Despite the proliferation of drug courts during the past few years, retention rates remain high and are consistent with those experienced by the early programs. Moreover, retention rates do not appear to decrease as the period of program operation lengthens. As the chart below illustrates, retention rates for programs begun during the period of 1989 - 1992 are similar to the more recently implemented programs. Neither do the retention rates appear to be influenced by the population size of the jurisdiction served. Drug courts in large metropolitan areas (e.g., with populations over 750,000) appear to retain participants at a rate similar to drug courts in smaller jurisdictions with populations under 200,000 and in rural areas. The capacity of drug courts to maintain these impressive retention rates, compared with the experience with comparable populations of most jurisdictions prior to the drug court, may be attributed, at least in part, to the continuous judicial supervision provided, including frequent status hearings (generally weekly initially); the immediate execution of benchwarrants (within hours frequently) in most jurisdictions when participants fail to appear at court hearings; and the differential treatment modalities and rehabilitation and support services being provided to address the diversity of treatment and other personal needs presented by drug court populations.
The recent development of Defining Drug Courts: The Key Components by the National Association of Drug Court Professionals (NADCP) under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Justice Drug Courts Program Office, should play a major role in establishing operational "standards" for drug courts to assure that future drug court activity adheres to the critical elements characteristic of the existing programs. These operational elements should promote continued high retention rates.
Drug usage is being substantially reduced for most program participants, not only graduates, despite the substantial drug usage patterns these defendants present. Examples of the rate of clean urines reported for participants while in the drug court are: 91% in Bakersfield, California and 93% in San Jose, California.
Target Populations
Drug courts are increasingly targeting the chronic recidivists as well as first offenders.
Many drug courts that began as pretrial diversion programs are expanding their focus to target individuals with more extensive criminal histories who can benefit from the treatment and rehabilitation services provided and require the rigid supervision and monitoring of the drug court. Although frequently not eligible for diversion because of their more extensive criminal history, these defendants are generally offered some incentive for drug court completion, such as suspension of a jail or prison term or a reduction in the period of their probation.
Drug Usage Patterns
Most programs report that participants are presenting moderate to severe crack/cocaine addiction in combination with other drug use and alcohol addiction as well. Crack/cocaine addiction is prevalent among most drug court participants. In addition, approximately 75% of the responding programs report moderate to severe marijuana addiction and 53% of the programs report moderate to severe heroin addiction. Approximately one-third of the responding programs also report moderate to severe methamphetamine addiction presented by participantsДe #Ы J c 8G ,b l ,b l b b b Л 9 (b b љb T b & + 9 MS Sans Serif Symbol Times New Roman
Tracking the "pulse" of drug court activity during the past year, as well as keeping pace with the development of individual programs, has made it very apparent that the drug court "movement" is rapidly accelerating in terms of the number of courts adopting drug court programs, the range of services being delivered, and the diversity of populations being served. With the infusion of federal funds through the 1996 Federal Crime Bill to support drug court development, many local planning and piloting efforts that had previously been generated, have now been able to take root. In addition to the funds available under the Crime Bill, the imprimatur provided by Crime Bill recognition of the importance of drug court activity has also generated support for drug courts from many other sectors, public and private, with financial as well as policy and in-kind contributions.
Among the most salient observations that emerge from the information gathering activities conducted in the course of preparing the 1997 Drug Court Survey Report are the following:
Drug court activity has increased dramatically during the past few years and is now underway in 47 states, plus the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico and two federal districts. This activity includes drug court planning in 20 Native American Tribal Courts, located in ten states (Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, Maine, Montana, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon and South Dakota.) In a number of jurisdictions, multiple drug court dockets have been established to address the diversity of misdemeanor and felony defendants being enrolled. Currently, there are over 370 drug courts in the following stages of development:
| drug courts operating for at least two years | 84 |
| drug courts more recently implemented | 120 |
| drug courts about to start | 4 |
| drug courts being planned | 150 |
| jurisdictions exploring the feasibility of a drug court program | 13 |
The states with the most active drug court activity are California (64 programs); Florida (30 programs); Oklahoma (20 programs); New York (19 programs); and Ohio (16 programs). Annually, drug court implementation has occurred as follows since 1989 when the Miami Drug Court was introduced:
| 1989 | 1990 | 1991 | 1992 | 1993 | 1994 | 1995 | 1996 | 1997 (1st ќ) |
| 1 | 0 | 4 | 6 | 14 | 21 | 41 | 67 | 50 |
Recidivism rates reported by drug courts continue to range between 2 and 20 percent, depending upon the characteristics of the population targeted. Almost all jurisdictions observe that recidivism is substantially reduced for participants who complete the program and, to a considerable degree, for those who do not complete the program as well.
Community Relationships
Almost all drug courts are working closely with community groups to provide support services for participants. Through both community networks and involvement with local AA and NA groups, participants are often linked with community mentors shortly after entering the drug court. Drug courts are also developing close working relationships with local chambers of commerce, medical service providers, community service organizations, local educational systems, faith communities and other local institutions to provide a broad-based network of essential services that can be drawn upon to serve the needs of their participants.
Health Services Provided
Almost all of the drug courts provide public health services, including HIV and TB screening and referral. Many programs have components to provide special services for dually diagnosed participants who have mental health problems, frequently as a result of their substance abuse.
Treatment Services Provided
Many of the early drug courts focussed primarily upon treatment services, with ancillary support for education and job training and placement. Most of these early courts, and their numerous progeny, have expanded their treatment and rehabilitation services significantly, recognizing the diversity of both treatment and other needs presented by the drug court populations. The expanded services being developed also reflect, in large part, the growing recognition that the drug court must treat not only the participants' addiction but the numerous associated personal problems most participants encounter -- physical, mental, housing, family, employment, self esteem, etc. -- if long-term sobriety and rehabilitation is to be achieved and future criminal activity is to be significantly reduced. Many of the treatment program components, for example, are developing differentiated "tracks" to address the diversity of treatment needs of drug court clients. Special components are also being developed for specific ethnic and/or cultural groups represented, and other "special populations", including pregnant women, mothers, fathers, persons who have been sexually abused, and others.
<Justice System Savings
A number of jurisdictions report reducing and/or more efficiently using jail space and probation services as a result of the drug court, which frees up these resources to focus on other offenders who present greater public safety risks. Savings are also reported in prosecutor and law enforcement functions, particularly in regard to court appearance costs. All sectors of the justice system have also noted "cost avoidance" results from the reduced recidivism. Among the jurisdictions reporting specific cost savings as a result of the drug court are:
| Phoenix, Arizona | $112,077 annually |
| Denver, Colorado | $1.8 - 2.5 million |
| Washington, D.C. | $4,065 - $ 8,845 per client in jail costs (amount fluctuates, depending upon the use of jail as a |
| Bartow, Florida | $531,900 annually |
| Gainesville, Florida | $200,000 annually |
| Kalamazoo, Michigan | $299,754 annually |
| Klammath Falls, Oregon | $86,400 annually |
| Beaumont, Texas | $443,520 annually |
Collaboration with Law Enforcement
Increasing collaboration is developing among drug court and law enforcement agencies.
Many drug courts are developing close relationships with local law enforcement agencies and community policing activities. Much effort is being made by drug court judges to explain the drug court process to line officers who are the arresting officers in many drug court cases. The police department in one drug court jurisdiction (New Haven, Connecticut), for example, has assigned an officer full-time to the drug court to assist with monitoring and supervision of participants and to immediately execute benchwarrants for any participants who fail to appear in court or are otherwise in noncompliance with drug court orders. A number of drug courts provide arresting officers with update information on the progress of their arrestees in the drug court and many drug courts invite the arresting officer to graduation ceremonies.
Juvenile/Family Matters
Over twenty-five juvenile and/or family drug court programs have been implemented and another fifty are being planned. Using the adult drug court model of intensive, on-going judicial supervision and the development of a structured system of sanctions and rewards, juvenile drug courts are focusing on both delinquency cases and dependency matters. Developing a juvenile/delinquency drug court, however, presents special challenges not previously addressed by the adult drug court, the most significant of which include: the sense of "invulnerability" evident in many juvenile substance abusers and their failure to sense that they have "hit bottom" as many of the successful adult drug court participants have experienced; the different nature of drug dependency presented by juveniles compared with long-term adult addicts; and the critical role that the juvenile's family and environment play in both his/her addiction and recovery. These issues are now being addressed in the developing juvenile drug court programs. In the dependency arena, focus is primarily upon adults who are losing custody and/or visitation rights with their minor children -- through either the criminal or civil process -- because of their substance addiction. Even in the absence of a specific juvenile or family drug court program per se, however, there is increasing recognition among the adult drug court judges that children and other family members who live with an adult substance abuser are at special risk for becoming substance involved. Consequently, a number of adult drug courts are developing special prevention-oriented components for children and other family members of adult drug court participants, whether or not they are already involved with the adult or juvenile justice system.
Relevance to Other Dockets
A number of jurisdictions are developing special dockets, modeled after the drug court approach, to handle other classes of chronic criminal offenders whose criminal activity is aggravated by coexisting substance abuse and/or related problems and for whom the conventional sanctions available to the criminal justice system are inadequate. Domestic violence matters, for example, with their special supervision and follow-up needs, and the multiple ramifications that these cases often generate for the "system" (custody, support, medical, housing, etc.) appear to be particularly appropriate for the continuing supervision, monitoring, and coordination of community resources that the drug courts exercise. Many jurisdictions are also looking to the drug court model to apply to the high volume of "quality of life" crimes (noise and nuisance ordinance violations, trespassing, loitering, etc.) which, although less serious in terms of criminal sanction exposure, are seriously eroding the life of many communities.
Alumni
Drug court graduates are forming alumni groups and serving as mentors for new participants in many jurisdictions.
In a number of the older programs, (Jacksonville, Portland, Rochester, and San Bernardino, for example), drug court graduates are, at their own initiative, forming alumni groups, continuing the network of support they developed during drug court participation, as well as serving as mentors for new participants. At least one alumni group issues a newsletter.