D. Part Four: Perspectives of Police/LawEnforcement Agency Officials 1(Volume Two)

1. Criteria Being Used to Assess Effectiveness of the Drug Court

Law enforcement officials were asked to indicate the criteria they are usingto measure the effectiveness of the drug court in their jurisdictions. Theirresponses follow:

· frequency of participant arrests

on new drug possession charges - 45%
on other drug charges - 35%
on non-drug charges - 20%

· percent of participants who graduate from the drug court - 18%
· participants attendance in treatment programs - 18%
· participants' appearances at court status hearings - 15%
· urinalysis results - 15%
· participants' employment status - 10%

2. Impact of Drug Court on Agency's Capability to Respond to CriminalActivity and/or Carry Out Its Functions

Respondents were asked to indicate the impact which the drug court has hadon the agency's capability to respond to criminal activity or otherwisecarry out its functions. Responses indicate the following impact:

· has encouraged greater coordination with other justice system agencies - 35%
· has promoted new relationships with the justice system and other agencies in the community - 32%
· has permitted additional officers to be available for other cases - 20%
· has provided a more effective response to arrests of substance abusers - 20%
· provides law enforcement with an additional tool to enforce no tolerance policy - 18%

3. Impact of Program on Other Aspects of Agency Operations

Arrest Policies and Procedures

Respondents were asked to indicate the impact,if any, of the drug court on arrest policies and procedures in their jurisdictions.All of the respondents indicated that the drug court had no impact on arrestpolicies. However, four (10%) of the agencies cited an impact on arrestprocedures, particularly in terms of identifying individuals who might bepotential candidates for drug court consideration.

Orientation/Training Programsfor Officers

Respondents were also asked whether the drugcourt had any impact on the orientation and/or training programs conductedfor line officers. Six (15%) of the responding agencies indicated that anexplanation of the drug court program was now part of the orientation ofline officers so that they are aware of the program and the services offered.Additional training is also provided regarding completion of reports.

Relationships with Community Groups

Law enforcement officials were asked whetherthe drug court had any impact on their agency's relationship with communitygroups. Twenty percent of the responding agencies cited an impact, primarilyrelating to greater interaction with local service providers and communitygroups representing neighborhoods with drug-related problems.

Community Policing Activities

Law enforcement officials in the drug courtjurisdictions were asked whether their agencies had a community policingprogram and, if so, whether the drug court had provided any support forthese activities. Sixty-five percent of the respondents indicated theiragencies had established a community policing function. Only one agency(New Haven, Connecticut) indicated that the community policing activitiesand the drug court were coordinated. 2Fourteen agencies (35%) indicated that the drug court provides support,indirectly, to the community policing function. Twenty- five percent ofthe respondents indicated that the community police activities had not beencoordinated with the drug court program.

4. Changes in Drug-Related Arrests Since Drug Court Began

Approximately 18% of the responding law enforcement officials indicatedthat drug-related arrests had increased since the drug court began. Theremainder indicated there had been no significant change in arrest activity.None indicated that drug-related arrests had decreased.

5. Costs Incurred for Drug Court Program

Total Staff Dedicated To DrugCourt

Four (10%) of the agencies dedicate at leastone full-time officer to the drug court and 3 (8%) dedicate at least onepart-time officer. In some instances, staff were hired specifically forthe drug court or transferred from other assignments. None of the agenciesdedicate any support staff to the drug court.

Costs Incurred to Support DrugCourt

Five programs indicated they had incurred additionalcosts to implement the drug court, primarily for custody supervision andtreatment services. In one instance, asset forfeiture funds were used toabsorb these costs.

6. Savings Achieved

One law enforcement agency (Dover, Delaware) noted cost savings derivedfrom the drug court, primarily from court appearance hours saved.

7. Program Implementation and Planning Issues and Advice to Colleagues

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

Law enforcement officials were asked to identifythe most serious problems they had encountered in designing and implementingthe drug court and to describe the strategies used to resolve these problems.Their responses, more fully described in Appendix E, indicate that, althoughno serious problems were encountered, the need to educate line officersto the purpose and orientation of the program has been an on-going need.

Unanticipated Issues That HaveArisen and Strategies Used to Resolve Them

Law enforcement officials also indicated that,generally, no unanticipated issues had arisen. However, various issues relatingprimarily to program eligibility determinations and program procedures hademerged for some programs and are more fully discussed in Appendix E.

Advice to Counterpart Agenciesin Other Jurisdictions

In terms of advice to counterpart agencies inother jurisdictions contemplating the establishment of a drug court, theresponding law enforcement officials expressed support for the program andthe need for law enforcement agencies to be closely involved in drug courtplanning and implementation efforts. Their comments are more fully reportedin Appendix E.

Go to Volume Two: Part Five:Perspectives of Correctional Agency Officials

Go back to Volume Two: PartThree: Perspectives of Defense Counsel