B. Part Two: Perspectives of Prosecutors1(Volume Two )

1. Criteria Being Used to Assess Drug Court Effectiveness

Prosecutors were asked to indicate the criteriathey were using to assess the effectiveness of the drug courts in theirjurisdictions. All prosecutors agreed that the primary criteria for effectivenessof the drug court was the degree to which participants remained free ofany drug related arrests. Approximately 80% of the prosecutors also citedthe participants' attendance at treatment and his/her urinalysis results.Approximately 70% of the prosecutors also look to the participant's attendanceat scheduled court status hearings, remaining free of arrests for non-drugoffenses as well, and graduation from the drug court.

2. Impact of Drug Court on Prosecutor Office's Capability to Handle ItsCriminal Caseload and Functions

Approximately 45% of the prosecutors reportedthat more attorneys were available for other cases as a result of the drugcourt. Approximately 45% of the prosecutors also reported that the drugcourt resulted in greater coordination of their office with other justiceagencies and 35% reported that the program brought about greater coordinationof their offices with community groups.

3. Benefits Prosecutors Have Derived from Drug Court Program

Prosecutors were also asked to identify any benefits the drug court hadbrought about for their offices. Among the benefits noted, 80% of the prosecutorscited the opportunity for treatment and rehabilitation for appropriate defendantsand 65% cited the imposition of swift sanctions in appropriate situations.Half of the respondents also noted that the programs promoted more efficientuse of their office resources.

4. Relationship of Drug Court Program with Community Prosecution Activities

Seven (13%) of the responding prosecutors indicated that community prosecutionprograms had also been implemented in their jurisdictions and that thesewere coordinated, to varying degrees, with the drug court program. Sincesome of the respondents indicated they were not fully familiar with theconcept of "community prosecution", the following definition,developed by the American Prosecutors Research Institute (the research andtechnical assistance affiliate of the National District Attorneys Association)is included below:

"Community prosecution focuses on targeted areas and involves along-term, proactive partnership among the prosecutor's office, law enforcement,the community, and public and private organizations, whereby the authorityof the prosecutor's office is used to solve problems, improve public safety,and enhance the quality of life in the community." 2

5. Drug Caseload Activity Trends Since DrugCourt Began

Over 80% of the prosecutors indicated that there did not appear to be anychange in trends regarding arrests for drug possession and/or arrests fordrug-related offenses since the drug court began. Twelve percent indicatedarrests had decreased; six percent indicated they had increased.

6. Costs for Drug Court Program

Approximately one-third of the programs dedicate at least one full-timeprosecuting attorney to the drug court and approximately one third dedicateat least one part-time attorney. Approximately 25% dedicate one full-timesupport staff and an additional 40% dedicate at least one part-time supportstaff member. Two programs also use volunteers. Three (6%) of the prosecutors'offices hired staff specifically for the drug court; the rest reassignedexisting staff. Approximately 20% of the reporting prosecutors indicatedtheir offices had incurred additional costs to implement the drug court,ranging between $ 20,000 and $ 100,000 annually, primarily for dedicatedattorneys and staff. Many noted, however, that these additional costs wereoffset by savings in other areas.

7. Savings Achieved

Prosecutors were asked to indicate any cost savings achieved as a resultof the drug court. Over half of the respondents cited cost savings in termsof case preparation time for attorneys and over one-third cited savingsin court appearance time for attorneys. Approximately 25% also cited savingsin police overtime costs and grand jury costs. Several respondents notedthat, because their programs were post-conviction, no significant savingsaccrued to the prosecutors' office. However, several also noted that, regardlessof whether their programs were pre- or post-adjudication, savings were anticipatedfrom reduced rearrests of participants.

8. Program Operation and Planning Issues and Advice to Colleagues

Most Serious Problems Encounteredin Designing or Implementing Drug Court Program and Their Resolution

Among the most serious problems prosecutors reported they have encounteredin regard to implementing the drug court include: developing appropriateeligibility criteria; convincing law enforcement of the merits of the program;and developing procedures to assure prompt disposition of cases involvingdefendants who are unsuccessfully terminated from the drug court. Otherproblems noted include those relating to developing program procedures andexpediting the case screening process to identify potentially eligible defendants.Most of these problems appear to have been resolved through consistent communicationamong the participating agencies as well as internal review of office operations.A summary of the prosecutors' comments is provided in Appendix C..

Unanticipated Issues That HaveArisen and Strategies Used to Resolve Them

Although most of the responding prosecutors indicated that no significantissues had arisen that were unanticipated, those that were reported relatedprimarily to funding shortages and their consequent impact on the continuityof treatment services available; and eligibility determinations in individualcases. A summary of the prosecutors' comments on these matters is providedin Appendix C.

Advice to Counterpart Agenciesin Other Jurisdictions

Prosecutors offered a range of advice to colleagues in other jurisdictionscontemplating drug courts -- establish and adhere to clear guidelines forthe program; plan thoroughly; start slowly; be flexible; involve law enforcementfrom the start; and (consistently) get started. Some prosecutors advocatedpretrial diversion models; others leaned toward post-plea approaches. Theirresponses are reported in Appendix C.

Go to C. Part Three:Perspectives of Defense Counsel