Drug Courts

"If you don't like paying for jails, if you don't like a waste of tax dollars, then you'll like the concept of drug courts. This is an initiative that's been working."

- General Barry McCaffrey, former Director of the Office of U.S. National Drug Control Policy -

What Is a Drug Court?
Program Benefits
California Drug Court Standards
Evaluation
Perspectives on Drug Court
Resources

What is a Drug Court?

Drug treatment courts were developed in Florida in the early 1990s as an alternative to traditional criminal justice prosecution for drug-related offenses. These courts combine the close supervision of the judicial process with resources available through alcohol and drug treatment services. The two goals of these programs are to reduce recidivism of drug-related offenses and to create options within the criminal justice system that tailor effective and appropriate responses for offenders with drug problems. The courts have served as a catalyst to modify traditional treatment-delivery systems and design more effective interventions for this population.

Adult drug courts provide access to treatment for substance-abusing offenders in criminal, dependency, and family courts while minimizing the use of incarceration. They provide a structure for linking supervision and treatment with ongoing judicial oversight and team management. The majority of drug courts include initial intensive treatment services with ongoing monitoring and continuing care for a year or more. Dependency drug courts address substance abuse issues that contribute to removal of children from the care of their parents. Drug courts in family court address the impact of substance abuse on child custody and visitation.

Juvenile drug courts incorporate the same underlying components of adult drug courts. However, the inclusion of additional elements, such as more intensive supervision that is coordinated and holistic, are critical to their effectiveness. Special issues that must be addressed in juvenile drug court include identifying the individual needs of each juvenile offender; increasing accessibility and management of medical, mental health, treatment, and other community services; and fostering the participation of youth and their families.

Drug courts have gained wide acceptance, even at the national level. General Barry McCaffrey, former director of the Office of U.S. National Drug Control Policy, said, "If you don't like paying for jails, if you don't like a waste of tax dollars, then you'll like the concept of drug courts. This is an initiative that's been working."

In his keynote address at the San Francisco Drug Court graduation ceremony on December 17, 2002, Chief Justice Ronald M. George said, "Drug courts are a great example of what real collaboration in the justice system can accomplish. These unique courts are an effective way for trial courts and other justice system agencies to work together to reduce drug-related offenses, improve lives, and protect communities."

Program Benefits

Drug court programs are considerably more effective than traditional criminal prosecution methods, according to the U.S. Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Assistance Drug Court Clearinghouse, which surveyed 20 drug court programs in effect for at least one year. The results are contained in the two-volume report Drug Courts: An Overview of Operational Characteristics and Implementation Issues. Among the findings are the following:

• Recidivism has been significantly reduced among drug court program participants;
• Drug use has significantly decreased among drug court participants while they are involved in the program;
• An unanticipated beneficial effect has been the birth of a significant number of drug-free babies to women enrolled in drug court programs;
• Many programs are now expanding their targeted population based on the success of their initial implementation experience;
• Prosecutors and law enforcement officials have shown significant support for drug court programs and, in a number of jurisdictions, have contributed asset-forfeiture funds to augment available treatment resources; and
• Drug court programs are extremely cost-effective, with the average treatment costs ranging from $900 to $1,600 per participant, compared with an average cost of $5,000 per defendant for a minimal period of incarceration.

California Drug Court Standards

The Judicial Council adopted section 36 of the California Standards of Judicial Administration, Guidelines for Diversion Drug Court Programs, effective January 1, 1998, which provides clarification specifically for preplea diversion drug courts under Penal Code section 1000.5. (A preplea diversion program allows criminal proceedings to be suspended while the defendant participates in a program involving counseling, drug testing, education, or other requirements. If the defendant successfully completes the program, the criminal charges are dismissed.)

In addition to these minimum standards, courts are encouraged to look to the nationally accepted guidelines from the National Association of Drug Court Professionals (NADCP) Defining Drug Courts: The Key Components, which elaborate on drug courts' purpose and performance measurements. The guidelines include the following:

1. Drug courts integrate alcohol and other drug-treatment services with justice system processing.
2. Using a nonadversarial approach, prosecution and defense counsel promote public safety while protecting participants' due process rights.
3. Eligible participants are identified early and promptly placed in the drug court program.
4. Drug courts provide access to a continuum of alcohol, drug, and other related treatment and rehabilitation services.
5. Abstinence and use of alcohol and other drugs are monitored by frequent drug testing.
6. A coordinated strategy governs drug court responses to participants' compliance.
7. Ongoing judicial interaction with each drug court participant is essential.
8. Monitoring and evaluation measure the achievement of program goals and gauge effectiveness.
9. Effective drug court operations require continuing interdisciplinary education.
10. Forging partnerships among drug courts, public agencies, and community-based organizations increases the availability of treatment services, enhances drug court effectiveness, and generates local support.

Evaluation

California Drug Courts: A Methodology for Determining Costs and Avoided Costs

In 1998 the AOC received a Drug Courts Program Office (DCPO) grant from the federal Department of Justice to establish a method for evaluating adult drug court programs in California. This study focuses on the economic evaluation of collaborative justice courts. The evaluation is divided into three phases. In phase I the AOC is evaluating three adult drug courts, one each in Butte, San Diego, and Los Angeles Counties. In phase II, the AOC will evaluate an additional six courts and will test the model developed in the first phase. A third and final phase, expected to begin in early 2004, will establish a protocol for continuous court-level evaluation of these programs.

The evaluation looks at publicly funded costs as "opportunity cost" resources. A systematic opportunity cost approach estimates resources that might be available for use in other contexts. For example, if substance abuse treatment reduces the number of times a client is subsequently incarcerated, the local sheriff may see no budget change but will have an opportunity cost resource in the form of an available jail bed. Drug courts and other collaborative justice courts are reported to provide such opportunity cost resources.

Drug court and other collaborative justice court programs also use what are known as "borrowed" or "donated" resources. Staff in the courts and other participants in the collaborative justice team, such as the prosecutor, defense counsel, probation, and treatment participants, "donate" time and the courts "donate" resources, or shift them from other projects to the operation of collaborative justice programs. These resources and the efficiencies in case management that they may produce are considered in the cost-benefit study protocols.

This study is designed to assist courts in determining which practices work best for which groups and yield the most results per dollar of investment. The study will thus enable courts to fine-tune their programs for maximum success with minimum dollar inputs.

Drug Courts Reduce Crime, Costs (PDF)
A new statewide study shows that drug courts provide substantial savings to the criminal justice system by reducing prison and jail costs, victimization costs, and recidivism. First established in California in 1993, drug courts use a collaborative approach to justice and provide an alternative to incarceration for substance abusers.

Back to Top

Perspectives on Drug Court

Drug Court Efficacy vs. Effectiveness (11/2004)
By Douglas B. Marlowe, J.D., Ph.D.

Back to Top

Resources

Media Kit Available to Help California Courts
The Administrative Office of the Courts has prepared a media kit for California courts to assist them with planning and implementing local outreach efforts during National Drug Court Month in April. The kit contains media tips, samples of news releases, a certificate of appreciation, and an invitation to a courthouse tour. Drug Court Media Kit, (PDF, 93 KB) For a copy of the media kit, contact Dave Bressler at 415-865-7703 or dave.bressler@jud.ca.gov.

California Drug Court Directory
For a copy of the directory or for more information, contact Dave Bressler at 415-865-7703 or dave.bressler@jud.ca.gov.

Bureau of Justice Assistance

National Association of Drug Court Professionals (NADCP)

OJP Drug Court Clearinghouse and Technical Assistance Project