| download the PDF |
Defining Drug Courts: The Key Components
Acknowledgments
Appreciation is extended to the many individuals who took the time to offer comments and suggestions on the field review draft. Every suggestion was considered and most were incorporated, improving the document and making it truly reflect the drug court field's best thinking.
The Drug Court Standards Committee members donated their time and attention to this task, receiving no compensation except our deep gratitude for an excellent job. Special thanks are extended to the committee's chairman, Judge Bill Meyer of the Denver Drug Court, whose vision, enthusiasm, and good humor provided direction and momentum to the project.
The staff of the National Association of Drug Court Professionals and their consultant, Jody Forman, are commended for convening the committee and providing effective and expert support.
The production of this document was a joint effort of a dedicated group of drug court professionals and the Drug Courts Program Office, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. It is my hope that this process and result will be the model for many successful cooperative projects.
Marilyn McCoy Roberts
Purpose
Defining Drug Courts: The Key Components was produced by a diverse group of drug court practitioners and other experts from across the country, brought together by the National Association of Drug Court Professionals. The committee includes representatives from courts, prosecution, public defense, treatment, pretrial services, case management, probation, court administration, and academia and others with drug court experience. (See appendix 1.)
The committee intends for the benchmarks presented in this publication to be inspirational, describing the very best practices, designs, and operations of drug courts for adults with alcohol and other drug problems. The committee recognizes that juveniles present different legal, social, educational, and treatment issues. Although the document may be useful in developing a juvenile drug court, its focus is on adults. The committee also acknowledges that local resources, political, and operational issues will not permit every local adult drug court to adopt all aspects of the guidelines.
The benchmarks offered here are not intended as a certification or regulatory checklist because the field is still too new to codify policies, procedures, and operations. Because drug courts are evolving, the committee decided that the field would benefit most from general, practical guidance on how to get established, what to consider, whom to include, and how to proceed. The benchmarks are meant to serve as a practical, yet flexible framework for developing effective drug courts in vastly different jurisdictions and to provide a structure for conducting research and evaluation for program accountability.
With over 200 drug courts in the United States, examples could be cited for almost every concept in this document. It was a difficult decision, but the committee decided that citing examples would make the document too large and its organization unwieldy. Also, since the examples would describe current drug court operations in a developing field, the material would be time sensitive and would render the document dated almost as soon as it was published.
In such a new field, the best practices of today will, doubtless, change tomorrow. For this reason, a resource list is privided in appendix 2. This document should be considered a starting point in the process of compiling the knowledge and experiences of others on how to best design and implement drug courts.
How to Use This Document
Over 200 drug courts coordinate treatment delivery with judicial oversight; these are considered bona fide drug courts. Many other programs named "drug courts" have sprung up across the country in the past several years in response to expanding court dockets, clogged with drug--related offenses. They may look similar, but they may not provide the orientation toward treatment and judicial supervision described in this document. Some programs focus on expediting case processing. Others try to intervene before trial but do not use judicial oversight, immediate treatment intervention, or alcohol and drug testing. Adherence to the key components and benchmarks detailed here distinguish treatment-based, multidiscipline, full-range drug courts from other programs.
This document is organized around 10 key components, which describe the basic elements that define drug courts. The purpose of each key component is explained, followed by several performance benchmarks that give guidance for implementing each key component.
Insanity is doing the same thing over and
Background
For several decades, drug use has shaped the criminal justice system. Drug and drug-related offenses are the most common crime in nearly every community.(1) Drug offenders move through the criminal justice system in a predictable pattern: arrest, prosecution, conviction, incarceration, release. In a few days, weeks, or months, the same person may be picked up on a new charge and the process begins again.
The segment of society using drugs between 1950 and 1970 expanded with the crack cocaine epidemic of the mid-1980's, and the number of drug arrests skyrocketed.(2) Early efforts to stem the tide only complicated the situation. Initial legislation redefined criminal codes and escalated penalties for drug possession and sales. These actions did little to curtail the illicit use of drugs and alcohol. As law enforcers redoubled their efforts, America's prisons were filled,(3) compromising Federal and State correction systems' abilities to house violent and career felons.(4) Some States scrambled to "build out" of the problem, spending hundreds of millions of dollars on new prisons, only to find that they could not afford to operate or maintain them.(5)
Other jurisdictions, encouraged and supported by the Federal Government, developed Expedited Drug Case Management systems and were the first to adopt the term "drug court." These early efforts sped up drug case processing by reducing the time between arrest and conviction. Existing resources were used more efficiently, and serious drug trafficking cases were processed more rapidly. However, these efforts did little to address the problems of habitual drug use and simply sped up the revolving door from court to jails and prisons and back again.
As offenders flooded the criminal justice system, many were not identified as having problems with alcohol and other drugs or were released to the community without referral to treatment. When they were identified, attempts by judges to refer them to treatment often yielded meager gains, either because the few alcohol and other drug (AOD) abuse treatment programs were full and waiting lists were long or because cooperative working relationships between criminal justice agencies and AOD treatment providers were inadequate or nonexistent. In addition, the majority of drug abusers ordered by judges to participate in treatment did not remain involved in the process long enough to develop behaviors and skills for long-term abstinence.
The traditional adversarial system of justice, designed to resolve legal disputes, is ineffective at addressing AOD abuse. Moreover, many features of the court system actually contribute to AOD abuse instead of curbing it: Traditional defense counsel functions and court procedures often reinforce the offender's denial of an AOD problem. The offender may not be assessed for AOD use until months after arrest, if at all. Moreover, the criminal justice system is often an unwitting enabler of continuing drug use because few immediate consequences for continued AOD use are imposed. When referrals to treatment are made, they can occur months or years after the offense and there is little or no inducement to complete the program.
In response, a few forward-thinking and innovative jurisdictions began to reexamine the relationship between criminal justice processing and AOD treatment services. Several commonsense improvements sprang up spontaneously throughout the Nation. It became increasingly apparent that treatment providers and criminal justice practitioners shared common goals: stopping the illicit use and abuse of all addictive substances and curtailing related criminal activity. Each system possessed unique capabilities and resources that could complement the other and enhance the effectiveness of both if combined in partnership. Thus, the concept of treatment-oriented drug courts was born.
Drug courts were first implemented in the late 1980's, but they did not develop in a vacuum. They are an outgrowth of the continuing development of community-based team-oriented approaches that have their roots in innovative programs developed by pretrial, probation, and parole agencies, as well as treatment-based partnerships such as TASC (Treatment Alternative to Street Crime) and law enforcement innovations such as community policing programs.
Nor are drug courts the culmination or focal point of this evolution in community-based court programs. "Community courts," encouraged by the success of drug courts, have emerged over the past several years to include domestic violence courts, DUI (driving under the influence) courts, juvenile and family drug courts, neighborhood courts, and even "deadbeat dad" courts. These courts are designed to reflect community concerns and priorities, access community resources, include community organizations in policymaking decisions, and seek general community participation and support.
Drug courts and other new and innovative community-based court programs making up the community court field are, in turn, part of the "community justice" field. Along with community policing, community prosecution, and community corrections, these programs are evolving fast, gaining momentum, and spreading across the country. As the community justice field evolves into the 21st century, so too will drug courts.
What Is a Drug Court?
The mission of drug courts is to stop the abuse of alcohol and other drugs and related criminal activity. Drug courts offer a compelling choice for individuals whose criminal justice involvement stems from AOD use: participation in treatment. In exchange for successful completion of the treatment program, the court may dismiss the original charge, reduce or set aside a sentence, offer some lesser penalty, or offer a combination of these.
Drug courts transform the roles of both criminal justice practitioners and AOD treatment providers. The judge is the central figure in a team effort that focuses on sobriety and accountability as the primary goals. Because the judge takes on the role of trying to keep participants engaged in treatment, providers can effectively focus on developing a therapeutic relationship with the participant. In turn, treatment providers keep the court informed of each participant's progress so that rewards and sanctions can be provided.
Drug courts create an environment with clear and certain rules. The rules are definite, easy to understand, and most important, compliance is within the individual's control. The rules are based on the participant's performance and are measurable. For example, the participant either appears in court or does not, attends treatment sessions or does not; the drug tests reveal drug use or abstinence. The participant's performance is immediately and directly communicated to the judge, who rewards progress or penalizes noncompliance. A drug court establishes an environment that the participant can understand--a system in which clear choices are presented and individuals are encouraged to take control of their own recovery.
The Planning Process
Drug courts require a coordinated, systemic approach to the drug offender. Comprehensive and inclusive planning is critical. Planning begins with a vision of what will be achieved when the drug court succeeds. A mission statement evolves from this vision, giving rise to goals and objectives that create form and function. Clearly defined goals and objectives should be measurable and provide accountability for State and local funding agencies and policymakers who ultimately will ensure the continuation of the court.
Planning must be detailed, and thorough and must include as many perspectives as possible. A myriad of issues must be addressed, including offender identification and eligibility criteria; treatment methods, expectations, and support service availability; organizational coordination; formal policies and procedures; contractual and budgetary agreements; ongoing supervision; and process and outcome evaluation.
The judge, court administrator, clerk, prosecutor, defender, and other staff are particularly important to the planning process. The initial planning group should also include representatives from State and local treatment provider agencies, law enforcement, pretrial services, jails, probation services, and other community-based organizations. This core group develops a work plan addressing the operational, coordination, resource, information management, and evaluation needs of the program. The work plan should be specific, describing roles and responsibilities of each program component. For example, eligibility criteria, screening, and assessment procedures must be established. Both court and treatment case management procedures and information systems must be developed. Graduated responses to both participant compliance and noncompliance must be defined. Treatment requirements and expectations need to be understood and agreed to by the planning group.
Drug court programs should have the capacity to demonstrate tangible outcomes and cost--effectiveness. It is unlikely that drug courts will thrive without demonstrating reductions in AOD use, decreases in criminal behavior, and improvements in the employability and educational levels of participants.
As the planning process continues, additional challenges will arise. Once the drug court begins, what isn't working will quickly become apparent and must be adjusted or modified. Key personnel will change over time. Experience will bring growth and expansion. Mechanisms must already be in place to address these challenges.
Although the plan may never be perfect, the time allotted for planning should be sufficient to consider all of the critical issues, but short enough to implement while enthusiasm for the new endeavor is high.
Drug courts integrate alcohol and other drug treatment services with justice system case processing.
Purpose: The mission of drug courts is to stop the abuse of alcohol and other drugs and related criminal activity. Drug courts promote recovery through a coordinated response to offenders dependent on alcohol and other drugs. Realization of these goals requires a team approach, including cooperation and collaboration of the judges, prosecutors, defense counsel, probation authorities, other corrections personnel, law enforcement, pretrial services agencies, TASC programs, evaluators, an array of local service providers, and the greater community. State-level organizations representing AOD issues, law enforcement and criminal justice, vocational rehabilitation, education, and housing also have important roles to play. The combined energies of these individuals and organizations can assist and encourage defendants to accept help that could change their lives.
The criminal justice system has the unique ability to influence a person shortly after a significant triggering event such as arrest, and thus persuade or compel that person to enter and remain in treatment. Research indicates that a person coerced to enter treatment by the criminal justice system is likely to do as well as one who volunteers.(6)
Drug courts usually employ a multiphased treatment process, generally divided into a stabilization phase, an intensive treatment phase, and a transition phase. The stabilization phase may include a period of AOD detoxification, initial treatment assessment, education, and screening for other needs. The intensive treatment phase typically involves individual and group counseling and other core and adjunctive therapies as they are available (see Key Component 4). The transition phase may emphasize social reintegration, employment and education, housing services, and other aftercare activities.
Performance Benchmarks:
1. Initial and ongoing planning is carried out by a broad-based group, including persons representing all aspects of the criminal justice system, the local treatment delivery system, funding agencies, the local community other key policymakers.
2. Documents defining the drug court's mission, goals, eligibility criteria, operating procedures, and performance measures are collaboratively developed, reviewed, and agreed upon.
3. Abstinence and law-abiding behavior are the goals, with specific and measurable criteria marking progress. Criteria may include compliance with program requirements, reductions in criminal behavior and AOD use, participation in treatment, restitution to the victim or to the community, and declining incidence of AOD use.
4. The court and treatment providers maintain ongoing communication, including frequent exchanges of timely and accurate information about the individual participant's overall program performance.(7)
5. The judge plays an active role in the treatment process, including frequently reviewing of treatment progress. The judge responds to each participant's positive efforts as well as to noncompliant behavior.
6. Interdisciplinary education is provided for every person involved in drug court operations to develop a shared understanding of the values, goals, and operating procedures of both the treatment and justice system components.
7. Mechanisms for sharing decisionmaking and resolving conflicts among drug court team members, such as multidisciplinary committees, are established to ensure professional integrity.
Pringle G., Impact of the criminal justice system on substance abusers seeking professional help, Journal of Drug Issues. Summer, pp. 275283, vol 12, no. 3, 1982.
7 All communication about an individual's participation in treatment must be in compliance with the provisions of 42 CFR, Part 2 (the federal regulations governing confidentiality of alcohol and drug abuse patient records), and with similar State and local regulations.
Using a nonadversarial approach, prosecution and defense counsel promote public safety while protecting participants' due process rights.
Purpose: To facilitate an individual's progress in treatment, the prosecutor and defense counsel must shed their traditional adversarial courtroom relationship and work together as a team. Once a defendant is accepted into the drug court program, the team's focus is on the participant's recovery and law-abiding behavior--not on the merits of the pending case.
The responsibility of the prosecuting attorney is to protect the public's safety by ensuring that each candidate is appropriate for the program and complies with all drug court requirements. The responsibility of the defense counsel is to protect the participant's due process rights while encouraging full participation. Both the prosecuting attorney and the defense counsel play important roles in the court's coordinated strategy for responding to noncompliance.
Performance Benchmarks:
1. Prosecutors and defense counsel participate in the design of screening, eligibility, and case-processing policies and procedures to guarantee that due process rights and public safety needs are served.
2. For consistency and stability in the early stages of drug court operations, the judge, prosecutor, and court-appointed defense counsel should be assigned to the drug court for a sufficient period of time to build a sense of teamwork and to reinforce a nonadversarial atmosphere.
3. The prosecuting attorney
4. The defense counsel
Eligible participants are identified early and promptly placed in the drug court program.
Purpose: Arrest can be a traumatic event in a person's life. It creates an immediate crisis and can force substance abusing behavior into the open, making denial difficult. The period immediately after an arrest, or after apprehension for a probation violation, provides a critical window of opportunity for intervening and introducing the value of AOD treatment. Judicial action, taken promptly after arrest, capitalizes on the crisis nature of the arrest and booking process.
Rapid and effective action also increases public confidence in the criminal justice system. Moreover, incorporating AOD concerns into the case disposition process can be a key element in strategies to link criminal justice and AOD treatment systems overall.
Performance Benchmarks:
1. Eligibility screening is based on established written criteria. Criminal justice officials or others (e.g., pretrial services, probation, TASC) are designated to screen cases and identify potential drug court participants.
2. Eligible participants for drug court are promptly advised about program requirements and the relative merits of participating.
3. Trained professionals screen drug court--eligible individuals for AOD problems and suitability for treatment.
4. Initial appearance before the drug court judge occurs immediately after arrest or apprehension to ensure program participation.
5. The court requires that eligible participants enroll in AOD treatment services immediately.
Drug courts provide access to a continuum of alcohol, drug, and other related treatment and rehabilitation services.
Purpose: The origins and patterns of AOD problems are complex and unique to each individual. They are influenced by a variety of accumulated social and cultural experiences. If treatment for AOD is to be effective, it must also call on the resources of primary health and mental health care and make use of social and other support services.(8)
In a drug court, the treatment experience begins in the courtroom and continues through the participant's drug court involvement. In other words, drug court is a comprehensive therapeutic experience, only part of which takes place in a designated treatment setting. The treatment and criminal justice professionals are members of the therapeutic team.
The therapeutic team (treatment providers, the judge, lawyers, case managers, supervisors, and other program staff) should maintain frequent, regular communication to provide timely reporting of a participant's progress and to ensure that responses to compliance and noncompliance are swift and coordinated. Procedures for reporting progress should be clearly defined in the drug court's operating documents.
While primarily concerned with criminal activity and AOD use, the drug court team also needs to consider co-occurring problems such as mental illness, primary medical problems, HIV and sexually-transmitted diseases, homelessness; basic educational deficits, unemployment and poor job preparation; spouse and family troubles--especially domestic violence--and the long-term effects of childhood physical and sexual abuse. If not addressed, these factors will impair an individual's success in treatment and will compromise compliance with program requirements. Co-occurring factors should be considered in treatment planning. In addition, treatment services must be relevant to the ethnicity, gender, age, and other characteristics of the participants.
Longitudinal studies have consistently documented the effectiveness of AOD treatment in reducing criminal recidivism and AOD use.(9) A study commissioned by the Office of National Drug Control Policy found AOD treatment is significantly more cost-effective than domestic law enforcement, interdiction, or "source-country control" in reducing drug use in the United States(10) Research indicates that the length of time an offender spends in treatment is related to the level of AOD abuse and criminal justice involvement.(11) A comprehensive study conducted by the State of California indicates that AOD treatment provides a $7 return for every $1 spent on treatment. The study found that outpatient treatment is the most cost-effective approach, although residential treatment, sober living houses, and methadone maintenance are also cost-effective.(12) Comprehensive studies conducted in California(13) and Oregon(14) found that positive outcomes associated with AOD treatment are sustained for several years following completion of treatment.
For the many communities that do not have adequate treatment resources, drug courts can provide leadership to increase treatment options and enrich the availability of support services. Some drug courts have found creative ways to access services, such as implementing treatment readiness programs for participants who are on waiting lists for comprehensive treatment programs. In some jurisdictions, drug courts have established their own treatment programs where none existed. Other drug courts have made use of pretrial, probation, and public health treatment services.
Performance Benchmarks:
1. Individuals are initially screened and thereafter periodically assessed by both court and treatment personnel to ensure that treatment services and individuals are suitably matched:
2. Treatment services are comprehensive:
4. Funding for treatment is adequate, stable, and dedicated to the drug court:
5. Treatment services have quality controls:
6. Treatment agencies are accountable:
7. Treatment designs and delivery systems are sensitive and relevant to issues of race, culture, religion, gender, age, ethnicity, and sexual orientation.
8 Treatment-Based Drug Court Planning Guide and Checklist, Combining Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse Treatment With Diversion for Juveniles in the Justice System, TIP #21, Treatments Drug Courts: Integrating Substance Abuse Treatment With Legal Case Processing, TIP #23. Rockville, MD: Center for Substance Abuse Treatment, 1996. 9 The Effectiveness of Treatment for Drug Abusers Under Criminal Justice Supervision. Lipton, D., Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, Research Report, November 1995. 10 Rydell, P., Everingham, S. Controlling Cocaine: Supply Versus Demand Programs. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, Office of National Drug Control Policy, Policy Research Center, 1994. 11 Field, G. Oregon prison drug treatment programs. In C. Leukefeld and F. Tims (eds.), Drug Abuse Treatment in Prisons and Jails. Research monograph series #108. Rockville, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse, 1992. Wexler, H., Falkin, G., and Lipton, D. Outcome evaluation of a prison therapeutic community for substance abuse treatment. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 17, pp 71-92, 1990. 12 Evaluating Recovery Services: The California Drug and Alcohol Treatment Assessment (CALDATA) General Report. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs, April 1994. 13 Ibid. 14 Societal Outcomes and Cost Savings of Drug and Alcohol Treatment in the State of Oregon. Salem, OR: Office of Alcohol and Drug Abuse Programs, Oregon Department of Human Resources, February 1996.
Abstinence is monitored by frequent alcohol and other drug testing.
Purpose: Frequent court-ordered AOD testing is essential. An accurate testing program is the most objective and efficient way to establish a framework for accountability and to gauge each participant's progress. Modern technology offers highly reliable testing to determine if an individual has recently used specific drugs. Further, it is commonly recognized that alcohol use frequently contributes to relapse among individuals whose primary drug of choice is not alcohol.
AOD testing results are objective measures of treatment effectiveness, as well as a source of important information for periodic review of treatment progress. AOD testing helps shape the ongoing interaction between the court and each participant. Timely and accurate test results promote frankness and honesty among all parties.
AOD testing is central to the drug court's monitoring of participant compliance. It is both objective and cost-effective. It gives the participant immediate information about his or her own progress, making the participant active and involved in the treatment process rather than a passive recipient of services.
Performance Benchmarks:
1. AOD testing policies and procedures are based on established and tested guidelines, such as those established by the American Probation and Parole Association. Contracted laboratories analyzing urine or other samples should also be held to established standards.
2. Testing may be administered randomly or at scheduled intervals, but occurs no less than twice a week during the first several months of an individual's enrollment. Frequency thereafter will vary depending on participant progress.
3. The scope of testing is sufficiently broad to detect the participant's primary drug of choice as well as other potential drugs of abuse, including alcohol.
4. The drug-testing procedure must be certain. Elements contributing to the reliability and validity of a urinalysis testing process include, but are not limited to,
5. Ideally, test results are available and communicated to the court and the participant within one day. The drug court functions best when it can to respond immediately to noncompliance; the time between sample collection and availability of results should be short.
6. The court is immediately notified when a participant has tested positive, has failed to submit to AOD testing, has submitted the sample of another, or has adulterated a sample.
7. The coordinated strategy for responding to noncompliance includes prompt responses to positive tests, missed tests, and fraudulent tests.
8. Participants should be abstinent for a substantial period of time prior to program graduation.
A coordinated strategy governs drug court responses to participants' compliance.
Purpose: An established principle of AOD treatment is that addiction is a chronic, relapsing condition. A pattern of decreasing frequency of use before sustained abstinence from alcohol and other drugs is common. Becoming sober or drug free is a learning experience, and each relapse to AOD use may teach something about the recovery process.
Implemented in the early stages of treatment and emphasized throughout, therapeutic strategies aimed at preventing the return to AOD use help participants learn to manage their ambivalence toward recovery, identify situations that stimulate AOD cravings, and develop skills to cope with high-risk situations. Eventually, participants learn to manage cravings, avoid or deal more effectively with high-risk situations, and maintain sobriety for increasing lengths of time.
Abstinence and public safety are the ultimate goals of drug courts, but many participants exhibit a pattern of positive urine tests within the first several months following admission. Because AOD problems take a long time to develop and because many factors contribute to drug use and dependency, it is rare that an individual ceases AOD use as soon as he or she enrolls in treatment. Even after a period of sustained abstinence, it is common for individuals to occasionally test positive.
Although drug courts recognize that individuals have a tendency to relapse, continuing AOD use is not condoned. Drug courts impose appropriate responses for continuing AOD use. Responses increase in severity for continued failure to abstain.
A participant's progress through the drug court experience is measured by his or her compliance with the treatment regimen. Certainly cessation of drug use is the ultimate goal of drug court treatment. However, there is value in recognizing incremental progress toward the goal, such as showing up at all required court appearances, regularly arriving at the treatment program on time, attending and fully participating in the treatment sessions, cooperating with treatment staff, and submitting to regular AOD testing.
Drug courts must reward cooperation as well as respond to noncompliance. Small rewards for incremental successes have an important effect on a participant's sense of purpose and accomplishment. Praise from the drug court judge for regular attendance or for a period of clean drug tests, encouragement from the treatment staff or the judge at particularly difficult times, and ceremonies in which tokens of accomplishment are awarded in open court for completing a particular phase of treatment are all small but very important rewards that bolster confidence and give inspiration to continue.
Drug courts establish a coordinated strategy, including a continuum of responses, to continuing drug use and other noncompliant behavior. A coordinated strategy can provide a common operating plan for treatment providers and other drug court personnel. The criminal justice system representatives and the treatment providers develop a series of complementary, measured responses that will encourage compliance. A written copy of these responses, given to participants during the orientation period, emphasizes the predictability, certainty, and swiftness of their application.
Performance Benchmarks:
1. Treatment providers, the judge, and other program staff maintain frequent, regular communication to provide timely reporting of progress and noncompliance and to enable the court to respond immediately. Procedures for reporting noncompliance are clearly defined in the drug court's operating documents.
2. Responses to compliance and noncompliance are explained verbally and provided in writing to drug court participants before their orientation. Periodic reminders are given throughout the treatment process.
3. The responses for compliance vary in intensity.
4. Responses to or sanctions for noncompliance might include
Ongoing judicial interaction with each drug court participant is essential.
Purpose: The judge is the leader of the drug court team, linking participants to AOD treatment and to the criminal justice system. This active, supervising relationship, maintained throughout treatment, increases the likelihood that a participant will remain in treatment and improves the chances for sobriety and law-abiding behavior. Ongoing judicial supervision also communicates to participants--often for the first time--that someone in authority cares about them and is closely watching what they do.
Drug courts require judges to step beyond their traditionally independent and objective arbiter roles and develop new expertise. The structure of the drug court allows for early and frequent judicial intervention. A drug court judge must be prepared to encourage appropriate behavior and to discourage and penalize inappropriate behavior. A drug court judge is knowledgeable about treatment methods and their limitations.
Performance Benchmarks:
1. Regular status hearings are used to monitor participant performance:
2. The court applies appropriate incentives and sanctions to match the participant's treatment progress.
3. Payment of fees, fines and/or restitution is part of the participant's treatment. The court supervises such payments and takes into account the participant's financial ability to fulfill these obligations. The court ensures that no one is denied participation in drug courts solely because of inability to pay fees, fines, or restitution.
Monitoring and evaluation measure the achievement of program goals and gauge effectiveness.
Purpose: Fundamental to the effective operation of drug courts are coordinated management, monitoring, and evaluation systems. The design and operation of an effective drug court program result from thorough initial planning, clearly defined program goals, and inherent flexibility to make modifications as necessary.
The goals of the program should be described concretely and in measurable terms to provide accountability to funding agencies and policymakers. And, since drug courts will increasingly be asked to demonstrate tangible outcomes and cost-effectiveness, it is critical that the drug court be designed with the ability to gather and manage information for monitoring daily activities, evaluating the quality of services provided, and producing longitudinal evaluations.
Management and monitoring systems provide timely and accurate information about program operations to the drug court's managers, enabling them to keep the program on course, identify developing problems, and make appropriate procedural changes. Clearly defined drug court goals shape the management information system, determine monitoring questions, and suggest methods for finding information to answer them.
Program management provides the information needed for day-to-day operations and for planning, monitoring, and evaluation. Program monitoring provides oversight and periodic measurements of the program's performance against its stated goals and objectives.
Evaluation is the institutional process of gathering and analyzing data to measure the accomplishment of the program's long-term goals. A process evaluation appraises progress in meeting operational and administrative goals (e.g., whether treatment services are implemented as intended). An outcome evaluation assesses the extent to which the program is reaching its long-term goals (e.g., reducing criminal recidivism). An effective design for an outcome evaluation uses a comparison group that does not receive drug court services.
Although evaluation activities are often planned and implemented simultaneously, process evaluation information can be used more quickly in the early stages of drug court implementation. Outcome evaluation should be planned at the beginning of the program as it requires at least a year to compile results, especially if past participants are to be found and interviewed. Evaluation strategies should reflect the significant coordination and the considerable time required to obtain measurable results. Evaluation studies are useful to everyone, including funding agencies and policymakers who may not be involved in the daily operations of the program. Information and conclusions developed from periodic monitoring reports, process evaluation activities, and longitudinal evaluation studies may be used to modify program procedures, change therapeutic interventions, and make decisions about continuing or expanding the program.
Information for management, monitoring, and evaluation purposes may already exist within the court system and/or in the community treatment or supervision agencies (e.g., criminal justice data bases, psychosocial histories, and formal AOD assessments). Multiple sources of information enhance the credibility and persuasiveness of conclusions drawn from evaluations.
Performance Benchmarks:
1. Management, monitoring, and evaluation processes begin with initial planning. As part of the comprehensive planning process, drug court leaders and senior managers should establish specific and measurable goals that define the parameters of data collection and information management. An evaluator can be an important member of the planning team.
2. Data needed for program monitoring and management can be obtained from records maintained for day-to-day program operations, such as the numbers and general demographics of individuals screened for eligibility; the extent and nature of AOD problems among those assessed for possible participation in the program; and attendance records, progress reports, drug test results, and incidence of criminality among those accepted into the program.
3. Monitoring and management data are assembled in useful formats for regular review by program leaders and managers.
4. Ideally, much of the information needed for monitoring and evaluation is gathered through an automated system that can provide timely and useful reports. If an automated system is not available, manual data collection and report preparation can be streamlined. Additional monitoring information may be acquired by observation and through program staff and participant interviews.
5. Automated and manual information systems must adhere to written guidelines that protect against unauthorized disclosure of sensitive personal information about individuals.
6. Monitoring reports need to be reviewed at frequent intervals by program leaders and senior managers. They can be used to analyze program operations, gauge effectiveness, modify procedures when necessary, and refine goals.
7. Process evaluation activities should be undertaken throughout the course of the drug court program. This activity is particularly important in the early stages of program implementation.
8. If feasible, a qualified independent evaluator should be selected and given responsibility for developing and conducting an evaluation design and for preparing interim and final reports. If an independent evaluation is unavailable the drug court program designs and implements its own evaluation, based on guidance available through the field.
9. Useful data elements to assist in management and monitoring may include, but are not limited to,
11. At least six months after exiting a drug court program, comparison groups (listed above) should be examined to determine long-term effects of the program. Data elements for follow-up evaluation may include
Continuing interdisciplinary education promotes effective drug court planning, implementation, and operations.
Purpose: Periodic education and training ensures that the drug court's goals and objectives, as well as policies and procedures, are understood not only by the drug court leaders and senior managers, but also by those indirectly involved in the program. Education and training programs also help maintain a high level of professionalism, provide a forum for solidifying relationships among criminal justice and AOD treatment personnel, and promote a spirit of commitment and collaboration.
All drug court staff should be involved in education and training, even before the first case is heard. Interdisciplinary education exposes criminal justice officials to treatment issues, and treatment staff to criminal justice issues. It also develops shared understandings of the values, goals, and operating procedures of both the treatment and the justice system components. Judges and court personnel typically need to learn about the nature of AOD problems and the theories and practices supporting specific treatment approaches. Treatment providers typically need to become familiar with criminal justice accountability issues and court operations. All need to understand and comply with drug testing standards and procedures.
For justice system or other officials not directly involved in the program's operations, education provides an overview of the mission, goals, and operating procedures of the drug court.
A simple and effective method of educating new drug court staff is to visit an existing court to observe its operations and ask questions. On-site experience with an operating drug court provides an opportunity for new drug court staff to talk to their peers directly and to see how their particular role functions.
Performance Benchmarks:
1. Key personnel have attained a specific level of basic education, as defined in staff training requirements and in the written operating procedures. The operating procedures should also define requirements for the continuing education of each drug court staff member.
2. Attendance at education and training sessions by all drug court personnel is essential. Regional and national drug court training provide critical information on innovative developments across the Nation. Sessions are most productive when drug court personnel attend as a group. Credits for continuing professional education should be offered, when feasible.
3. Continuing education institutionalizes the drug court and moves it beyond its initial identification with the key staff who may have founded the program and nurtured its development.
4. An education syllabus and curriculum are developed, describing the drug court's goals, policies, and procedures. Topics might include
Forging partnerships among drug courts, public agencies, and community-based organizations generates local support and enhances drug court program effectiveness.
Purpose: Because of its unique position in the criminal justice system, a drug court is especially well suited to develop coalitions among private community-based organizations, public criminal justice agencies, and AOD treatment delivery systems. Forming such coalitions expands the continuum of services available to drug court participants and informs the community about drug court concepts.
The drug court is a partnership among organizations--public, private, and community-based-- dedicated to a coordinated and cooperative approach to the AOD offender. The drug court fosters systemwide involvement through its commitment to share responsibility and participation of program partners. As a part of--and as a leader in--the formation and operation of community partnerships, drug courts can help restore public faith in the criminal justice system.
Performance Benchmarks:
1. Representatives from the court, community organizations, law enforcement, corrections, prosecution, defense counsel, supervisory agencies, treatment and rehabilitation providers, educators, health and social service agencies, and the faith community meet regularly to provide guidance and direction to the drug court program.
2. The drug court plays a pivotal role in forming linkages between community groups and the criminal justice system. The linkages are a conduit of information to the public about the drug court, and conversely, from the community to the court about available community services and local problems.
3. Partnerships between drug courts and law enforcement and/or community policing programs can build effective links between the court and offenders in the community.
4. Participation of public and private agencies, as well as community-based organizations, is formalized through a steering committee. The steering committee aids in the acquisition and distribution of resources. An especially effective way for the steering committee to operate is through the formation of a nonprofit corporation structure that includes all the principle drug court partners, provides policy guidance, and acts as a conduit for fundraising and resource acquisition.
5. Drug court programs and services are sensitive to and demonstrate awareness of the populations they serve and the communities in which they operate. Drug courts provide opportunities for community involvement through forums, informational meetings, and other community outreach efforts.
6. The drug court hires a professional staff that reflects the population served, and the drug court provides ongoing cultural competence training.
Ed Brekke
Roger Peters
Frank Tapia
Jay Carver
Caroline Cooper
Marilyn McCoy Roberts
National Association of Drug Court Professionals Judge Jeffrey S. Tauber Jody Forman
Federal Organizations and Agencies Providing Information and Guidance on Drug Courts:
The White House
U.S. Department of Justice
Bureau of Justice Assistance
Drug Courts Program Office
National Criminal Justice
Federal Agencies and Organizations Providing Information on AOD Treatment:
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Alcoholism and Substance Abuse Branch
Center for Substance Abuse Treatment Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Public Health Service
National Clearinghouse for Alcohol
National Institute on Alcohol and Alcoholism
National Institute on Drug Abuse
Organizations Providing Information on Drug Courts:
Drug Court Clearinghouse and Technical
Justice Management Institute
National Association of Drug Court Professionals
National TASC
State Justice Institute
Private Organizations Providing Information on AOD Treatment:
American Society of Addiction
Guidepoints: Acupuncture in Recovery
National Acupuncture Detoxification Association
National Association of Alcohol & Drug Abuse Counselors
National Association of State Alcohol and Drug Abuse Directors (NASADAD)
National GAINS Center for People with Co-occurring Disorders in the Justice System, Policy Research, Inc.
Private Organizations Providing Information on Community Anti-Drug Alliances:
Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America (CADCA)
Drug Strategies, Inc.
Join Together
Partnership for a Drug Free America
|
||||||||||||||||||