Preamble
Approximately 80% of criminal offenders abuse drugs or alcohol and nearly one half are clinically addicted.  Comparable rates of substance abuse and dependence are found among other groups of individuals involved with the justice system, including parents in family dependency proceedings and juveniles in delinquency proceedings. 

The War on Drugs of the 1980s emphasized incapacitation and general deterrence for a large proportion of drug-related offenses.  Although this strategy may have contributed to a plateau or reduction in then-rising crime and violence rates, it paid insufficient attention to countervailing considerations of cost and the psychosocial impact of incarceration on individuals, their families and their communities.  The result has been skyrocketing correctional costs, court-imposed caps on prison overcrowding, and devastation for already over-burdened minority and lower-SES communities.  Moreover, this strategy appears to have had minimal post-release effects on crime or drug use.  Within 3 years of release from prison, over two-thirds of drug offenders are re-arrested for a new crime, one-half are convicted of a new offense, and one-half are returned to custody.  Equally discouraging, the vast majority of these individuals return to drug abuse soon after release. 

Evidence-based sentencing relies on scientific data to balance the interests of public safety, cost and the psychosocial impacts of various dispositions on individuals coming before the courts.  Rather than over-apply any one policy, the goal is to match individuals to specific programs and services that are most likely to improve their outcomes in the most cost-efficient and safety-conscious manner.  Evidence of success is gauged by reducing recidivism, reducing substance abuse and related dysfunction, and doing so with a better cost/benefit ratio than alternative programs.  In addition to (not instead of) considering issues of incapacitation and general deterrence, judges, defense counsel and prosecutors are encouraged to include effectiveness and cost-effectiveness in their calculus of decision-making when advocating for or rendering dispositions.  The empirically determined effects of alternative dispositions become explicit factors to be considered in the sentencing process.  The intent is not to limit judicial discretion, but rather to extend it to encompass a wider range of relevant considerations. 

The Board of Directors of the National Association of Drug Court Professionals (NADCP) unanimously endorsed the following principles of evidence-based sentencing and dispositional reform for substance abusing individuals involved with the justice system.  These principles reflect reliable findings from the research literature that should guide the dispositional process and lead to more rational, effective and humane sentencing and other dispositional policies. 
These Principles are intended to encompass drug abusing and drug addicted individuals whose involvement with the justice system is fueled primarily or substantially by their drug involvement or related impairments, and who do not pose a threat to public safety.  The Principles are presented under two headings.  The first section presents general principles of dispositional reform that are derived from the research evidence and from best practices in drug courts and other effective programs for substance abusing individuals.  The second section makes specific recommendations concerning how drug courts and other problem-solving collaborative courts should fit within the broader spectrum of programs that are currently available for substance abusers involved with the justice system.  

Principles of Evidence-Based Sentencing and Dispositional Reform

Principle 1
    Sentencing and other dispositions for individuals involved in the justice system should be consistent with interests of public safety and grounded in reliable scientific evidence supporting their effectiveness for reducing substance abuse and criminal recidivism and improving the health and psychological functioning of individuals, their families and their communities. 

Principle 2
Many offenders charged with drug-related offenses can and should be safely and effectively managed in the community with the proper degree of supervision, behavioral accountability and treatment services. 

Principle 3
Programs that are effective for some types of individuals may be ineffective or harmful for others and may expend scarce resources where they are less likely to accomplish the greatest good.  Determining the most effective and cost-efficient program for any specific individual requires simultaneous attention to both criminogenic risk factors and psychosocial needs. 

Criminogenic factors are those characteristics of offenders that make them less likely to succeed in traditional forms of rehabilitation and thus more likely to recidivate.  In this context, criminogenic factors are not intended to encompass a risk for dangerousness or violence.  Examples of criminogenic factors that would be likely to lead to failure in traditional forms of treatment include, but are not limited to, a younger age during rehabilitation, an earlier onset of substance abuse or crime, a recidivist criminal record, and previously unsuccessful attempts at treatment or rehabilitation. 

Psychosocial needs are those areas of clinical dysfunction that, if effectively ameliorated, can substantially reduce the likelihood of continued involvement in substance abuse, crime or other misconduct.  Examples of high-needs factors include, but are not limited to, compulsive addiction to drugs or alcohol, psychiatric pathology, chronic medical conditions and illiteracy. 

Individuals with significant criminogenic factors and psychosocial needs require more intensive and better skilled community-based programming to improve their outcomes.
 

Principle 4
Mixing individuals who have significant criminogenic factors with low-risk individuals has been demonstrated to worsen the prognosis for the low-risk individuals by, among other things, exposing them to antisocial peer influences.  To the extent possible, individuals with significant criminogenic factors should be treated in separately stratified tracks or programs.

Principle 5
The higher the criminogenic risk level in a given population, the less room there is for error in applying behavioral modification techniques to improve performance.  For offenders with substantial criminogenic factors, this requires close and continuous monitoring of substance use, criminal activity and treatment attendance.  In addition, frequent status reviews are required by a criminal justice professional, typically a judge, who has the authority to impose meaningful and substantial rewards for accomplishments and sanctions for infractions.  Holding status reviews less frequently than bi-weekly or monthly for individuals with substantial criminogenic factors has been demonstrated to have little effect in reducing criminal activity or substance abuse. 

Principle 6
It is unwarranted to assume that all individuals who are arrested for a drug-related offense are clinically addicted or dependent.  Many substance abusers involved in the justice system have not yet progressed to the degree that their usage has become compulsive or habitually ingrained.  Providing standard substance abuse treatment services for such individuals is unlikely to elicit significant benefits and has the potential to disrupt the treatment environment and waste scarce resources.  Instead, such individuals may be better suited to a prevention or early intervention approach focused on interrupting the development of addictive behavior.  Examples of such interventions that have empirical support include, but are not limited to, vocational and educational training and “coerced abstinence” (i.e., urine-contingent sanctions and rewards).  In addition, certain antisocial individuals may require interventions specifically targeted at correcting distorted criminal thinking patterns and reducing associations with other substance abusers and criminal offenders.

Principle 7
Contrary to many common beliefs, sanctions and rewards tend to be least effective at the lowest and highest magnitudes and most effective within the intermediate range.  For example, repetitive warnings or a mere “slap on the wrist” are apt to precipitate habituation and lower the credibility of the justice system, which makes outcomes worse.  At the other extreme, unduly harsh incarcerative sentences are apt to elicit counterproductive reactions of resentment and despondency and may interfere with adaptive functioning.  The most effective programs utilize a wide and creative range of intermediate-magnitude responses to behavior that can be ratcheted upward or downward in intensity in response to successive infractions or achievements.  This requires programs to be legally empowered to administer a range of intermediate-magnitude consequences and to receive adequate resources to make those consequences meaningful and salient for their participants. 

Principle 8
The best available research evidence indicates that jail sanctions can be effective in improving outcomes when they are imposed quickly after an infraction has occurred, are brief in duration, do not interfere with the treatment process, and are imposed after lesser sanctions have failed to improve conduct.  To the extent feasible, treatment interventions should continue uninterrupted while participants are detained and participants should be welcomed back immediately into treatment upon release.  In this light, brief jail sanctions can be seen to differ fundamentally from final incarcerative sentences, which are longer in duration and do not maintain an ongoing treatment plan.

Principle 9
Individuals with long histories of addiction, mental illness or criminality have typically been exposed to repeated punishment for their misbehavior over long periods of time.  As a result, they often have habituated to the threat of sanctions or reached a ceiling effect in which further escalation of punishment may be impractical.  For these individuals, it may still be necessary to use restrictive consequences for misconduct in the interests of protecting public safety; however, positive reinforcement for good behavior is often critical for producing long-term behavioral improvement.  Expending resources on positive incentives may, therefore, be most justified for the relatively more regressed populations of individuals who are least apt to respond to punishment and are least accustomed to being rewarded for good behavior.

Recommendations for Drug Courts

Recommendation 1
A systemic approach should be utilized from the outset for all substance abusers coming into contact with the courts that maximizes outcomes and conserves limited resources.  This requires the maintenance of a problem-solving orientation and collaborative approach between the courts, treatment agencies, community corrections, prosecution, defense bar and local community leaders. 

Recommendation 2
The type and intensity of services provided in specific cases should be based on an explicit assessment of each individual’s risk-and-needs profile and the selection of evidence-based interventions designed to address the identified risks and needs.  Not all substance abusers may require the full complement of interventions outlined in the Ten Key Components; however, all do require an appropriate intervention that best utilizes available resources to improve psychosocial functioning and reduce risks to public safety.  Therefore, at the local, county and state levels, appropriate systems should be developed in the courts that are capable of administering a range of community-based and institutional programs.  Without such a systemic approach, there is a danger that substance abusers with different treatment and supervision needs will be mixed together or placed in programs that will not produce optimal outcomes and will fail to make the best use of limited resources.  Policymakers at every level should strive to design a range of programs on a scale that begins with the least intensive and ends with the most highly structured level of treatment and supervision.

Recommendation 3
Research has consistently shown that drug courts elicit the greatest effects for individuals characterized by an earlier onset of addiction, a previously treatment-refractory course, and a relatively more severe antisocial predisposition.  Such individuals require the full integrated continuum of services provided by “drug courts proper” as outlined in the Ten Key Components.  Watering down the key components for such individuals in the interests of conserving resources risks the unfortunate result of seriously diluting the effects of the intervention. 

Recommendation 4
Research suggests that low-risk individuals can often be effectively managed on noncompliance calendars, in which judicial reviews are called in response to poor adherence to treatment or an emergence of new infractions.  This can permit a drug court to supervise a larger number of clients while conserving limited judicial resources for the more severe cases.  The progress of low-risk individuals might be supervised by a probation officer, pretrial services officer or clinical case manager; however, continuing court jurisdiction over low-risk cases enables the judge to bring those individuals in for noncompliance reviews quickly where indicated.

Recommendation 5
Drug courts provide substance abuse treatment in lieu of prosecution or incarceration with the underlying logic that drug addiction or abuse is fueling or exacerbating criminal misconduct.  For individuals who do not suffer from a substance abuse disorder or related psychiatric impairment, the rationale for this arrangement is appreciably lacking.  Including such individuals in a standard drug court program risks undermining the credibility of the program and disrupting the treatment groups for individuals who are truly suffering from impairments.  It might be appropriate to provide court-supervised services for low-needs individuals in the community, such as vocational rehabilitation or other prevention interventions; however, those tracks should be separated from drug court proper.

Recommendation 6
Research is compelling that certain minority groups in this country are incarcerated for drug-related offenses at higher rates for what appears to be comparable conduct.  Moreover, in some criminal justice programs there is evidence of minority groups receiving less intensive or less well-suited services for comparable clinical needs.  Drug courts must be attentive to this issue and must encourage appropriate research to determine whether they are part of the problem and how they can be part of the solution.  Research is further needed to ensure that risk-and-needs assessment instruments are not culturally biased and do not trigger suspect classes or contribute to disparate impacts. 

Recommendation 7
Many of the same principles enumerated above apply equally as well to other populations, including DWI offenders, juvenile delinquents, mentally ill offenders, families in dependency proceedings, and jail and prison reentry.  More research is needed to fine-tune the principles for different contexts; however, there is no scientific basis for ignoring these principles or discounting their applicability to different populations.  The NADCP should resist trends in which such programs attempt to apply ineffective or unproven paradigms and ignore extant research findings.

Recommendation 8
As the drug court field continues to evolve and develops new innovations, it is essential to maintain fidelity to the basic principle that all programs must be based on demonstrated research findings of best and promising practices today and for the future.   This requires additional support for research through NDCI and the development of best-practice standards for drug court professionals toward the goal of maintaining leadership in the field and assuring that all substance abusers and other individuals involved with the courts receive appropriate treatment and interventions.