C. Part Three: Perspectives of DefenseCounsel 1 (Volume Two)

1. Criteria Being Used to Assess Effectiveness of Drug Court

Defense counsel were requested to indicate the criteria they are using toassess the effectiveness of the drug court in their jurisdictions. Respondentswere in very close agreement that all of the following criteria were importantindicia of the effectiveness of the drug court:

· the degree to which defendants were afforded adequate opportunity to consult with counsel regarding the implications of program participation
· the degree to which defendants have their legal rights protected
· the degree to which attorneys have adequate opportunity to provide effective legal counsel to their clients
· participants' attendance at treatment sessions
· participants' attendance at court status hearings
· urinalysis results
· recidivism, both drug and non-drug related
· employment status of participants

2. Impact of Drug Court on Public DefenderOffice's Capability to Handle It's Criminal Caseload and Functions

Defense counsel were asked to indicatethe impact of the drug court on their office's capability to handle itscriminal caseload. Over half of the attorneys cited the increased contactwhich their offices had with other justice agencies. Twenty-five percentalso cited the coordination between their office and community groups.Twenty percent noted that the program had freed up attorneys to handleother cases. Several also noted increased education and awareness of attorneysabout substance abuse and its impact on their clients.

3. Benefits Derived from Program

Defense counsel were asked to identify benefits the drug court had broughtabout in their jurisdiction. Eighty percent noted that the drug court providesa more appropriate response to cases involving substance abusing defendantsby permitting an opportunity for treatment and rehabilitation. Fifty-sixpercent noted that the drug court promotes more efficient use of communityresources; and 40% felt the drug court generated community support as wellas promoted more efficient use of office resources.

4. Costs to Indigent Defense Office for Drug Court

Total Staff Dedicated to DrugCourt

Approximately 40% of the defender's officesdedicate at least one full-time attorney to the drug court; approximately45% dedicate at least one part-time attorney. Fifteen percent of the defenderoffices dedicate at least one full-time support staff person for the programand over one third dedicate at least one part-time support staff person.

Approximate Annual Cost to IndigentDefense Office as a Result of Drug Court

Approximately two thirds of the responding defendersindicated that the drug court had not imposed any additional costs on theiroffices or, to the extent any special costs were incurred, these were offsetby savings in attorney time. One third of the responding defense counselreported a figure representing the annual cost of the drug court to theiroffice ranging between $ 3,700 to $ 140,000, generally reflecting the volumeof participants handled and the nature of services provided by the defenderoffice. The items covered by these costs commonly entailed: attorney's salaries(frequently offset by savings in staff time to handle these cases); socialservice coordinators; and staff to assist in related areas of client casemanagement.

5. Savings Achieved

Approximately one-third of the defenders notedcost savings resulting from the drug court for their offices. These savingswere generally in the following areas:

· case preparation time for attorneys 30% of reporting programs
· court appearance time for attorneys 22% of reporting programs
· witness costs 14% of reporting programs

Other savings cited include reductions in the number of jury trials andmotions and potential investigative costs.

6. Program Implementation and Operational Issues and Advice to Colleagues

Most Serious Problems Encounteredas a Result of Implementing Drug Court and Strategies Used to Resolve Them

Although most defense counsel did not note anyserious problems relating to implementation of the drug court program, thosethat were noted related to: the prompt identification of eligible defendants;assuring adequate protection of defendant's legal rights; and developinga stable funding source for treatment services. Most of these problems,more fully discussed in Appendix D, are the subject of on-going discussionwith other agencies involved in the drug court program.

Unanticipated Issues and Strategiesto Resolve Them

The most frequently noted unanticipated issuethat defense counsel noted related to the need to schedule the increasednumber of hearings per defendant in the drug court, compared with the traditionaladjudication process; the need to develop special procedures for handlingdrug court cases, both in terms of system processing as well as internaloffice management; and the amount (and nature) of record keeping requiredrelating to participant progress in treatment. These issues are discussedin greater detail in Appendix D.

Advice to Counterpart Offices

In terms of advice to colleagues contemplatingthe establishment of drug courts in other jurisdictions, responding defensecounsel, like their counterparts in other agencies, urged them to "justdo it." However, they also urged that attention to maintaining defendants'legal rights and close coordination with other participating agencies wereessential to both the planning and conduct of a successful drug court. Theirsuggestions are further summarized in Appendix D.

Go to D. Volume Two: PartFour: Perspectives of Police/Law Enforcement Agency Officials

Go Back to B. Volume Two:Part Two: Perspectives of Prosecutors