking the Model To Scale

These four cities together represent more than8,000 active drug court participants in the U.S.

Minneapolis, MN – 3,600

Ft. Lauderdale, FL – 2,600

Santa Clara, CA – 1,300

Buffalo, NY – 650

Figure IV

Survey Results: Top Reasons Limiting Statewide Drug Court Capacity

1. Lack of Funding 72%

2. Other 9%

3. Limited Treatment Availability 6%

4. Lack of Political Will 6%

5. Limited Supervision Availability 4%

6. Judicial Resistance/Apathy 2%

7. No Data 2%

1

2

3

4

56 7

Respondents were queried about the reasonsthat limited increasing drug court capacity intheir state. While the graph on the rightreveals that many states’ opinions arehomogeneous, some examples from the“Other” category are given below:

• “Inefficient/ineffective screeningmechanisms are limiting factors andindividual policies of various [team members’organizations] may limit participation.”

• “Judicial time constraints.”

• “Lack of experience.”

More than 70,000 drug courtclients are being served atany given time throughoutthe United States.

eligibility criteria, accepting larger numbers of offenders, or in some cases serving alloffenders who have a substance abuse-relatedproblem. As Table IV demonstrates, several of these drug courts have taken the model “to scale” to serve significant numbers of drug offenders in their communities.

Such drug courts have successfully overcomethe typical barriers that limit program

population expansion.These barriers commonlyinclude a lack of sufficientfunding, limited availabilityof treatment or supervisoryservices, or insufficientpolitical will.

Other courts, however, have experiencedtrouble even reaching full capacity onceoperational. This is oftentimes due to limitingfactors outside the control of the court.Generally such factors include limited orabsent key services necessary to serve theneeds of the target population of participants.With two-thirds of states reporting, currentdrug court capacity rests at 87 percent.

When surveyed about the biggestimpediments to increasing their drug courtcapacity, 72 percent of respondingjurisdictions reported that a lack of fundingwas their biggest issue (Figure IV).

Drug Courts: New Evidence In February 2005, the U.S. GovernmentAccountability Office (GAO) published anextensive review of drug court research, whichconcluded that most adult drug courtprograms evidenced:• Lower rearrest and conviction rates for drug

court participants than comparison groupmembers.

• Fewer recidivism events for drug courtparticipants than comparison group members.

• Recidivism reductions for participants whohad committed various categories of offenses.

• Recidivism reductions that were maintainedfor substantial intervals of time after theparticipants had completed the drug courtprogram.

• Positive cost/benefit/ratio for the drug courtparticipants.

GAO also provided some opportunities foradvancement in the drug court field. Implicitin the GAO’s analysis is a mandate to improvethe quality of local drug court research tosuch levels that a more exhaustive nationalexamination can be performed. Echoing anearlier commentary from online substanceabuse policy organization, JOIN Together,GAO concluded that while the review mayhave established theefficacy of drug courts,exactly what about drugcourts work is still opento question (Marlowe,2004). Having discovereda successful model forrebuilding lives, theresearch community must fine-tune the approach through investigation of its constituent components. “To the extentthat research can help discern best practices fordrug courts, the models for effective programscan be enhanced” (GAO, 2005).

Drug-Free Babies Alcohol consumption during pregnancy is theleading known cause of birth defects. FetalAlcohol Spectrum Disorders (FASD) mayinclude stunted growth, facial deformities,small head circumference, mental retardation,and behavior abnormalities (e.g., MerckResearch Laboratory, 2005). Consumption ofillicit drugs during pregnancy, particularlycocaine and opioids, is highly associated withcomplications during delivery and can lead to serious consequences for the developingfetus or newborn (e.g., Lester et al., 2003). In addition to increasing the risk of infectionsthat can be transmitted from mother to fetus,

8


72 percent of respondingjurisdictions reportedthat a lack of fundingwas their biggest issue.

In most of theevaluations reviewed [bythe GAO], adult drugcourt programs led tostatistically significantreductions in recidivism.

such as hepatitis or sexually transmitteddiseases, most illicit drugs readily cross theplacenta and can constrict blood flow andoxygen supply to the fetus. Newborns may

be physiologicallyaddicted to drugs andmay suffer withdrawalsymptoms during theirearliest hours or daysof life (e.g., Vidaeff &Mastrobattista, 2003).

Such newborns tend to interact less withother people, may be hyperactive, trembleuncontrollably, or exhibit learning deficits thatcan continue through 5 years of age or later.Behavioral and learning problems may firstemerge in children who were exposed tocannabis in utero when they are over 4 yearsold (e.g., Merck Research Laboratory, 2005).

The added costs to society of caring for drug-exposed babies can be exceptional. Costestimates vary considerably depending uponthe level of care the child receives and maynot always be proportional to the degree ofdamage suffered. Speaking generally, theadditional medical costs associated with thedelivery of a drug-exposed baby are estimatedto range from approximately $1,500 to $25,000per day (e.g., Cooper, 2004). Sadly, seriouslydrug-exposed newborns may have shortenedlife expectancies, which paradoxically couldcost society proportionately less in medicalexpenses (but with an incalculably greater costin human tragedy). Neonatal intensive careexpenses can range from $25,000 to $35,000for the care of low birth-weight newborns andmay reach $250,000 over the course of the firstyear of life (Office of Justice Programs, 1997).Continuous care expenses through the age of18 years for the developmentally delayed childcan be as high as $750,000 (Janovsky &Kalotra, 2003).

In the Painting the Current Picture survey, 60percent of respondents (32 states) providedusable data on confirmed births of drug-freebabies to their drug court participants. Duringthe preceding 12 months, a total of 460 drug-free babies were reported to have been bornto active female drug court clients. Respondentswere instructed that thisnumber should refer only tobirths from active femaleparticipants in theirprograms; therefore, it doesnot include drug-freechildren born to maleparticipants or to programgraduates. As such, it couldsubstantially underestimatethe impact of drug courtsand other problem solving courts on all drug-freedeliveries. Especially given a 60 percent responserate, the actual number of drug-free deliveriescan be expected to be appreciably higher.9

Problem Solving Courts: EmergingPermutationsIn 2004, the Conference of Chief Justices (CCJ)and the Conference of State CourtAdministrators (COSCA) passed a newnational joint resolution committing all 50State Chief Justices and State CourtAdministrators to “take steps, nationally andlocally, to expand and better integrate theprinciples and methods of well-functioning drugcourts into ongoing court operations.” Amongother strongly positive statements, thenational CCJ/COSCA joint resolution declaredthat “drug court and problem solving courtprinciples and methods have demonstratedgreat success in addressing certain complexsocial problems, such as recidivism, that arenot effectively addressed by the traditionallegal process” (CCJ & COSCA, 2004).10

9


During 2004, a total of460 drug-free babieswere born to activefemale drug court clients.

“Drug court and problemsolving court principlesand methods havedemonstrated greatsuccess in addressingcertain complex socialproblems…” (CCJ & COSCA, 2004).

The publication Defining Drug Courts: The KeyComponents (NADCP, 1997) is the point oforigin for those who would understand whatCCJ/COSCA refers to as the “principles andmethods of well functioning [adult] drugcourts. Although not all problem solving court

models may adhere to each of the ten KeyComponents, the parentage of most problemsolving court models can be traced to theseprinciples and practices (Figure V).

As the literature on the drug court modelcontinues to demonstrate its effectiveness on the offender and the justice system atlarge, many jurisdictions have implemented a number of problem solving courts designedto address other problems that emerge in thetraditional court system. Often modeled afterdrug courts, problem solving courts seek toaddress social issues such as mental illness,homelessness, domestic violence, prostitution,parole violation, quality of life, and communityreentry from custody.11 Recently, several newproblem solving courts have emerged,expanding the model tonew populations; two suchpermutations are truancycourts and gamblingcourts. Currently, there are 937 problem solvingcourts other than drug courts in operation.Taken together, there are 2,558 total problemsolving courts in the U.S.

Definitions of ProblemSolving Courts

Using the scientific and scholastic literatureavailable, as well as interviews with key courtprofessionals and scholars, NDCI presents the definitive descriptions for many of theproblem solving courts discussed throughoutthis publication.

• Adult Drug Court: A specially designed courtcalendar or docket, the purposes of which are to achieve a reduction in recidivism andsubstance abuse among nonviolent substanceabusing offenders and to increase theoffender’s likelihood of successful rehabilitationthrough early, continuous, and intense

10


Figure V

Keeping the Fidelity of the Drug Court Model

Defining Drug Courts: The Key Components

1. Drug courts integrate alcohol and other drug

treatment services with justice system case

processing.

2. Using a non-adversarial 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 is monitored by frequent alcohol

and other 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. Continuing interdisciplinary education promotes

effective drug court planning, implementation,

and operations.

10. Forging partnerships among drug courts, public

agencies, and community-based organizations

generates local support and enhances drug

court program effectiveness.

(NADCP, 1997).

There are 2,558 totalproblem solving courts in the U.S.

judicially supervised treatment, mandatoryperiodic drug testing, community supervisionand use of appropriate sanctions, and otherrehabilitation services (BJA, 2003).

• Campus Drug Courts: (“Back on TRAC”—Treatment, Responsibility, and Accountabilityon Campus) are quasi-judicial drug courtprograms, within the construct of a universitydisciplinary process, that focus on studentswith substance abuse-related disciplinary casesthat would otherwise result in expulsion fromcollege. Similar to traditional drug courts,campus drug courts provide structuredaccountability while simultaneouslyrehabilitating the student. The overarchinggoal of the campus drug court is to decreasesubstance abuse involvement in a group notnormally reached by the traditionalinterventions on campus. This is achievedthrough a collaborative systems modeldesigned to encourage the student to make thenecessary lifestyle changes that will contributeto their success, not only as a student, but alsoin their lives after they graduate from school(Asmus, 2002).

• Community Court: Community courts bringthe court and community closer by locating the court within the communitywhere “quality of life crimes” are committed(e.g., petty theft, turnstile jumping, andvandalism). With community boards and thelocal police as partners, community courtshave the bifurcated goal of addressing theproblems of defendants appearing before thecourt, while using the leverage of the court toencourage offenders to “give back” to thecommunity in compensation for damage theyand others have caused (Lee, 2000).

• Domestic Violence Court: A felony domesticviolence court is designed to addresstraditional problems of domestic violence,such as low reports, withdrawn charges,threats to victim, lack of defendantaccountability, and high recidivism, by intensejudicial scrutiny of the defendant and close

cooperation between the judiciary and socialservices. A permanent judge works with theprosecution, assigned victim advocates, socialservices, and the defense to: ensure physicalseparation between the victim and all forms ofintimidation from the defendant or his or herfamily throughout the entirety of the judicialprocess; provide the victim with the housingand job training he or she needs to begin anindependent existence from the offender(Mazur and Aldrich, 2003); and continuouslymonitor the defendant in terms of compliancewith protective orders and substance abusetreatment (Winick, 2000). Additionally, a casemanager ascertains the victim’s needs andmonitors cooperation by the defendant; andclose collaboration with defense counselensures compliance with due processsafeguards and protects the defendant’s rights.

Variants include the misdemeanor domesticviolence court, which handles larger volumesof cases and is designed to combat theprogressive nature of the crime to preemptlater felonies, and the integrated domesticviolence court in which a single judge handlesall judicial aspects relating to one family,including criminal cases, protective orders,custody, visitation, and even divorce (Mazurand Aldrich, 2003).

• DWI Court: A DWI court is a distinct courtsystem dedicated to changing the behavior ofthe alcohol/drug dependent offender arrestedfor Driving While Impaired (DWI). The goalof the DWI court is to protect public safety by using the drug court model to address theroot cause of impaired driving: alcohol andother substance abuse. Variants of DWI courtsinclude drug courts that also take DWIoffenders, which are commonly referred to as “hybrid” DWI courts or DWI/drug courts.

The DWI court utilizes all criminal justicestakeholders (prosecutors, defense attorneys,probation, law enforcement, and others) alongwith alcohol or drug treatment professionals.This group of professionals comprises a “DWI

11


NEW

NEW

Court Team,” and uses a cooperative approachto systematically change participant behavior.This approach includes identification andreferral of participants early in the legalprocess to a full continuum of drug or alcoholtreatment and other rehabilitative services.Compliance with treatment and other court-mandated requirements is verified by frequentalcohol/drug testing, close communitysupervision, and interaction with the judge innon-adversarial court review hearings. Duringthese review hearings, the judge employs ascience-based response to participantcompliance (or non-compliance) in an effortto further the team’s goal to encourage pro-social, sober behaviors that will prevent DWIrecidivism (Loeffler & Huddleston, 2003).

• Family Dependency Treatment Court: Familydependency treatment court is a juvenile orfamily court docket of which selected abuse,neglect, and dependency cases are identifiedwhere parental substance abuse is a primaryfactor. Judges, attorneys, child protectionservices, and treatment and other social andpublic health personnel unite with the goal of providing safe, nurturing, and permanenthomes for children while simultaneouslyproviding parents the necessary support and services to become drug and alcoholabstinent. Family dependency treatmentcourts aid parents in regaining control of their lives, ensure the provision of necessaryservices for children, and promote long termstabilized recovery to enhance the possibilityof family reunification within mandatory legaltimeframes (Wheeler & Siegerist, 2003).

• Gambling Court: Operating under the sameprotocols and guidelines utilized within thedrug court model, gambling courts intervenein a therapeutic fashion as a result of pendingcriminal charges with those individuals whoare suffering from a pathological orcompulsive gambling disorder. Participantsenroll in a contract-based, judiciallysupervised gambling recovery program and

are exposed to an array of services includingGamblers Anonymous (GA), extensivepsychotherapeutic intervention, debtcounseling, group and one-on-one counselingand, if necessary, due to the high rates of co-morbidity, drug or alcohol treatment within adrug court setting. Participation by familymembers or domestic partners is encouragedthrough direct participation in counselingwith offenders and the availability of supportprograms such as Gamblers Anonymous (GA).Participants are subject to the same reportingand court response components as drug courtparticipants (Farrell, 2005).

• Gun Court: Developed largely from theintensive supervision precepts espoused by thedrug court model, gun courts are a response to the increasing problem of weapons offenses.Defendants charged with illegal possession of a firearm are assigned to a special docket for prompt adjudication and placed underintensive supervision by a judge, case manager,and probation for immediate response toviolation of court orders and recidivists insteadof incarceration. Conditions of the programinclude gun surrender and continued non-possession of firearms with targeted randomhome visits to ensure compliance; randomdrug testing; drug and alcohol treatment, as necessary; conflict resolution and angermanagement; and a mandatory gun educationprogram. Defendants are required to makeweekly contact with case manager and attendperiodic court hearings to monitor progress(Presenza, 2005).

• Juvenile Drug Court: A juvenile drug court is a docket within a juvenile court to whichselected delinquency cases, and in someinstances, status offenders, are referred forhandling by a designated judge. The youthreferred to this docket are identified as havingproblems with alcohol and/or other drugs.The juvenile drug court judge maintains closeoversight of each case through regular statushearings with the parties involved. The judge

12


both leads and works as a member of a teamthat comprises representatives from treatment,juvenile justice, social and mental healthservices, school and vocational trainingprograms, law enforcement, probation, theprosecution, and the defense. Over the courseof a year or more, the team meets frequently(often weekly), determining how best toaddress the substance abuse and relatedproblems of the youth and his or her familythat have brought the youth into contact withthe justice system (BJA, 2003).

• Mental Health Court: Modeled after drugcourts and developed in response to theoverrepresentation of people with mentalillness in the criminal justice system, mentalhealth courts divert select defendants withmental illness into judicially supervised,community-based treatment. Currently, allmental health courts are voluntary.Defendants are invited to participate in themental health court following a specializedscreening and assessment, and they maychoose to decline participation. For thosewho agree to the terms and conditions ofcommunity-based supervision, a team ofcourt staff, social services, and mental healthprofessionals works together to developtreatment plans and supervise participants inthe community. Participants typically appearat regular status hearings where incentives areoffered to reward adherence to courtconditions, sanctions for non-adherence arehanded down, and treatment plans and otherconditions are periodically reviewed forappropriateness. Completion (sometimescalled graduation) is defined according tospecific criteria (Council of StateGovernments, 2005).

• Reentry Drug Court: Reentry drug courtsutilize the drug court model, as defined inThe Key Components, to facilitate thereintegration of drug-involved offenders intocommunities upon their release from local orstate correctional facilities. These are distinct

from "reentry courts," which do not utilize thedrug court model, but work with a similarpopulation. The offender is involved inregular judicial monitoring, intensivetreatment, community supervision, andregular drug testing. Reentry drug courtparticipants are provided with specializedancillary services needed for successfulreentry into the community (Tauber &Huddleston, 1999).

• Teen Court: Teen court (also called peercourt or youth court) is a program run byteens for teens, usually in conjunction withthe offender’s school. The underlyingphilosophy of these programs is that positivepeer pressure will help youths be less likely toreoffend and that youths are more receptive toconsequences handed down from their peersthan those given by adults. Therefore, youthswho commit minor offenses such as pettytheft, possession of alcohol, disorderlyconduct, or status offenses receiveconsequences for their behavior not from thejuvenile court system but from a “jury” oftheir peers in teen court. Law enforcementofficers, probation officers, teachers, andothers may refer youths to these voluntaryprograms. To participate, youths must admitto having committed the offense and the teenjuries deliberate primarily on dispositionalissues, handing down “sentences” rangingfrom community service to apologies, juryduty, essays, and educational workshops. Inmost situations, successful completion of theprogram means that the youth will not have ajuvenile record or, in the case of a schoolreferral, the juvenile will avoid schoolsuspension or expulsion (Vickers, 2004).

Tribal Healing to Wellness Court: A TribalHealing to Wellness Court is not simply atribal court that handles alcohol or other drugabuse cases. It is, rather, a component of thetribal justice system that incorporates andadapts the wellness court concept to meet thespecific substance abuse needs of each tribal

13


NEW

community. It therefore provides anopportunity for each Native community toaddress the devastation of alcohol or otherdrug abuse by establishing more structure anda higher level of accountability for these casesand offenders through a system ofcomprehensive supervision, drug testing,treatment services, immediate sanctions andincentives, team-based case management, and community support (Tribal Law & PolicyInstitute, 2003). This non-adversarialcommunity-based system encompassestraditional Native problem-solving methodsand restores the person to their rightful placeas a contributing member of the tribalcommunity. Tribal Healing to WellnessCourts utilize the unique strengths andhistory of each tribe and realigns existingresources available to the community in anatmosphere of communication, cooperation,collaboration and healing (Lovell, 2005).

• Truancy Court: Rather than employing thetraditional punitive approach to truancy,truancy courts are designed to assist a child inovercoming the underlying causes of truancyin his or her life by reinforcing educationthrough efforts from the school, courts, mentalhealth providers, families, and the community.Guidance counselors submit reports on thechild’s weekly progress throughout the schoolyear, which the court uses to enable specialtesting, counseling, or other necessary servicesas required. Truancy court is often held on theschool grounds and results in the ultimatedismissal of truancy petitions if the child canbe helped to attend school regularly (NationalTruancy Prevention Association, 2005).

Drug Court Legislation and State Appropriations

Variations in individual state governmentsdetermine whether or not enabling orauthorizing legislation is necessary for drugcourt implementation and operation. Somestates have passed legislation specificallydefining what drug courts are or specifyingcertain critical elements of the drug courtstructure (for example, defining eligibilitycriteria). Other states have passed legislationto create funding mechanisms for drug courts,such as special fines, fees, or assessments.However, many states with thriving drugcourt programs have not seen a need to passlegislation to implement, define, or fund theirdrug court programs.

“Appropriations” for drug court, as presentedin Table V, represent earmarked funds in astate’s budget either from drug court-specificlegislation or from other statutoryappropriations. “Appropriations” does notinclude local governmental or privatefunding, federally funded discretionary orformula awards, block grants, or client fees,and may not include funds used for drugcourts from the budgets of state agencies likecorrections, substance abuse treatment, oradministrative offices of the courts.

14


15


Table V

Drug Court Legislation & State Appropriations

State Bill Number None AppropriationsAlabama XAlaska HB 172 (2001); HB 4 (2002); HB 451 (2004); HB 342 (2004) $486,900Arizona (Pending) ARS §13-3422; 42-6109Arkansas Act 1266 2003 $884,000California Health & Safety Code 11970.1-11970.4 $21 millionColorado CRS 16-11-214 18-1.3-103(5) $1,057,341Connecticut HB6137 $1,113,477Delaware XDistrict of Columbia XFlorida FS 397.334 $22,480,263Georgia X $450,000Guam Bill No. PL26-125 $214,000Hawaii X $2,614,571Idaho Chapter 56, Title 19, Idaho Code $2,660,000Illinois Adult- 730 ILCS 1661; JV- 705 ILCS 4101; Reentry- SB 2654Indiana IC 12-23-14.5, (enacted July 1, 2002, amended July 1, 2004)Iowa XKansas X $200,000-300,000Kentucky X $2,286,700Louisiana LSA-RS 13:5301 et seq. $11,829,890Maine L.D. 2014 Sec. 1. 4MRSA 421, 422, 423 Chapter 8 $1,850,000Maryland X $1 millionMassachusetts XMichigan SB 998, PA 224 $2,535,000Minnesota X $1.4 millionMississippi MSCODE 9-23-1 through 9-23-23; (Pending) Reg. Session SB2892 $4.5 millionMissouri Section 478.001-478.009 RSMo $1.6 millionMontana XNebraska Bill No. LB454Nevada Assembly Bill 29 $6,326,241New Hampshire XNew Jersey L.2001, C. 243 $27 millionNew Mexico X $5.3 millionNew York X $9.4 millionNorth Carolina NC §Chapter 7A-791 $1,062,476.75North Dakota X $60,000Ohio XOklahoma Title 22 Section 471 et seq. $3,960,000Oregon HB 3363Pennsylvania XPuerto Rico XRhode Island X $1,775,000South Carolina Session 114 H3632 $300,000South Dakota XTennessee TCA 16-22-101 to 113 Drug Court Treatment Act of 2003 $80,000Texas H.B.1287 (2001); H.B. 2668 (2003) $750,000Utah Bill S.B. 281, 200 General Session $2,025,180Vermont Bill No. 128 $300,000Virgin Islands XVirginia House Bill 1430 2004 General Assembly $520,000Washington RCW 2.28.170 Drug courts $5.3 millionWest Virginia WV Code 61-11-22(f)(1)-(5)Wisconsin XWyoming Wyoming State Ann. Sections 5-10-101 et seq. $3.2 million

aJu

veni

lese

xof

fend

erco

urt

bPr

opos

ition

36Co

urts

:Cou

rtsfu

nded

unde

raCA

initi

ativ

eth

atsu

bstit

ute

drug

treat

men

tfor

inca

rcer

atio

nfo

rfirs

tand

seco

ndtim

eno

n-vi

olen

toffe

nder

s.Si

nce

thes

eco

urts

dono

tfol

low

the

drug

cour

tmod

el,t

hey

cann

otbe

incl

uded

inth

edr

ugco

urtc

ount

;fur

ther

mor

e,th

eyar

elo

cate

don

lyin

CA,s

oth

eydo

notm

erit

cros

s-st

ate

cons

ider

atio

n,he

nce

they

are

clas

sifie

das

“oth

er”.

cIn

tegr

ated

fam

ilyco

urt

dSt

atew

ide

truan

cyco

urt

eGa

mbl

ing

cour

t*2

004

Puer

toRi

coda

taw

asde

rived

from

the

Amer

ican

Unive

rsity

Drug

Cour

tCle

arin

ghou

sean

dTe

chni

calA

ssist

ance

Proj

ect.

(200

4,N

ovem

ber9

).Su

mm

ary

ofdr

ugco

urta

ctivi

tyby

stat

ean

dco

unty

.Was

hing

ton,

DC:A

utho

r.

Tabl

eV

I

Num

ber

&Ty

peof

Ope

rati

onal

Prob

lem

Solv

ing

Cour

tPr

ogra

ms

inth

eU

nite

dSt

ates

(Dec

embe

r20

04)12

Alab

ama

330

10

52

250

00

00

0Al

aska

170

00

215

00

00

00

0Ar

izona

580

00

540

40

00

44

01a

Arka

nsas

00

00

00

00

00

00

0Ca

lifor

nia

107

00

415

1725

00

61

00

39b

Colo

rado

41

01

10

00

00

00

01c

Conn

ectic

ut7

00

20

05

00

00

00

Dela

war

e5

30

01

00

00

00

00

1d

D.C.

40

01

01

11

00

00

0Fl

orid

a60

––

–1

59–

––

––

––

Geor

gia

70

01

42

00

00

00

0Gu

am7

00

00

11

01

01

12

Haw

aii

30

00

11

10

00

00

0Id

aho

120

00

37

10

00

10

0Ill

inoi

s3

00

01

20

00

00

00

Indi

ana

271

01

223

00

00

00

0Io

wa

71

00

32

10

00

00

0Ka

nsas

20

00

0–

20

00

00

0Ke

ntuc

ky2

00

00

10

00

01

00

Loui

sian

a4

20

01

01

00

00

00

Mai

ne5

00

00

05

00

00

00

Mar

ylan

d10

10

00

90

00

00

00

Mas

sach

uset

ts0

00

00

00

00

00

00

Mic

higa

n0

––

––

––

––

––

––

Min

neso

ta10

20

01

52

00

00

00

Mis

siss

ippi

30

00

03

00

00

00

0M

isso

uri

550

00

514

01

00

341

0M

onta

na1

00

01

00

00

00

00

Neb

rask

a0

00

00

00

00

00

00

Nev

ada

60

00

22

00

00

11

0N

ewHa

mps

hire

10

00

01

00

00

00

0N

ewJe

rsey

00

00

00

00

00

00

0N

ewM

exic

o13

00

02

44

00

01

20

New

York

250

05

40

150

00

00

01e

Nor

thCa

rolin

a12

90

01

345

211

40

635

13N

orth

Dako

ta3

00

00

30

00

00

00

Ohio

293

00

240

10

00

01

0Ok

laho

ma

20

00

20

00

00

00

0Or

egon

190

02

54

60

00

00

2Pe

nnsy

lvan

ia26

00

12

01

00

022

00

Puer

toRi

co*

0–

––

––

––

––

––

–Rh

ode

Isla

nd60

00

00

01

00

059

00

Sout

hCa

rolin

a13

––

23

–8

––

––

––

Sout

hDa

kota

40

00

04

00

–0

00

0Te

nnes

see

80

00

16

10

00

00

0Te

xas

95–

–2

284

7–

––

––

–Ut

ah6

20

02

01

10

00

00

Verm

ont

10

00

10

00

00

00

0Vi

rgin

Isla

nds

00

00

00

00

00

00

0Vi

rgin

ia1

00

01

00

00

00

00

Was

hing

ton

00

00

00

00

00

00

0W

estV

irgin

ia8

00

05

30

00

00

00

Wis

cons

in35

01

00

331

00

00

00

Wyo

min

g0

00

00

00

00

00

00

Tota

ls93

716

223

111

393

141

45

613

145

1743

Other

Problem

Solving

Courts

Reentry

Court

GunCom

munity M

enta

lHea

lth

Teen

CourtsDom

estic

Violen

ce

Prost

itutio

nPar

oleVio

latio

n

Homele

ss Truan

cyChild

Support

Inte

grate

dTr

eatm

ent

Other

Other

Problem

Solving

CourtsRee

ntryCourtGun

Comm

unityM

enta

l Hea

lthTeen

Courts

Domes

ticVio

lence

Prost

itutio

n

Parole

Violat

ionHom

eless

Truan

cyChild

Support

Inte

grate

dTr

eatm

ent

Other

17


gure

VI

Tota

lof

2,55

8O

pera

tion

alPr

oble

mSo

lvin

gCo

urts

inth

eU

nite

dSt

ates

(Dec

embe

r20

04)13

WA

035

OR

1947

CA10

726

5

NV

630

ID12

52

MT

114 W

Y0

43

UT

631

AZ

5897

NM

1346

C O 422

ND

310

■Pr

oble

mSo

lving

Cour

ts■

Tota

lDru

gCo

urts

and

Prob

lem

Solvi

ngCo

urts

SD 48

NE

09 K

S2

6 OK

249

MN

10 17W

I35

41M

I0

67

ME

519

NH

18

MA

030

CT7

10

RI

6067

VT 14

NJ 0 20

DE 5 19

MD

1028

DC

49

NY

2519

0

PA26

41

WV

89

VA 127

NC

129

154

SC13

40

IL 3 41

IN 27 45

OH

2990

KY

245

TN8

61

IA 718 M

O55

179

AR

026

LA 4 43

MS 3 15

AL

33 51

GA 7 36

FL 60 150

HI

313

AK

1729

TX95

136

New

Engl

and

Mid

-Atla

ntic

VI 00

PR

07

GU

79

Table VII

Primary State Points of Contact and Survey Respondants

State Name Phone EmailAlabama Foster Cook 205-917-3784 [email protected] Robyn Johnson 907-264-8250 [email protected] Theresa Barrett 602-542-9364 [email protected] John Millar 501-682-9400 [email protected] Nancy Taylor 415-865-7607 [email protected] Dee Colombini 970-498-5872 [email protected] Connecticut Maureen Derbacher 203-789-6404 [email protected] Susan McLaughlin 302-577-2711 [email protected] District of Columbia Eric Holder 202-220-5528 [email protected] Florida Michael McElroy 850-414-1507 [email protected] Michael Kendrick 404-463-4155 [email protected] Guam Lisa Baza/Jeannette Quintanilla 671-475-3361 [email protected] Janice Bennett 808-599-3700 [email protected] Norma D. Jaeger 208-947-7406 [email protected] Dave Gasperin 217-785-7784 [email protected] Indiana Mary Kay Hudson 317-234-2620 [email protected] 2003 survey data N/A N/AKansas Don Noland 620-724-6213 [email protected] Connie M. Payne 502-573-2350 [email protected] Jamie Pena/Scott Griffith 504-599-0297 [email protected] John Richardson 207-287-4021 [email protected] Maryland Gray Barton 410-946-4908 [email protected] Robert P. Ziemian 617-268-8305 [email protected] Phyllis Zold Kilbourne 517-353-5596 [email protected] Dan Griffin 651-215-9468 [email protected] Joey Craft 601-354-7408 [email protected] Ann Wilson 573-526-8848 [email protected] Sherri D. Rafter 406-841-2970 [email protected] Jerry Watson 308-385-5208 [email protected] Bill Gang 702-486-3232 [email protected] Hampshire Ray Bilodeau 603-536-3326 [email protected] New Jersey Carol Venditto 609-292-3488 [email protected] Mexico Peter Bochert 505-827-4834 [email protected] York Ann K. Bader 212-428-2111 [email protected] Carolina Amy E Hargraves-Smith 919-571-4129 [email protected] Dakota Marilyn Moe 701-250-2198 [email protected] Melissa Knopp 614-387-9427 [email protected] Brian Karnes 405-522-3870 [email protected] Christopher J. Hamilton 503-986-7019 [email protected] Robert J. Galardy 412-350-5043 [email protected] Rico None Provided N/A N/ARhode Island Linda Lynch, Ed Morrone 401-458-5026 [email protected] Carolina Heidi Osburn14 N/A N/ASouth Dakota Keith Bonenberger 605-773-4873 [email protected] Kara Sanders 615-253-5568 [email protected] Colleen Benefield 512-475-2440 [email protected] Brent Kelsey 801-538-4305 [email protected] Karen Gennette 802-786-5009 [email protected] Islands Glenda Lake 340-693-6408 [email protected] Kathy L. Mays 804-786-7595 [email protected] Earl Long 360-407-1109 [email protected] Virginia Anonymous N/A N/AWisconsin Dan Wassink 608-266-8861 [email protected] Heather Babbitt 307-777-6493 [email protected]

18


Resource OrganizationsThe following organizations serve in an official capacity as a resource for drug courtsand other problem solving courts. This list represents any national organization thatreceives federal funding for such activities.

American Bar Association-Judicial Division DWI courts and other specialized courts (go to www.abanet.org)

Center for Court Innovation Community courts, domestic violence courts, drugcourts, and other problem solving courts (go to www.problem-solvingcourts.org)

Council of State Governments Mental health courts (go to www.consensusproject.org)

Family Justice Drug courts (go to www.familyjustice.org)

Justice Management Institute Community courts, drug courts (go to www.jmijustice.org)

Justice Programs Office of the School of Public Affairs at American University Drug courts(go to www.spa.american.edu/justice/)

National Alliance for the Mentally Ill Mental Health Courts (go to www.nami.org)

National Association of Drug Court Professionals and the National Drug Court InstituteAdult drug courts, campus drug courts, DWI courts, family dependency treatmentcourts, reentry drug courts (go to www.nadpc.org or www.ndci.org)

National Center for State Courts Drug courts, DWI courts, and other problem solvingcourts (go to www.ncsconline.org)

National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges Juvenile drug courts (go to www.ncjfcj.org)

National Mental Health Association Mental health courts (go to www.nmha.org)

National Treatment Accountability for Safer Communities Drug courts (go to www.nationaltasc.org)

National Truancy Prevention Association Truancy courts(go to www.truancypreventionassociation.com)

National Youth Court Center Teen courts (go to www.youthcourt.net)

Native American Alliance Foundation Native American healing to wellness courts (go to www.native-alliance.org)

The National Judicial College Campus drug courts (Back on TRAC), DWI courts,mental health courts and other problem solving courts (go to www.judges.org)

19


References

American University Drug Court Clearinghouse and Technical Assistance Project. (2004, November 9).Summary of drug court activity by state and county. Washington, DC: Author.

American University Drug Court Clearinghouse and Technical Assistance Project. (2003, October15). Drug court activity update: October 15, 2003. Washington, DC: Author.

Asmus, C.L. (2002). A campus drug court: Colorado State University. Drug Court Review, IV(1), 1-38.

Belenko, S.R. (1998). Research on drug courts: A critical review. The National Center on Addictionand Substance Abuse, Columbia University.

Belenko, S.R. (2001). Research on drug courts: A critical review 2001 update. The National Center onAddiction and Substance Abuse, Columbia University.

Bureau of Justice Assistance. (2004). Competitive grant announcement: Adult drug court implementa-tion grants. Washington, DC: Author, U.S. Department of Justice.

Conference of Chief Justices, & Conference of State Court Administrators. (2004, July 29). Joint res-olution: In support of problem solving courts. CCJ Resolution 22; COSCA Resolution IV. Adopted at the52nd Annual Meeting of the Conference of Chief Justices, Rapid City, SD.

Cooper, C.S. (2004, November). Costs associated with the birth of drug and/or alcohol addicted/exposedinfants. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Assistance Drug Court Clearinghouse, American University.

Council of State Governments. (2005). What is a mental health court? New York, NY: Author.

Farrell, M. Amherst, NY, Gambling Treatment Court. (2005, April 7). Personal communication withC.W. Huddleston.

Fox, C., & Huddleston, W. (2003, May). Drug courts in the U.S. Issues of Democracy, 8(1), 13-19.[Electronic journals of the U.S. Department of State.]

Government Accountability Office. (2005, February). Adult drug courts: Evidence indicates recidivismreductions and mixed results for other outcomes. Report to congressional committees. Washington, DC:U.S. Government Accountability Office.

Huddleston, C.W., Freeman-Wilson, K., & Boone, D. (2004, May). Painting the Current Picture: A National Report Card on Drug Courts and Other Problem Solving Courts, I(1). Alexandria, VA:National Drug Court Institute.

Janovsky, E. & Kalotra, C. (2003, October). Information relevant to female participants in drug courts:Summary overview. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Assistance Drug Court Clearinghouse,American University.

Koch, R., Miami-Dade County, FL Adult Felony Drug Court. (2004, January 13). Personal com-munication with C.W. Huddleston.

Lee, E. (2000, October). Community courts: An evolving model. Washington, DC: Bureau of JusticeAssistance, U.S. Department of Justice.

Lester, B.M., Lagasse, L., Seifer, R., Tronick, E.Z., Bauer, C.R., Shankaran, S., et al. (2003). Thematernal lifestyle study (mls): Effects of prenatal cocaine and/or opiate exposure on auditory brainresponse at one month. Journal of Pediatrics, 142, 279-285.

20


Loeffler, M., & Huddleston, W. (2003, November). DWI/drug court planning initiative training curricula. Alexandria, VA: National Drug Court Institute.

Lovell, A., Native American Alliance Foundation. (2005, May 12). Personal communication withC.W. Huddleston.

Mankin, L., Aspen Systems. (2005, April 13). Personal communication with C.W. Huddleston

Marlowe, D.B. (2004, September 9). Drug court efficacy vs. effectiveness. Join Together Online.www.jointogether.org/sa/news/features/reader/0,1854,574745,00.html

Marlowe, D.B., DeMatteo, D.S., & Festinger, D.S. (2003, October). A sober assessment of drugcourts. Federal Sentencing Reporter, (16)1, 113-128.

Marlowe, D.B., Festinger, D.S., & Lee, P.A. (2004). The judge is a key component of drug court.Drug Court Review, IV(2), 1-34.

Mazur, R., & Aldrich, L. (2003, Spring). What makes a domestic violence court work? Lessons fromNew York. American Bar Association, (42)2.

Merck Research Laboratories. (2005). The Merck manual of diagnosis and therapy. M. H. Beers (Ed.).Whitehouse Station, NJ: Author.

National Association of Drug Court Professionals. (1997, January). Defining drug courts: The key com-ponents. Washington, DC: Drug Courts Program Office, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Departmentof Justice.

National Truancy Prevention Association. (2005). http://www.truancypreventionassociation.com.

Office of Justice Programs. (1997). New survey documents dramatic rise in drug courts: Substantialprogress reported. Press release. Washington, DC: Author, U.S. Department of Justice.

Pierre, E., Bureau of Justice Assistance, U. S. Department of Justice. (2005, April 14). Personal com-munication with C.W. Huddleston.

Presenza, L.J., Philadelphia Municipal Court. (2005, May 6). Personal communication with A. Roussell.

Tauber, J., & Huddleston, C.W. (1999). Reentry drug courts: Closing the gap monograph series 3.Alexandria, VA: National Drug Court Institute.

Tribal Law & Policy Institute. (2003, April). Tribal healing to wellness courts: The key components.Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Assistance, U.S. Department of Justice.

Vickers, M. M. (2004, May). An overview of school-based youth court program design options.Selected topics on youth courts: A monograph. National Youth Court Center. Washington DC: Office ofJuvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice.

Vidaeff, A.C., & Mastrobattista, J.M. (2003). In utero cocaine exposure: A thorny mix of science andmythology. American Journal of Perinatology, 20(4), 165-172.

Walters, J.P. (2005, May 11). Drug courts save money and get better results. San Jose Mercury Newsonline, www.mercurynews.com.

Wheeler, M., & Siegerist, J. (2003, November). Family dependency treatment court planning initiativetraining curricula. Alexandria, VA: National Drug Court Institute.

Winick, B.J. (2000, Fall). Applying the law therapeutically in domestic violence cases. University ofMissouri-Kansas City Law Review.

21


End Notes

1 This annual report was commissioned by the National Drug Court Institute (NDCI) and wasmade possible with funding from the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP),Executive Office of the President, under cooperative agreement #2005-DC-BX-K003 with theBureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC.

2 The word “state” in this document represents all U.S. states, districts, and territories when usedin this context.

3 All data, except for the years 1990, 2003, and 2004, were obtained from the Drug Court ActivityUpdate: October 15, 2003 (American University, 2003, October 15). Data from 1990 wereobtained from the Miami-Dade County, FL Adult Felony Drug Court (Koch, 2004); data from2003 and 2004 were obtained from the National Survey of Drug Courts and Other ProblemSolving Courts, National Drug Court Institute.

4 This figure represents the total number of adult drug courts, juvenile drug courts, family depend-ency treatment courts, DWI courts, reentry drug courts, tribal healing to wellness courts, campusdrug courts, and federal district drug courts, and federal district drug courts.

5 NDCI received 2004 survey results from all states except Iowa. Therefore, in order to not artifi-cially deflate the actual number of operational drug courts, 2003 survey data were used for Iowa.

6 NDCI received 2004 survey results from all states except Iowa. Therefore, in order to not artifi-cially deflate the actual number of operational drug courts, 2003 survey data were used for Iowa.

7 77 percent (41) of jurisdictions reporting as of December 31, 2004.8 74 percent (39) of jurisdictions reporting as of December 31, 2004.9 An important caveat to this figure is that the total number of all births to drug court participants

was not assessed; therefore, it is not possible to ascertain from these data the actual percentageof drug-free births.

10 Conference of Chief Justices/Conference of State Court Administrators, 2004.11 For a review of current problem solving court research, see “Just the (Unwieldy, Hard to Gather

But Nonetheless Essential) Facts, Ma’am: What We Know and Don’t Know About ProblemSolving Courts,” by Greg Berman and Anne Gulick, published in the Fordham Urban LawJournal, Vol. XXX, No. 3 (March 2003).

12 NDCI received 2004 survey results from all states except Iowa. Therefore, in order to not artifi-cially deflate the actual number of operational problem solving courts, 2003 survey data wereused for Iowa.

13 NDCI received 2004 survey results from all states except Iowa. Therefore, in order to not artifi-cially deflate the actual number of operational problem solving courts, 2003 survey data wereused for Iowa.

14 At the printing of this publication, this correspondent is no longer employed in this position.

22


4900 Seminary Road, Suite 320Alexandria, VA 22311

(703) 575-94001-877-507-3229

(703) 575-9402 Faxwww.ndci.org

NATIONAL

DRUG COURT

INSTITUTE

PAINTING THECURRENT PICTURE:

A NATIONAL REPORT CARD

ON DRUG COURTS AND

OTHER PROBLEM SOLVING

COURT PROGRAMS IN THE

UNITED STATES

MAY 2005 • VOLUME I, NO. 2

NATIONAL

DRUG COURT

INSTITUTE




Aaron Roussell

Documents

PAINTING THE CURRENT PICTURE - University of Texas at ...socialwork.utexas.edu/.../ari/pdf/PaintingtheCurrentPicture2005.pdf · Executive Office of the President, was established