E. Part Five: Perspectives of CorrectionalAgency Officials 1(Volume Two)
1. Criteria Being Used to Assess Effectiveness of Drug Court
Responding correctional agency officials cited the following criteria whichthey are using to assess the effectiveness of the drug court in their jurisdiction:
· percentage of participants remaining in program - 54%
· percentage of participants graduating from program - 45%
· frequency of contact between participants and court - 45%
· frequency of contact between participants and treatment provider - 45%
· participant urinalysis results - 50%
· new arrests for participants involving:drug possession - 50%
other drug charges - 49%
non-drug charges - 38%· participant employment status - 37%
2. Impact of Drug Court on Agency's Capability to Respond to Criminal Activityand/or to Carry Out Its Functions
Respondents were asked to indicate the impact, if any, of the drug courton their agency's capability to respond to criminal activity and/or to carryout its functions. Responding correctional agency officials identified theimpact of the drug court on their agencies in the following areas:
· resulted in more jail space for pretrial defendants 48%
· resulted in more jail space for sentenced defendants 48%
· reduced the number of early releases due to lack of jail space 38%
· reduced the number of substance dependent detainees 40%
3. Costs for Drug Court
Total Staff Agency Dedicatesto Drug Court
Approximately 18% of the responding correctionalagencies dedicate at least one full-time staff person to perform drug courtfunctions. These functions generally relate to supervision functions associatedwith community corrections agencies and those which perform probation-relatedfunctions. Approximately 10% of the responding agencies dedicate at leastone part-time staff member.
Program Costs
Approximately 30% of the responding agenciesindicated that the drug court had imposed additional costs on their agencies,most of which related to the various supervision, monitoring, and treatmentservice functions they had assumed in relation to their community-basedservice activities.
4. Savings Achieved
Approximately 30% of the responding agencies also indicated that the drugcourt had resulted in cost savings for their agencies. The most frequentlycited areas of savings were: availability of correctional bed space andreduction in detox costs.
5. Program Implementation and Planning Issues and Advice to Colleagues
Most Serious Problems Agencyhas Encountered as a Result of the Drug Court and Strategies Used to ResolveThem
Correctional agency officials were asked toidentify the most serious problems they had encountered in designing orimplementing the drug court and to describe the strategies used to resolvethese problems. Among the problems noted were: overcoming philosophicaldifferences with other participating agencies; providing bedspace for participantswho are sanctioned by the court; difficulties in communication and coordinationwith other participating agencies; and obtaining adequate space for communitybased activities. These problems, along with the strategies being used toresolve them, are further described in Appendix F.
Unanticipated Issues Arising andStrategies to Resolve Them
Although none of the responding correction agenciesnoted any unanticipated issues, several expressed surprise at theextent of drug use reflected in participants. "We expected first offendersbut we got people with 8 - 10 years of addictions. Our first seventeen graduateshad 214 prior arrests among them, " commented one respondent. Otherspointed to issues resulting from the large number of participants and theneed to refine program procedures. Responding correctional agency official'scomments on these matters are further reported in Appendix F.
Advice to Counterpart Agencies inOther Jurisdictions
Responding correctional agency officials, likeother agency representatives involved in the implementation of drug courtprograms, advised their colleagues to support such programs and, specifically,to: develop effective interagency planning and coordination mechanisms;design and adhere to clear, unambiguous procedures; and to observe as manyprograms as possible for insight and guidance. Their comments are furtherdiscussed in Appendix F.
Go to Volume Three: Part Six: treatment ProviderServices and Perspecitves
Go back to Volume Two: Part Four: Perspecitves ofPolice/Law Enforcement Agency Officials