Pubdate: Wed, 11 May 2005 Source: San Jose Mercury News (CA) Copyright: 2005 San Jose Mercury News Contact: http://www.mercurynews.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/390 Author: John P. Walters Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?159 (Drug Courts) Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/prison.htm (Incarceration) Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/walters.htm (Walters, John) DRUG-COURT PROGRAMS SAVE MONEY AND GET BETTER RESULTS There is a quiet revolution taking place in the way America's criminal-justice system treats non-violent drug-using offenders. Over the past 15 years, drug court programs, which bring a public-health approach to a law enforcement challenge, have grown from one drug court in 1989 to more than 1,600 today in all 50 states. In fact, 2004 alone saw an increase of more than 400 such courts. Drug courts have become a crossroads for the law enforcement, judicial and treatment communities that, in the past, dealt with drug users without effective coordination. Drug courts represent an integrated approach that is reducing recidivism rates and saving taxpayers' money. While California legislators consider expansion of Proposition 36 (the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act), the California Association of Drug Court Professionals met in Sacramento last week for their annual conference to learn more about ways to expand on a program that is already making a difference in their state -- progress that we regard as superior to the efforts of Proposition 36. Drug courts take on cases that involve non-violent drug-using offenders or individuals under the court's jurisdiction while they are on probation and supervised in the community. All arrestees are screened for substance abuse, and for those who test positive, supervised, drug-tested and monitored with a system of graduated sanctions. These services, as well as education, job training and housing assistance, are all coordinated by a team of professionals designated by the presiding drug-court judge. The main goal of a drug court is not to prosecute but to provide a way for the offender to change behaviors -- in other words, stay off of drugs and out of the criminal-justice system. The drug court forms a support system to build a safety net for the participating offender composed of court and treatment professionals, as well as other social-service providers. A program is custom-made for offenders to start their own paths to recovery. Typical drug courts provide intensive judicial supervision as well as community supervision, routine drug testing, treatment services and immediate sanctions and services. A defining characteristic of drug courts, as opposed to Proposition 36 provisions, is the level of flexibility they afford individual communities based on local need. The cooperative effort among community organizations and local government entities brought together and led by drug-court judges is working to stop the cycle for repeat offenders. A 2003 study released by the National Institute of Justice examined 17,000 drug-court graduates from across the country within one year of graduation from a drug-court program. Only 16.4 percent of the 17,000 graduates had been re-arrested and charged with a felony offense. Compare this with a 43.5 percent recidivism rate for non-drug-court graduates. By the two-year mark, the recidivism rate increased to just 27.5 percent, compared with 58.6 percent for non-graduates. Most drug courts operate in a manner similar to the intended implementation of the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act, or Proposition 36, passed by California voters in 2000. However, drug courts operating without the narrow mandates of this measure have significantly higher levels of accountability and judicial discretion, and therefore, have proven more effective. If the directed treatment is not met or performed, the drug-court judge has the right to revoke participation in the treatment program and direct consequences such as incarceration. Proposition 36, by contrast, enables multiple chances for multiple lapses in treatment that result in little or no individual accountability. In California, studies published in 2002 by the Judicial Council of California, the California Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs, NPC Research Inc. and Judicial Council of California showed that drug courts save money. According to these studies, drug courts save California a minimum of $18 million a year through reduced incarceration costs alone. Drug-court programs are one of the most significant criminal-justice system initiatives in the past 20 years. Approaching drug offenders from a public-health perspective is revolutionary. The program has diverted thousands of non-violent offenders from a revolving door to jail onto a path of recovery. They have saved millions of dollars for the criminal-justice system and countless lives. JOHN P. WALTERS is director of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy. He wrote this article for the Mercury News. - --- MAP posted-by: Elizabeth Wehrman