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