PAINTING THE CURRENT PICTURE - NDCI.org · 4900 Seminary Road, Suite 320 Alexandria, VA 22311 (703)...
Transcript of PAINTING THE CURRENT PICTURE - NDCI.org · 4900 Seminary Road, Suite 320 Alexandria, VA 22311 (703)...
4900 Seminary Road, Suite 320Alexandria, VA 22311
(703) 575-94001-877-507-3229
(703) 575-9402 Faxwww.ndci.org
NATIONAL
DRUG COURT
INSTITUTE
PAINTING THECURRENT PICTURE:
A NATIONAL REPORT CARD
ON DRUG COURTS AND
OTHER PROBLEM SOLVING
COURT PROGRAMS IN THE
UNITED STATES
MAY 2005 • VOLUME I, NO. 2
NATIONAL
DRUG COURT
INSTITUTE
C. West Huddleston, III
Judge Karen Freeman-Wilson (ret.)
Douglas B. Marlowe, J.D., Ph.D.
Aaron Roussell
About the Office of National Drug Control Policy (www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov)The White House Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), a component of theExecutive Office of the President, was established by the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988.
The principal purpose of ONDCP is to establish policies, priorities, and objectives for the Nation’sdrug control program. The goals of the program are to reduce illicit drug use, manufacturing, and trafficking, drug-related crime and violence, and drug related health consequences. To achievethese goals, the Director of ONDCP is charged with producing the National Drug Control Strategy.The Strategy directs the Nation’s anti-drug efforts and establishes a program, a budget, and guide-lines for cooperation among Federal, State, and local entities.
By law, the Director of ONDCP also evaluates, coordinates, and oversees both the internationaland domestic anti-drug efforts of executive branch agencies and ensures that such efforts sustainand complement State and local anti-drug activities. The Director advises the President regard-ing changes in the organization, management, budgeting, and personnel of Federal Agenciesthat could affect the Nation’s anti-drug efforts and regarding Federal agency compliance withtheir obligations under the Strategy.
About the Bureau of Justice Assistance (www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bja)The Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice,supports law enforcement, courts, corrections, treatment, victim services, technology, and prevention initiatives that strengthen the nation's criminal justice system. BJA provides leadership,services, and funding to America's communities by emphasizing local control; building relation-ships in the field; developing collaborations and partnerships; promoting capacity buildingthrough planning; streamlining the administration of grants; increasing training and technicalassistance; creating accountability of projects; encouraging innovation; and ultimately communicatingthe value of justice efforts to decisionmakers at every level.
About the National Association of Drug Court Professionals (www.nadcp.org)The National Association of Drug Court Professionals (NADCP) was established in 1994 as the premier national membership and advocacy organization for drug courts. Representing over16,000 drug court professionals and community leaders, NADCP provides a strong and unifiedvoice to our nation’s leadership. By impacting policy and legislation, NADCP creates a vision ofa reformed criminal justice system. NADCP’s mission is to reduce substance abuse, crime, andrecidivism by promoting and advocating for the establishment and funding of drug courts andproviding for the collection and dissemination of information, technical assistance, and mutualsupport to association members.
About the National Drug Court Institute (www.ndci.org)The National Drug Court Institute (NDCI) is the educational, research and scholarship arm of the National Association of Drug Court Professionals (NADCP), and is funded by the WhiteHouse Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP); the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA)and the National Institute of Justice (NIJ), U.S. Department of Justice; and the National HighwayTraffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), U.S. Department of Transportation. In addition to stagingover 130 state of the art training events each year, NDCI provides on-site technical assistance andrelevant research and scholastic information to drug courts throughout the nation.
Volume I, Number 2
Painting the Current Picture:A National Report Card on Drug Courtsand Other Problem Solving CourtPrograms in the United States
C. West Huddleston, III
Judge Karen Freeman-Wilson (ret.)
Douglas B. Marlowe, J.D., Ph.D.
Aaron Roussell
May 2005
ii
Copyright © 2005, National Drug Court Institute
Design and printing: Xanthus Design, Washington, DC
National Drug Court Institute
Painting the Current Picture: A National Report Card on Drug Courts and OtherProblem Solving Court Programs in the United States Volume I, Number 2.
This document was prepared under Cooperative Agreement Number 2005-DC-BX-K003 from the Bureau of Justice Assistance, U.S. Department of Justice, withfunding from the Office of National Drug Control Policy, Executive Office of thePresident. Points of view or opinions in this document are those of the authorsand do not necessarily represent the official position of the U.S. Department ofJustice or the Executive Office of the President.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic,mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior writtenpermission of the National Drug Court Institute.
Judge Karen Freeman-Wilson (Ret.), Executive DirectorC. West Huddleston, III, DirectorNational Drug Court Institute4900 Seminary Road, Suite 320Alexandria, VA 22311Tel. (703) 575-9400Fax. (703) 575-9402www.ndci.org
Prepared by the National Drug Court Institute, the education, research, andscholarship affiliate of the National Association of Drug Court Professionals.
Drug courts perform their duties without manifestation, by word or conduct, of bias or prejudice, including, but not limited to, bias or prejudice based upon race, gender,national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, language, or socioeconomic status.
iii
National Drug Court Institute
The National Drug Court Institute (NDCI)wishes to acknowledge all of those who havecontributed to this annual publication. NDCIalso extends a special thanks to all of thoseindividuals, organizations, and jurisdictionsthat completed the survey instrument onwhich this publication is based (see Table VII).
NDCI is grateful to the Office of NationalDrug Control Policy of the Executive Office of the President and the Bureau of JusticeAssistance at the U.S. Department of Justice for the support and guidance that made thispublication possible.
AuthorsC. West Huddleston, III is the Director of theNational Drug Court Institute. Mr. Huddlestonis a Board-licensed counselor with 13 years ofclinical experience at the county, state, andfederal levels. Previously, Mr. Huddleston workedthroughout the Tennessee and Oklahomacorrectional systems developing and managingsubstance abuse units, as well as codevelopingand administering two drug courts.
Judge Karen Freeman-Wilson (ret.) is theExecutive Director of the National Drug CourtInstitute, as well as Chief Executive Officer ofthe National Association of Drug CourtProfessionals. Previously, Judge Freeman-Wilson served as Attorney General of theState of Indiana, as well as a drug court judgein Gary, Indiana.
Douglas B. Marlowe, J.D., Ph.D. is theDirector of Law & Ethics Research at theTreatment Research Institute (TRI), and anAdjunct Associate Professor of Psychiatry at theUniversity of Pennsylvania School of Medicine.Dr. Marlowe is a lawyer and clinicalpsychologist who has received several researchgrants from the National Institute on Drug
Abuse and the Center for Substance AbuseTreatment to study the effects of drug courtsand other specialized programs for drugabusing offenders.
Aaron Roussell is a research coordinator withthe National Drug Court Institute. Mr. Roussellworks with federal implementation andenhancement drug court grantees to ensure that guidelines for local drug court research are implemented.
ReviewersNDCI especially wishes to express its sinceregratitude to those individuals who contributedto, and/or reviewed drafts of, this document:
Greg A. Berman, Director, Center for Court Innovation
Hon. William F. Dressel, President, National Judicial College
S. Kay Farley, Director, National Center forState Courts, Government Relations Office
Hon. Peggy Fulton Hora, Superior Courtof California, County of Alameda
Hon. Louis J. Presenza, President Judge,Philadelphia City Municipal Court
StaffFinally, NDCI expresses its gratitude toCarson L. Fox, Esq., Carolyn Hardin, M.P.A.,Cary Heck, Ph.D., Carolyn A. LeeDecker,Hon. William G. Meyer, and MeghanWheeler, M.S., who made invaluablecontributions to this document.
Acknowledgments
v
Introduction............................................................................................................................vi
Drug Courts: A National Phenomenon ...................................................................2
Drug Court Capacity............................................................................................................7
Drug Courts: New Evidence ...........................................................................................8
Drug-Free Babies..................................................................................................................8
Problem Solving Courts: Emerging Permutations...........................................9
Definitions of Problem Solving Courts..................................................................10
Drug Court Legislation and State Appropriations........................................14
Resource Organizations.................................................................................................19
References.............................................................................................................................20
End Notes...............................................................................................................................22
CONTENTS
Figure I Timeline of Drug Courts and Other Problem Solving Courts in the United States.............................................................................1
Table I Operational Drug Court Programs in the United States........................3
Table II Drug Court Types by Year................................................................................3
Table III Number & Type of Operational Drug Court Programs in the United States...........................................................4
Figure II Total of 1,621 Operational Drug Courts in the United States...........................................................................................5
Figure III Operational Drug Court Programs in the United States........................6
Table IV Drug Court Systems: Taking the Model To Scale..........................................7
Figure IV Survey Results: Top Reasons Limiting Statewide Drug Court Capacity..........................................................................................7
Figure V Keeping the Fidelity of the Drug Court Model ........................................10
Table V Drug Court Legislation & State Appropriations .....................................15
Table VI Number & Type of Operational Problem Solving Court Programs in the United States........................................................16
Figure VI Total of 2,558 Operational Problem Solving Courts in the United States..........................................................................17
Table VII Primary State Points of Contact and Survey Respondants.................18
TABLES AND FIGURES
Painting the Current Picture: A NationalReport Card on Drug Courts and OtherProblem Solving Court Programs in theUnited States1
Published annually, this report provides anupdate of drug court and other problemsolving court activity in every state, territory,and district in the United States since therelease of the inaugural issue of Painting theCurrent Picture: A National Report Card on DrugCourts and Other Problem Solving Court Programsin the United States in May 2004.
Volume I, Number 2 provides summary resultsfrom the 2004 National Survey on DrugCourts and Other Problem Solving Courts,conducted by the National Drug CourtInstitute (NDCI) in the last half of 2004 andending on December 31, 2004.
The NDCI National Survey instrument wassent to a Primary Point of Contact (PPC) in each state2 in July 2004. To this end, eachrespective state identified for NDCI either theperson responsible for tracking state drugcourt activity or the person most familiar with the state’s drug court operations. Therepresentative organizations ranged from theState Supreme Court (e.g., Louisiana), theAdministrative Office of the Courts (e.g.,Missouri, California), the Governor’s Office(e.g., Texas), the Single State Agency forAlcohol and Drug Services (e.g., Oklahoma) or independent state commissions (e.g.,Maryland). In those instances in which a statedid not have a designated statewide drug courtcoordinator or director, the state Drug CourtAssociation or Congress of State Drug CourtAssociations was asked to identify a PPC.
In addition to forwarding the surveyinstrument to an identified state drug courtPPC, NDCI also courtesy-copied the surveyinstrument to, on average, 2 additional officialsin each state, totaling 168 surveyors nationwide.These included the president of the state drugcourt association, designated members of theCongress of State Drug Courts Associations,National Association of Drug CourtProfessionals (NADCP) Board Members, andother individuals possessing comprehensiveknowledge regarding drug court and otherproblem solving court activities in their state.Once NDCI received the completed surveyfrom the PPC, the data were compiled andforwarded back to the PPC and other surveyorsfor final confirmation to ensure a thorough and accurate snapshot of the number and typeof operational drug courts and other problemsolving court programs in the United States as of the concluding date of the survey.
Specific to this volume and in addition toreporting the type and aggregate number ofoperational drug courts and other problemsolving court programs throughout the UnitedStates, sections are dedicated to major drugcourt research scholarship since the release ofVolume I, as well as state-specific drug courtlegislation and the amount of each state’sappropriation supporting such court programs(Table V). This year’s report also provides keyinformation about drug court models,populations, and capacity, as well as the numberof confirmed drug-free babies born to activefemale drug court participants in 2004. Finally, anew feature found in this volume includes a listof national organizations serving as a resource tothe drug and other problem solving court field.
vi
Painting the Current Picture: A National Report Card on Drug Courts and Other Problem Solving Court Programs in the United States
Introduction
1
National Drug Court InstituteFi
gure
I
Tim
elin
eof
Dru
gCo
urts
and
Oth
erPr
oble
mSo
lvin
gCo
urts
inth
eU
nite
dSt
ates
1989
Heig
htof
crac
kco
cain
eep
idem
icin
the
U.S.
Firs
tdru
gco
urto
pens
inM
iam
i,Fl
orid
a
1990
Spen
ding
onco
rrect
ions
exce
eds
$26
billi
onna
tiona
lly
1991
5dr
ugco
urts
inex
iste
nce
Drug
offe
nses
acco
untf
or31
perc
ento
fall
conv
ictio
nsin
stat
eco
urts
Stat
epr
ison
cost
sfo
rlow
-le
veld
rug
offe
nder
sex
ceed
$1.2
billi
onan
nual
ly
1992
10dr
ugco
urts
inex
iste
nce
One-
third
ofw
omen
inm
ates
inst
ate
pris
ons
are
drug
offe
nder
s
Firs
twom
en’s
drug
cour
top
ens
inKa
lam
azoo
,M
ichi
gan
1993
19dr
ugco
urts
inex
iste
nce
Drug
offe
nder
sac
coun
tfor
60pe
rcen
toff
eder
alpr
ison
ers
Firs
tcom
mun
ityco
urt
open
sin
Man
hatta
n,N
ewYo
rk
1994
40dr
ugco
urts
inex
iste
nce
U.S.
tota
linc
arce
ratio
nfig
ure
tops
1m
illio
n
Cong
ress
pass
esVi
olen
tCr
ime
Cont
rola
ndLa
wEn
forc
emen
tAct
(the
Crim
eBi
ll)
Nat
iona
lAss
ocia
tion
ofDr
ugCo
urtP
rofe
ssio
nals
(NAD
CP)f
ound
ed
1995
75dr
ugco
urts
inex
iste
nce
Drug
Cour
tsPr
ogra
mOf
fice
(DCP
O)es
tabl
ishe
din
U.S.
Depa
rtmen
tof
Just
ice
NAD
CPho
lds
first
Nat
iona
lDr
ugCo
urtT
rain
ing
Conf
eren
cein
Las
Vega
s,N
evad
aFi
rstD
WIc
ourt
open
sin
Dona
Ana,
New
Mex
ico
Firs
tjuv
enile
drug
cour
top
ens
inVi
salia
,Cal
iforn
iaFi
rstf
amily
drug
cour
top
ens
inRe
no,N
evad
a
1996
139
drug
cour
tsin
exis
tenc
e
2ou
tof3
polic
ech
iefs
favo
rcou
rt-su
perv
ised
treat
men
tove
rpris
onfo
rdr
ugab
user
s
Firs
tSta
teDr
ugCo
urt
Asso
ciat
ion
inco
rpor
ated
inCa
lifor
nia
Firs
tNAD
CPM
ento
rDru
gCo
urte
stab
lishe
d
Firs
tfel
ony
dom
estic
viol
ence
cour
tope
nsin
Broo
klyn
,New
York
1997
230
drug
cour
tsin
exist
ence
5.7
mill
ion
peop
lein
the
U.S.
are
unde
rcrim
inal
just
ice
supe
rvis
ion
Cong
ress
ofSt
ate
Drug
Cour
tsof
NAD
CPho
lds
itsfir
stm
eetin
g
Firs
ttrib
alhe
alin
gto
wel
lnes
sco
urto
pens
inFo
rthal
l,Id
aho
NAD
CP,D
CPO,
and
the
Bure
auof
Just
ice
Assi
stan
ce(B
JA)r
elea
seDe
finin
gDr
ugCo
urts
:The
Key
Com
pone
nts
Firs
tmen
talh
ealth
cour
top
ens
inBr
owar
dCo
unty
,Fl
orid
a
1998
347
drug
cour
tsin
exis
tenc
e
Nat
iona
lDru
gCo
urt
Inst
itute
(NDC
I)fo
unde
d
Fede
ralf
undi
ngfo
rdru
gco
urts
reac
hes
$40
mill
ion
forF
Y19
99
1999
472
drug
cour
tsin
exis
tenc
e
U.S.
tota
linc
arce
ratio
nfig
ure
tops
2m
illio
n
10th
anni
vers
ary
ofth
efir
stdr
ugco
urt
Nat
iona
lDis
trict
Atto
rney
’sAs
soci
atio
npa
sses
reso
lutio
nin
supp
orto
fdr
ugco
urts
Nat
iona
lShe
riff’s
Asso
ciat
ion
pass
esre
solu
tion
insu
ppor
tof
drug
cour
ts
2000
665
drug
cour
tsin
exis
tenc
e
Firs
tJuv
enile
and
Fam
ilyDr
ugCo
urtT
rain
ing
Conf
eren
cehe
ldin
Phoe
nix,
Arizo
na
Amer
ican
BarA
ssoc
iatio
nre
leas
esPr
opos
edSt
anda
rd2.
77-P
roce
dure
sin
Drug
Trea
tmen
tCou
rts
Conf
eren
ceof
Chie
fJu
stic
es/C
onfe
renc
eof
Stat
eCo
urtA
dmin
istra
tors
pass
esre
solu
tion
insu
ppor
tofp
robl
emso
lvin
gco
urts
(CCJ
/COS
CA)
2001
847
drug
cour
tsin
exis
tenc
e
NAD
CPan
dth
eN
atat
iona
lCo
unci
lofJ
uven
ilean
dFa
mily
Cour
tJud
ges
rele
ase
Best
Stra
tegi
esfo
rJu
veni
leDr
ugCo
urts
2002
1,04
8dr
ugco
urts
inex
iste
nce
Firs
tcam
pus
drug
cour
top
ens
atCo
lora
doSt
ate
Univ
ersi
ty
DCPO
mer
ges
into
BJA
2003
1,18
3dr
ugco
urts
inex
iste
nce
1,66
7pr
oble
mso
lvin
gco
urts
inex
iste
nce
The
Nat
iona
lIns
titut
eof
Just
ice
repo
rtsdr
ugco
urt
reci
divi
smra
tes
are
aslo
was
16.4
perc
entn
atio
nwid
eon
eye
araf
terg
radu
atio
n
2004
1,62
1dr
ugco
urts
inex
iste
nce
2,55
8pr
oble
mso
lvin
gco
urts
inex
iste
nce
NAD
CPho
lds
10th
Annu
alDr
ugCo
urtT
rain
ing
Conf
eren
ce
CCJ/
COSC
Are
affir
ms
supp
ortf
orpr
oble
mso
lvin
gco
urts
bypa
ssin
gse
cond
join
tres
olut
ion
As of December 31, 2004, there were 1,621drug court operations in the United States(Table I). Remarkably, the growth does notappear to be slowing down. Currently, 215jurisdictional teams are formally planning adrug court (Pierre, 2005), and another 263jurisdictions submitted applications to the
Bureau of JusticeAssistance (BJA), U.S.Department of Justice in response to the 2005Drug Court DiscretionaryGrant solicitation(Mankin, 2005). In total, the number of
2
Painting the Current Picture: A National Report Card on Drug Courts and Other Problem Solving Court Programs in the United States
“Drug courts are one of the most significant criminal-justice system initiatives in the past20 years,” according to John Walters, Director of the Office of National Drug ControlPolicy (Walters, 2005). As demonstrated by the timeline on page 1, drug courts havegrown exponentially, quickly becoming a national phenomenon. Drug courts representthe coordinated efforts of the judiciary, prosecution, defense bar, probation, law
enforcement, treatment, mental health, social services, andchild protection services to actively and forcefully interveneand break the cycle of substance abuse, addiction, andcrime. As an alternative to less effective interventions, drugcourts quickly identify substance abusing offenders and
place them under strict court monitoring and community supervision, coupled witheffective, long-term treatment services (Huddleston, Freeman-Wilson, & Boone, 2004).
In this blending of systems, the drug court participant undergoes an intensive regimenof substance abuse and mental health treatment, case management, drug testing, andprobation supervision while reporting to regularly scheduled status hearings before ajudge with specialized expertise in the drug court model (Fox & Huddleston, 2003). In addition, drug courts may provide job skills training, family or group counseling, and many other life-skill enhancement services.
No other justice intervention brings to bear such an intensive response with suchdramatic results—results that have been well documented through the rigors of scientificanalysis. From the earliest evaluations, researchers have determined that drug courtsprovide “closer, more comprehensive supervision and much more frequent drug testingand monitoring during the program than other forms of community supervision. Moreimportantly, drug use and criminal behavior are substantially reduced while offendersare participating in drug court” (Belenko, 1998; 2001). To put it bluntly, “we know thatdrug courts outperform virtually all other strategies that have been attempted for drug-involved offenders…” (Marlowe, DeMatteo, & Festinger, 2003).
Drug Courts: A National Phenomenon
The number of operationaldrug courts has increasedby 37 percent in the pastyear alone.
There were 1,621 drugcourt operations in theUnited States (Table I).
3
National Drug Court Institute
operational drug courts has increased by 37 percent in the past year alone (Table II and Table III). It is clearthat drug court and drugcourt principles are
becoming institutionalized as a way of doingbusiness in the courts.
Now numbering 811, adult drug courtscomprise the majority of operational problem
solving court programs in the United States (Table III and Figure II).However, unlike the firstgeneration of adult drugcourt programs, which
tended to be diversionary or pre-plea models,69 percent of adult drug courts today have a
probationary or post plea condition,suggesting that drug courts are working moreoften with a higher-risk offender population.This trend seems quite appropriate in light ofresearch conducted by the Treatment ResearchInstitute at the Universityof Pennsylvania, whichconcluded that high-riskclients who have moreserious antisocialpropensities or drug-usehistories performedsubstantially better indrug court when they were required to attendfrequent status hearings before the judge(Marlowe, Festinger, & Lee, 2004).
The increase in probationary or post-plea drugcourts can also be explained by the fact thatincreasing numbers of drug courts are treatingtarget populations that require a post-convictionprobationary sentence. This is especially truefor drug courts that accept impaired drivers or offenders who are being released from jail or prison custody. Combined, new DWI andreentry drug courts represent almost a 200percent percent increase from December, 2003.
Table I
Operational Drug Court Programs in the United States
Year To Date3
1989 1
1990 1
1991 5
1992 10
1993 19
1994 40
1995 75
1996 139
1997 230
1998 347
1999 472
2000 665
2001 847
2002 1,048
2003 1,183
2004 1,6214
Table II
Drug Court Types by Year
12/31/03 12/31/04
Adult: 666 811
Juvenile: 268 357
Family: 112 153
DWI: 42 176
Reentry: 42 68
Tribal: 52 54
Campus: 1 1
Total 1,183 1,621
More than 16,200participants graduatedfrom drug court in 2004.
69 percent of adult drugcourts today have a probationary or post plea condition.
Combined, new DWI and reentry drug courtsrepresent almost a 200 percent increasefrom December, 2003.
Tabl
eIII
Num
ber
&Ty
peof
Ope
rati
onal
Dru
gCo
urt
Prog
ram
sin
the
Uni
ted
Stat
es(D
ecem
ber
2004
)4
Alab
ama
1815
150
11
10
00
00
0
Alas
ka12
50
00
11
53
20
00
Arizo
na39
86
212
313
33
00
00
Arka
nsas
2625
232
10
00
00
00
0
Calif
orni
a15
891
578
3922
04
40
02
0
Colo
rado
188
00
61
20
00
10
0
Conn
ectic
ut3
33
00
00
00
00
00
Dela
war
e14
93
63
00
00
00
20
D.C.
52
11
11
01
01
00
0
Flor
ida
9042
2427
2817
01
10
02
0
Geor
gia
2918
414
61
04
40
00
0
Guam
21
01
10
00
00
00
0
Haw
aii
104
44
41
00
00
01
0
Idah
o40
2222
010
11
62
40
00
Illin
ois
3817
00
30
01
10
017
0
Indi
ana
1812
111
40
01
01
01
0
Iow
a11
6–
–3
10
00
00
10
Kans
as4
10
12
01
00
00
00
Kent
ucky
4330
3030
112
00
00
00
0
Loui
sian
a39
2423
115
00
00
00
00
Mai
ne14
55
06
21
00
00
00
Mar
ylan
d18
77
09
10
00
00
10
Mas
sach
uset
ts30
1717
05
00
10
10
70
Mic
higa
n67
25–
–14
52
2121
––
–0
Min
neso
ta7
54
52
00
00
00
00
Mis
siss
ippi
129
82
20
01
01
00
0
Mis
sour
i12
453
3523
1810
019
217
024
0
Mon
tana
132
02
24
41
01
00
0
Neb
rask
a9
44
14
00
11
00
00
Nev
ada
246
60
43
45
50
02
0
New
Ham
pshi
re7
00
05
00
22
00
00
New
Jers
ey20
1515
04
10
00
00
00
New
Mex
ico
336
66
133
56
60
00
0
New
York
165
7979
05
280
510
510
11
Nor
thCa
rolin
a25
1514
55
21
22
00
00
Nor
thDa
kota
72
20
30
20
00
00
0
Ohio
6127
––
1912
03
30
00
0
Okla
hom
a47
3131
010
23
11
00
00
Oreg
on28
1616
166
20
42
20
00
Penn
sylv
ania
158
53
30
02
20
02
0
Puer
toRi
co**
77
––
––
0–
––
––
0
Rhod
eIs
land
71
01
41
00
00
01
0
Sout
hCa
rolin
a27
120
012
30
––
––
–0
Sout
hDa
kota
40
00
00
40
00
00
0
Tenn
esse
e53
3635
113
10
33
00
00
Texa
s41
2417
126
31
30
30
40
Utah
2512
58
56
02
02
00
0
Verm
ont
32
11
01
00
00
00
0
Virg
inIs
land
s0
00
00
00
00
00
00
Virg
inia
2614
140
83
01
10
00
0
Was
hing
ton
3513
112
106
51
10
00
0
Wes
tVirg
inia
10
00
10
00
00
00
0
Wis
cons
in6
33
21
02
00
00
00
Wyo
min
g43
1212
68
21
2020
00
00
Tota
ls1,
621
811
558
214
357
153
5417
690
861
681
Tota
lDru
gCourts
AdultPost
-Plea
Pre-P
leaJu
venile
Fam
ilyTr
ibal*
DWI
Desig
nated
DWI
Hybrid
DWI
Campus Ree
ntryDru
gCourt
Feder
alJu
dicial
Distric
t
Tota
l Dru
gCourts
AdultPost-P
leaPre
-Plea
Juve
nileFa
mily
Trib
al*
DWI
Desig
nated
DWI
Hybrid
DWICam
pus
Reentry
Drug
Courts
Feder
alJu
dicial
Distric
t
*200
4tri
bald
ata
was
deriv
edfro
mth
eAm
erica
nUn
ivers
ityDr
ugCo
urtC
lear
ingh
ouse
and
Tech
nica
lAss
istan
cePr
ojec
t.(2
004,
Nov
embe
r9).
Sum
mar
yof
drug
cour
tact
ivity
byst
ate
and
coun
ty.W
ashi
ngto
n,DC
:Aut
hor.
5
National Drug Court InstituteFi
gure
II
Tota
lof
1,62
1O
pera
tion
alD
rug
Cour
tsin
the
Uni
ted
Stat
es(D
ecem
ber
2004
)5
WA 35
OR
28
CA 158
NV
24
ID 40
MT
13
WY
43
UT
25
AZ
39N
M 33
CO 18
ND 7
SD 4 NE 9
KS 4 OK
4 7
MN 7
WI
6M
I67
ME
14
NH 7
MA
30
CT3
RI
7
VT 3
NJ
20
DE
14
MD
18
DC 5
NY
165
PA 15
WV 1
VA 26 NC
25SC 27
IL 38IN 18
OH 61
KY
43
TN53
IA 11
MO
124
AR
26 LA 39
MS
12A
L18
GA
29
FL 90H
I10
AK 12
TX 41
New
Engl
and
Mid
-Atla
ntic
VI 0
PR 7
GU 2
6
Painting the Current Picture: A National Report Card on Drug Courts and Other Problem Solving Court Programs in the United States
Figure III
Operational Drug Court Programs in the United States
1,621 drug courts: a 37 percent increase from one year ago!
1,621 drug courts: a 37 percent increase from one year ago!
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Year
Nu
mb
ero
fC
ou
rts
Drug Court CapacityCertainly such an increase in drug courtssuggests that the need for real solutions to
issues such as substanceabuse, child abuse andneglect, and driving underthe influence is being met.In fact, more than 70,000drug court clients are beingserved at any given time,
throughout the United States and its territories.7
In addition, more than 16,200 participantsgraduated from drug court in 2004.8 Given that only approximately two-thirds of thejurisdictions provided usable data on theseitems, the actual number of clients being servedby drug courts nationally is certainly higher.
Implementing new drug courts is undoubtedlyone way to expand capacity and reach more
people in need. However, starting new courtsis only part of the answer. To truly reduce agiven community’s crime and substance abuseproblem, each drug court may have to expandits capacity to achieve its full impact.
Many drug courts throughout the nation haveovercome capacity barriers by expanding their
7
National Drug Court Institute
Table IV
Drug Court Systems: Taking the Model To Scale
These four cities together represent more than8,000 active drug court participants in the U.S.
Minneapolis, MN – 3,600
Ft. Lauderdale, FL – 2,600
Santa Clara, CA – 1,300
Buffalo, NY – 650
Figure IV
Survey Results: Top Reasons Limiting Statewide Drug Court Capacity
1. Lack of Funding 72%
2. Other 9%
3. Limited Treatment Availability 6%
4. Lack of Political Will 6%
5. Limited Supervision Availability 4%
6. Judicial Resistance/Apathy 2%
7. No Data 2%
1
2
3
4
56 7
Respondents were queried about the reasonsthat limited increasing drug court capacity intheir state. While the graph on the rightreveals that many states’ opinions arehomogeneous, some examples from the“Other” category are given below:
• “Inefficient/ineffective screeningmechanisms are limiting factors andindividual policies of various [team members’organizations] may limit participation.”
• “Judicial time constraints.”
• “Lack of experience.”
More than 70,000 drug courtclients are being served atany given time throughoutthe United States.
eligibility criteria, accepting larger numbers of offenders, or in some cases serving alloffenders who have a substance abuse-relatedproblem. As Table IV demonstrates, several of these drug courts have taken the model “to scale” to serve significant numbers of drug offenders in their communities.
Such drug courts have successfully overcomethe typical barriers that limit program
population expansion.These barriers commonlyinclude a lack of sufficientfunding, limited availabilityof treatment or supervisoryservices, or insufficientpolitical will.
Other courts, however, have experiencedtrouble even reaching full capacity onceoperational. This is oftentimes due to limitingfactors outside the control of the court.Generally such factors include limited orabsent key services necessary to serve theneeds of the target population of participants.With two-thirds of states reporting, currentdrug court capacity rests at 87 percent.
When surveyed about the biggestimpediments to increasing their drug courtcapacity, 72 percent of respondingjurisdictions reported that a lack of fundingwas their biggest issue (Figure IV).
Drug Courts: New Evidence In February 2005, the U.S. GovernmentAccountability Office (GAO) published anextensive review of drug court research, whichconcluded that most adult drug courtprograms evidenced:• Lower rearrest and conviction rates for drug
court participants than comparison groupmembers.
• Fewer recidivism events for drug courtparticipants than comparison group members.
• Recidivism reductions for participants whohad committed various categories of offenses.
• Recidivism reductions that were maintainedfor substantial intervals of time after theparticipants had completed the drug courtprogram.
• Positive cost/benefit/ratio for the drug courtparticipants.
GAO also provided some opportunities foradvancement in the drug court field. Implicitin the GAO’s analysis is a mandate to improvethe quality of local drug court research tosuch levels that a more exhaustive nationalexamination can be performed. Echoing anearlier commentary from online substanceabuse policy organization, JOIN Together,GAO concluded that while the review mayhave established theefficacy of drug courts,exactly what about drugcourts work is still opento question (Marlowe,2004). Having discovereda successful model forrebuilding lives, theresearch community must fine-tune the approach through investigation of its constituent components. “To the extentthat research can help discern best practices fordrug courts, the models for effective programscan be enhanced” (GAO, 2005).
Drug-Free Babies Alcohol consumption during pregnancy is theleading known cause of birth defects. FetalAlcohol Spectrum Disorders (FASD) mayinclude stunted growth, facial deformities,small head circumference, mental retardation,and behavior abnormalities (e.g., MerckResearch Laboratory, 2005). Consumption ofillicit drugs during pregnancy, particularlycocaine and opioids, is highly associated withcomplications during delivery and can lead to serious consequences for the developingfetus or newborn (e.g., Lester et al., 2003). In addition to increasing the risk of infectionsthat can be transmitted from mother to fetus,
8
Painting the Current Picture: A National Report Card on Drug Courts and Other Problem Solving Court Programs in the United States
72 percent of respondingjurisdictions reportedthat a lack of fundingwas their biggest issue.
In most of theevaluations reviewed [bythe GAO], adult drugcourt programs led tostatistically significantreductions in recidivism.
such as hepatitis or sexually transmitteddiseases, most illicit drugs readily cross theplacenta and can constrict blood flow andoxygen supply to the fetus. Newborns may
be physiologicallyaddicted to drugs andmay suffer withdrawalsymptoms during theirearliest hours or daysof life (e.g., Vidaeff &Mastrobattista, 2003).
Such newborns tend to interact less withother people, may be hyperactive, trembleuncontrollably, or exhibit learning deficits thatcan continue through 5 years of age or later.Behavioral and learning problems may firstemerge in children who were exposed tocannabis in utero when they are over 4 yearsold (e.g., Merck Research Laboratory, 2005).
The added costs to society of caring for drug-exposed babies can be exceptional. Costestimates vary considerably depending uponthe level of care the child receives and maynot always be proportional to the degree ofdamage suffered. Speaking generally, theadditional medical costs associated with thedelivery of a drug-exposed baby are estimatedto range from approximately $1,500 to $25,000per day (e.g., Cooper, 2004). Sadly, seriouslydrug-exposed newborns may have shortenedlife expectancies, which paradoxically couldcost society proportionately less in medicalexpenses (but with an incalculably greater costin human tragedy). Neonatal intensive careexpenses can range from $25,000 to $35,000for the care of low birth-weight newborns andmay reach $250,000 over the course of the firstyear of life (Office of Justice Programs, 1997).Continuous care expenses through the age of18 years for the developmentally delayed childcan be as high as $750,000 (Janovsky &Kalotra, 2003).
In the Painting the Current Picture survey, 60percent of respondents (32 states) providedusable data on confirmed births of drug-freebabies to their drug court participants. Duringthe preceding 12 months, a total of 460 drug-free babies were reported to have been bornto active female drug court clients. Respondentswere instructed that thisnumber should refer only tobirths from active femaleparticipants in theirprograms; therefore, it doesnot include drug-freechildren born to maleparticipants or to programgraduates. As such, it couldsubstantially underestimatethe impact of drug courtsand other problem solving courts on all drug-freedeliveries. Especially given a 60 percent responserate, the actual number of drug-free deliveriescan be expected to be appreciably higher.9
Problem Solving Courts: EmergingPermutationsIn 2004, the Conference of Chief Justices (CCJ)and the Conference of State CourtAdministrators (COSCA) passed a newnational joint resolution committing all 50State Chief Justices and State CourtAdministrators to “take steps, nationally andlocally, to expand and better integrate theprinciples and methods of well-functioning drugcourts into ongoing court operations.” Amongother strongly positive statements, thenational CCJ/COSCA joint resolution declaredthat “drug court and problem solving courtprinciples and methods have demonstratedgreat success in addressing certain complexsocial problems, such as recidivism, that arenot effectively addressed by the traditionallegal process” (CCJ & COSCA, 2004).10
9
National Drug Court Institute
During 2004, a total of460 drug-free babieswere born to activefemale drug court clients.
“Drug court and problemsolving court principlesand methods havedemonstrated greatsuccess in addressingcertain complex socialproblems…” (CCJ & COSCA, 2004).
The publication Defining Drug Courts: The KeyComponents (NADCP, 1997) is the point oforigin for those who would understand whatCCJ/COSCA refers to as the “principles andmethods of well functioning [adult] drugcourts. Although not all problem solving court
models may adhere to each of the ten KeyComponents, the parentage of most problemsolving court models can be traced to theseprinciples and practices (Figure V).
As the literature on the drug court modelcontinues to demonstrate its effectiveness on the offender and the justice system atlarge, many jurisdictions have implemented a number of problem solving courts designedto address other problems that emerge in thetraditional court system. Often modeled afterdrug courts, problem solving courts seek toaddress social issues such as mental illness,homelessness, domestic violence, prostitution,parole violation, quality of life, and communityreentry from custody.11 Recently, several newproblem solving courts have emerged,expanding the model tonew populations; two suchpermutations are truancycourts and gamblingcourts. Currently, there are 937 problem solvingcourts other than drug courts in operation.Taken together, there are 2,558 total problemsolving courts in the U.S.
Definitions of ProblemSolving Courts
Using the scientific and scholastic literatureavailable, as well as interviews with key courtprofessionals and scholars, NDCI presents the definitive descriptions for many of theproblem solving courts discussed throughoutthis publication.
• Adult Drug Court: A specially designed courtcalendar or docket, the purposes of which are to achieve a reduction in recidivism andsubstance abuse among nonviolent substanceabusing offenders and to increase theoffender’s likelihood of successful rehabilitationthrough early, continuous, and intense
10
Painting the Current Picture: A National Report Card on Drug Courts and Other Problem Solving Court Programs in the United States
Figure V
Keeping the Fidelity of the Drug Court Model
Defining Drug Courts: The Key Components
1. Drug courts integrate alcohol and other drug
treatment services with justice system case
processing.
2. Using a non-adversarial 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 is monitored by frequent alcohol
and other 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. Continuing interdisciplinary education promotes
effective drug court planning, implementation,
and operations.
10. Forging partnerships among drug courts, public
agencies, and community-based organizations
generates local support and enhances drug
court program effectiveness.
(NADCP, 1997).
There are 2,558 totalproblem solving courts in the U.S.
judicially supervised treatment, mandatoryperiodic drug testing, community supervisionand use of appropriate sanctions, and otherrehabilitation services (BJA, 2003).
• Campus Drug Courts: (“Back on TRAC”—Treatment, Responsibility, and Accountabilityon Campus) are quasi-judicial drug courtprograms, within the construct of a universitydisciplinary process, that focus on studentswith substance abuse-related disciplinary casesthat would otherwise result in expulsion fromcollege. Similar to traditional drug courts,campus drug courts provide structuredaccountability while simultaneouslyrehabilitating the student. The overarchinggoal of the campus drug court is to decreasesubstance abuse involvement in a group notnormally reached by the traditionalinterventions on campus. This is achievedthrough a collaborative systems modeldesigned to encourage the student to make thenecessary lifestyle changes that will contributeto their success, not only as a student, but alsoin their lives after they graduate from school(Asmus, 2002).
• Community Court: Community courts bringthe court and community closer by locating the court within the communitywhere “quality of life crimes” are committed(e.g., petty theft, turnstile jumping, andvandalism). With community boards and thelocal police as partners, community courtshave the bifurcated goal of addressing theproblems of defendants appearing before thecourt, while using the leverage of the court toencourage offenders to “give back” to thecommunity in compensation for damage theyand others have caused (Lee, 2000).
• Domestic Violence Court: A felony domesticviolence court is designed to addresstraditional problems of domestic violence,such as low reports, withdrawn charges,threats to victim, lack of defendantaccountability, and high recidivism, by intensejudicial scrutiny of the defendant and close
cooperation between the judiciary and socialservices. A permanent judge works with theprosecution, assigned victim advocates, socialservices, and the defense to: ensure physicalseparation between the victim and all forms ofintimidation from the defendant or his or herfamily throughout the entirety of the judicialprocess; provide the victim with the housingand job training he or she needs to begin anindependent existence from the offender(Mazur and Aldrich, 2003); and continuouslymonitor the defendant in terms of compliancewith protective orders and substance abusetreatment (Winick, 2000). Additionally, a casemanager ascertains the victim’s needs andmonitors cooperation by the defendant; andclose collaboration with defense counselensures compliance with due processsafeguards and protects the defendant’s rights.
Variants include the misdemeanor domesticviolence court, which handles larger volumesof cases and is designed to combat theprogressive nature of the crime to preemptlater felonies, and the integrated domesticviolence court in which a single judge handlesall judicial aspects relating to one family,including criminal cases, protective orders,custody, visitation, and even divorce (Mazurand Aldrich, 2003).
• DWI Court: A DWI court is a distinct courtsystem dedicated to changing the behavior ofthe alcohol/drug dependent offender arrestedfor Driving While Impaired (DWI). The goalof the DWI court is to protect public safety by using the drug court model to address theroot cause of impaired driving: alcohol andother substance abuse. Variants of DWI courtsinclude drug courts that also take DWIoffenders, which are commonly referred to as “hybrid” DWI courts or DWI/drug courts.
The DWI court utilizes all criminal justicestakeholders (prosecutors, defense attorneys,probation, law enforcement, and others) alongwith alcohol or drug treatment professionals.This group of professionals comprises a “DWI
11
National Drug Court Institute
NEW
NEW
Court Team,” and uses a cooperative approachto systematically change participant behavior.This approach includes identification andreferral of participants early in the legalprocess to a full continuum of drug or alcoholtreatment and other rehabilitative services.Compliance with treatment and other court-mandated requirements is verified by frequentalcohol/drug testing, close communitysupervision, and interaction with the judge innon-adversarial court review hearings. Duringthese review hearings, the judge employs ascience-based response to participantcompliance (or non-compliance) in an effortto further the team’s goal to encourage pro-social, sober behaviors that will prevent DWIrecidivism (Loeffler & Huddleston, 2003).
• Family Dependency Treatment Court: Familydependency treatment court is a juvenile orfamily court docket of which selected abuse,neglect, and dependency cases are identifiedwhere parental substance abuse is a primaryfactor. Judges, attorneys, child protectionservices, and treatment and other social andpublic health personnel unite with the goal of providing safe, nurturing, and permanenthomes for children while simultaneouslyproviding parents the necessary support and services to become drug and alcoholabstinent. Family dependency treatmentcourts aid parents in regaining control of their lives, ensure the provision of necessaryservices for children, and promote long termstabilized recovery to enhance the possibilityof family reunification within mandatory legaltimeframes (Wheeler & Siegerist, 2003).
• Gambling Court: Operating under the sameprotocols and guidelines utilized within thedrug court model, gambling courts intervenein a therapeutic fashion as a result of pendingcriminal charges with those individuals whoare suffering from a pathological orcompulsive gambling disorder. Participantsenroll in a contract-based, judiciallysupervised gambling recovery program and
are exposed to an array of services includingGamblers Anonymous (GA), extensivepsychotherapeutic intervention, debtcounseling, group and one-on-one counselingand, if necessary, due to the high rates of co-morbidity, drug or alcohol treatment within adrug court setting. Participation by familymembers or domestic partners is encouragedthrough direct participation in counselingwith offenders and the availability of supportprograms such as Gamblers Anonymous (GA).Participants are subject to the same reportingand court response components as drug courtparticipants (Farrell, 2005).
• Gun Court: Developed largely from theintensive supervision precepts espoused by thedrug court model, gun courts are a response to the increasing problem of weapons offenses.Defendants charged with illegal possession of a firearm are assigned to a special docket for prompt adjudication and placed underintensive supervision by a judge, case manager,and probation for immediate response toviolation of court orders and recidivists insteadof incarceration. Conditions of the programinclude gun surrender and continued non-possession of firearms with targeted randomhome visits to ensure compliance; randomdrug testing; drug and alcohol treatment, as necessary; conflict resolution and angermanagement; and a mandatory gun educationprogram. Defendants are required to makeweekly contact with case manager and attendperiodic court hearings to monitor progress(Presenza, 2005).
• Juvenile Drug Court: A juvenile drug court is a docket within a juvenile court to whichselected delinquency cases, and in someinstances, status offenders, are referred forhandling by a designated judge. The youthreferred to this docket are identified as havingproblems with alcohol and/or other drugs.The juvenile drug court judge maintains closeoversight of each case through regular statushearings with the parties involved. The judge
12
Painting the Current Picture: A National Report Card on Drug Courts and Other Problem Solving Court Programs in the United States
both leads and works as a member of a teamthat comprises representatives from treatment,juvenile justice, social and mental healthservices, school and vocational trainingprograms, law enforcement, probation, theprosecution, and the defense. Over the courseof a year or more, the team meets frequently(often weekly), determining how best toaddress the substance abuse and relatedproblems of the youth and his or her familythat have brought the youth into contact withthe justice system (BJA, 2003).
• Mental Health Court: Modeled after drugcourts and developed in response to theoverrepresentation of people with mentalillness in the criminal justice system, mentalhealth courts divert select defendants withmental illness into judicially supervised,community-based treatment. Currently, allmental health courts are voluntary.Defendants are invited to participate in themental health court following a specializedscreening and assessment, and they maychoose to decline participation. For thosewho agree to the terms and conditions ofcommunity-based supervision, a team ofcourt staff, social services, and mental healthprofessionals works together to developtreatment plans and supervise participants inthe community. Participants typically appearat regular status hearings where incentives areoffered to reward adherence to courtconditions, sanctions for non-adherence arehanded down, and treatment plans and otherconditions are periodically reviewed forappropriateness. Completion (sometimescalled graduation) is defined according tospecific criteria (Council of StateGovernments, 2005).
• Reentry Drug Court: Reentry drug courtsutilize the drug court model, as defined inThe Key Components, to facilitate thereintegration of drug-involved offenders intocommunities upon their release from local orstate correctional facilities. These are distinct
from "reentry courts," which do not utilize thedrug court model, but work with a similarpopulation. The offender is involved inregular judicial monitoring, intensivetreatment, community supervision, andregular drug testing. Reentry drug courtparticipants are provided with specializedancillary services needed for successfulreentry into the community (Tauber &Huddleston, 1999).
• Teen Court: Teen court (also called peercourt or youth court) is a program run byteens for teens, usually in conjunction withthe offender’s school. The underlyingphilosophy of these programs is that positivepeer pressure will help youths be less likely toreoffend and that youths are more receptive toconsequences handed down from their peersthan those given by adults. Therefore, youthswho commit minor offenses such as pettytheft, possession of alcohol, disorderlyconduct, or status offenses receiveconsequences for their behavior not from thejuvenile court system but from a “jury” oftheir peers in teen court. Law enforcementofficers, probation officers, teachers, andothers may refer youths to these voluntaryprograms. To participate, youths must admitto having committed the offense and the teenjuries deliberate primarily on dispositionalissues, handing down “sentences” rangingfrom community service to apologies, juryduty, essays, and educational workshops. Inmost situations, successful completion of theprogram means that the youth will not have ajuvenile record or, in the case of a schoolreferral, the juvenile will avoid schoolsuspension or expulsion (Vickers, 2004).
Tribal Healing to Wellness Court: A TribalHealing to Wellness Court is not simply atribal court that handles alcohol or other drugabuse cases. It is, rather, a component of thetribal justice system that incorporates andadapts the wellness court concept to meet thespecific substance abuse needs of each tribal
13
National Drug Court Institute
NEW
community. It therefore provides anopportunity for each Native community toaddress the devastation of alcohol or otherdrug abuse by establishing more structure anda higher level of accountability for these casesand offenders through a system ofcomprehensive supervision, drug testing,treatment services, immediate sanctions andincentives, team-based case management, and community support (Tribal Law & PolicyInstitute, 2003). This non-adversarialcommunity-based system encompassestraditional Native problem-solving methodsand restores the person to their rightful placeas a contributing member of the tribalcommunity. Tribal Healing to WellnessCourts utilize the unique strengths andhistory of each tribe and realigns existingresources available to the community in anatmosphere of communication, cooperation,collaboration and healing (Lovell, 2005).
• Truancy Court: Rather than employing thetraditional punitive approach to truancy,truancy courts are designed to assist a child inovercoming the underlying causes of truancyin his or her life by reinforcing educationthrough efforts from the school, courts, mentalhealth providers, families, and the community.Guidance counselors submit reports on thechild’s weekly progress throughout the schoolyear, which the court uses to enable specialtesting, counseling, or other necessary servicesas required. Truancy court is often held on theschool grounds and results in the ultimatedismissal of truancy petitions if the child canbe helped to attend school regularly (NationalTruancy Prevention Association, 2005).
Drug Court Legislation and State Appropriations
Variations in individual state governmentsdetermine whether or not enabling orauthorizing legislation is necessary for drugcourt implementation and operation. Somestates have passed legislation specificallydefining what drug courts are or specifyingcertain critical elements of the drug courtstructure (for example, defining eligibilitycriteria). Other states have passed legislationto create funding mechanisms for drug courts,such as special fines, fees, or assessments.However, many states with thriving drugcourt programs have not seen a need to passlegislation to implement, define, or fund theirdrug court programs.
“Appropriations” for drug court, as presentedin Table V, represent earmarked funds in astate’s budget either from drug court-specificlegislation or from other statutoryappropriations. “Appropriations” does notinclude local governmental or privatefunding, federally funded discretionary orformula awards, block grants, or client fees,and may not include funds used for drugcourts from the budgets of state agencies likecorrections, substance abuse treatment, oradministrative offices of the courts.
14
Painting the Current Picture: A National Report Card on Drug Courts and Other Problem Solving Court Programs in the United States
15
National Drug Court Institute
Table V
Drug Court Legislation & State Appropriations
State Bill Number None AppropriationsAlabama XAlaska HB 172 (2001); HB 4 (2002); HB 451 (2004); HB 342 (2004) $486,900Arizona (Pending) ARS §13-3422; 42-6109Arkansas Act 1266 2003 $884,000California Health & Safety Code 11970.1-11970.4 $21 millionColorado CRS 16-11-214 18-1.3-103(5) $1,057,341Connecticut HB6137 $1,113,477Delaware XDistrict of Columbia XFlorida FS 397.334 $22,480,263Georgia X $450,000Guam Bill No. PL26-125 $214,000Hawaii X $2,614,571Idaho Chapter 56, Title 19, Idaho Code $2,660,000Illinois Adult- 730 ILCS 1661; JV- 705 ILCS 4101; Reentry- SB 2654Indiana IC 12-23-14.5, (enacted July 1, 2002, amended July 1, 2004)Iowa XKansas X $200,000-300,000Kentucky X $2,286,700Louisiana LSA-RS 13:5301 et seq. $11,829,890Maine L.D. 2014 Sec. 1. 4MRSA 421, 422, 423 Chapter 8 $1,850,000Maryland X $1 millionMassachusetts XMichigan SB 998, PA 224 $2,535,000Minnesota X $1.4 millionMississippi MSCODE 9-23-1 through 9-23-23; (Pending) Reg. Session SB2892 $4.5 millionMissouri Section 478.001-478.009 RSMo $1.6 millionMontana XNebraska Bill No. LB454Nevada Assembly Bill 29 $6,326,241New Hampshire XNew Jersey L.2001, C. 243 $27 millionNew Mexico X $5.3 millionNew York X $9.4 millionNorth Carolina NC §Chapter 7A-791 $1,062,476.75North Dakota X $60,000Ohio XOklahoma Title 22 Section 471 et seq. $3,960,000Oregon HB 3363Pennsylvania XPuerto Rico XRhode Island X $1,775,000South Carolina Session 114 H3632 $300,000South Dakota XTennessee TCA 16-22-101 to 113 Drug Court Treatment Act of 2003 $80,000Texas H.B.1287 (2001); H.B. 2668 (2003) $750,000Utah Bill S.B. 281, 200 General Session $2,025,180Vermont Bill No. 128 $300,000Virgin Islands XVirginia House Bill 1430 2004 General Assembly $520,000Washington RCW 2.28.170 Drug courts $5.3 millionWest Virginia WV Code 61-11-22(f)(1)-(5)Wisconsin XWyoming Wyoming State Ann. Sections 5-10-101 et seq. $3.2 million
aJu
veni
lese
xof
fend
erco
urt
bPr
opos
ition
36Co
urts
:Cou
rtsfu
nded
unde
raCA
initi
ativ
eth
atsu
bstit
ute
drug
treat
men
tfor
inca
rcer
atio
nfo
rfirs
tand
seco
ndtim
eno
n-vi
olen
toffe
nder
s.Si
nce
thes
eco
urts
dono
tfol
low
the
drug
cour
tmod
el,t
hey
cann
otbe
incl
uded
inth
edr
ugco
urtc
ount
;fur
ther
mor
e,th
eyar
elo
cate
don
lyin
CA,s
oth
eydo
notm
erit
cros
s-st
ate
cons
ider
atio
n,he
nce
they
are
clas
sifie
das
“oth
er”.
cIn
tegr
ated
fam
ilyco
urt
dSt
atew
ide
truan
cyco
urt
eGa
mbl
ing
cour
t*2
004
Puer
toRi
coda
taw
asde
rived
from
the
Amer
ican
Unive
rsity
Drug
Cour
tCle
arin
ghou
sean
dTe
chni
calA
ssist
ance
Proj
ect.
(200
4,N
ovem
ber9
).Su
mm
ary
ofdr
ugco
urta
ctivi
tyby
stat
ean
dco
unty
.Was
hing
ton,
DC:A
utho
r.
Tabl
eV
I
Num
ber
&Ty
peof
Ope
rati
onal
Prob
lem
Solv
ing
Cour
tPr
ogra
ms
inth
eU
nite
dSt
ates
(Dec
embe
r20
04)12
Alab
ama
330
10
52
250
00
00
0Al
aska
170
00
215
00
00
00
0Ar
izona
580
00
540
40
00
44
01a
Arka
nsas
00
00
00
00
00
00
0Ca
lifor
nia
107
00
415
1725
00
61
00
39b
Colo
rado
41
01
10
00
00
00
01c
Conn
ectic
ut7
00
20
05
00
00
00
Dela
war
e5
30
01
00
00
00
00
1d
D.C.
40
01
01
11
00
00
0Fl
orid
a60
––
–1
59–
––
––
––
Geor
gia
70
01
42
00
00
00
0Gu
am7
00
00
11
01
01
12
Haw
aii
30
00
11
10
00
00
0Id
aho
120
00
37
10
00
10
0Ill
inoi
s3
00
01
20
00
00
00
Indi
ana
271
01
223
00
00
00
0Io
wa
71
00
32
10
00
00
0Ka
nsas
20
00
0–
20
00
00
0Ke
ntuc
ky2
00
00
10
00
01
00
Loui
sian
a4
20
01
01
00
00
00
Mai
ne5
00
00
05
00
00
00
Mar
ylan
d10
10
00
90
00
00
00
Mas
sach
uset
ts0
00
00
00
00
00
00
Mic
higa
n0
––
––
––
––
––
––
Min
neso
ta10
20
01
52
00
00
00
Mis
siss
ippi
30
00
03
00
00
00
0M
isso
uri
550
00
514
01
00
341
0M
onta
na1
00
01
00
00
00
00
Neb
rask
a0
00
00
00
00
00
00
Nev
ada
60
00
22
00
00
11
0N
ewHa
mps
hire
10
00
01
00
00
00
0N
ewJe
rsey
00
00
00
00
00
00
0N
ewM
exic
o13
00
02
44
00
01
20
New
York
250
05
40
150
00
00
01e
Nor
thCa
rolin
a12
90
01
345
211
40
635
13N
orth
Dako
ta3
00
00
30
00
00
00
Ohio
293
00
240
10
00
01
0Ok
laho
ma
20
00
20
00
00
00
0Or
egon
190
02
54
60
00
00
2Pe
nnsy
lvan
ia26
00
12
01
00
022
00
Puer
toRi
co*
0–
––
––
––
––
––
–Rh
ode
Isla
nd60
00
00
01
00
059
00
Sout
hCa
rolin
a13
––
23
–8
––
––
––
Sout
hDa
kota
40
00
04
00
–0
00
0Te
nnes
see
80
00
16
10
00
00
0Te
xas
95–
–2
284
7–
––
––
–Ut
ah6
20
02
01
10
00
00
Verm
ont
10
00
10
00
00
00
0Vi
rgin
Isla
nds
00
00
00
00
00
00
0Vi
rgin
ia1
00
01
00
00
00
00
Was
hing
ton
00
00
00
00
00
00
0W
estV
irgin
ia8
00
05
30
00
00
00
Wis
cons
in35
01
00
331
00
00
00
Wyo
min
g0
00
00
00
00
00
00
Tota
ls93
716
223
111
393
141
45
613
145
1743
Other
Problem
Solving
Courts
Reentry
Court
GunCom
munity M
enta
lHea
lth
Teen
CourtsDom
estic
Violen
ce
Prost
itutio
nPar
oleVio
latio
n
Homele
ss Truan
cyChild
Support
Inte
grate
dTr
eatm
ent
Other
Other
Problem
Solving
CourtsRee
ntryCourtGun
Comm
unityM
enta
l Hea
lthTeen
Courts
Domes
ticVio
lence
Prost
itutio
n
Parole
Violat
ionHom
eless
Truan
cyChild
Support
Inte
grate
dTr
eatm
ent
Other
17
National Drug Court InstituteFi
gure
VI
Tota
lof
2,55
8O
pera
tion
alPr
oble
mSo
lvin
gCo
urts
inth
eU
nite
dSt
ates
(Dec
embe
r20
04)13
WA
035
OR
1947
CA10
726
5
NV
630
ID12
52
MT
114 W
Y0
43
UT
631
AZ
5897
NM
1346
C O 422
ND
310
■Pr
oble
mSo
lving
Cour
ts■
Tota
lDru
gCo
urts
and
Prob
lem
Solvi
ngCo
urts
SD 48
NE
09 K
S2
6 OK
249
MN
10 17W
I35
41M
I0
67
ME
519
NH
18
MA
030
CT7
10
RI
6067
VT 14
NJ 0 20
DE 5 19
MD
1028
DC
49
NY
2519
0
PA26
41
WV
89
VA 127
NC
129
154
SC13
40
IL 3 41
IN 27 45
OH
2990
KY
245
TN8
61
IA 718 M
O55
179
AR
026
LA 4 43
MS 3 15
AL
33 51
GA 7 36
FL 60 150
HI
313
AK
1729
TX95
136
New
Engl
and
Mid
-Atla
ntic
VI 00
PR
07
GU
79
Table VII
Primary State Points of Contact and Survey Respondants
State Name Phone EmailAlabama Foster Cook 205-917-3784 [email protected] Robyn Johnson 907-264-8250 [email protected] Theresa Barrett 602-542-9364 [email protected] John Millar 501-682-9400 [email protected] Nancy Taylor 415-865-7607 [email protected] Dee Colombini 970-498-5872 [email protected] Connecticut Maureen Derbacher 203-789-6404 [email protected] Susan McLaughlin 302-577-2711 [email protected] District of Columbia Eric Holder 202-220-5528 [email protected] Florida Michael McElroy 850-414-1507 [email protected] Michael Kendrick 404-463-4155 [email protected] Guam Lisa Baza/Jeannette Quintanilla 671-475-3361 [email protected] Janice Bennett 808-599-3700 [email protected] Norma D. Jaeger 208-947-7406 [email protected] Dave Gasperin 217-785-7784 [email protected] Indiana Mary Kay Hudson 317-234-2620 [email protected] 2003 survey data N/A N/AKansas Don Noland 620-724-6213 [email protected] Connie M. Payne 502-573-2350 [email protected] Jamie Pena/Scott Griffith 504-599-0297 [email protected] John Richardson 207-287-4021 [email protected] Maryland Gray Barton 410-946-4908 [email protected] Robert P. Ziemian 617-268-8305 [email protected] Phyllis Zold Kilbourne 517-353-5596 [email protected] Dan Griffin 651-215-9468 [email protected] Joey Craft 601-354-7408 [email protected] Ann Wilson 573-526-8848 [email protected] Sherri D. Rafter 406-841-2970 [email protected] Jerry Watson 308-385-5208 [email protected] Bill Gang 702-486-3232 [email protected] Hampshire Ray Bilodeau 603-536-3326 [email protected] New Jersey Carol Venditto 609-292-3488 [email protected] Mexico Peter Bochert 505-827-4834 [email protected] York Ann K. Bader 212-428-2111 [email protected] Carolina Amy E Hargraves-Smith 919-571-4129 [email protected] Dakota Marilyn Moe 701-250-2198 [email protected] Melissa Knopp 614-387-9427 [email protected] Brian Karnes 405-522-3870 [email protected] Christopher J. Hamilton 503-986-7019 [email protected] Robert J. Galardy 412-350-5043 [email protected] Rico None Provided N/A N/ARhode Island Linda Lynch, Ed Morrone 401-458-5026 [email protected] Carolina Heidi Osburn14 N/A N/ASouth Dakota Keith Bonenberger 605-773-4873 [email protected] Kara Sanders 615-253-5568 [email protected] Colleen Benefield 512-475-2440 [email protected] Brent Kelsey 801-538-4305 [email protected] Karen Gennette 802-786-5009 [email protected] Islands Glenda Lake 340-693-6408 [email protected] Kathy L. Mays 804-786-7595 [email protected] Earl Long 360-407-1109 [email protected] Virginia Anonymous N/A N/AWisconsin Dan Wassink 608-266-8861 [email protected] Heather Babbitt 307-777-6493 [email protected]
18
Painting the Current Picture: A National Report Card on Drug Courts and Other Problem Solving Court Programs in the United States
Resource OrganizationsThe following organizations serve in an official capacity as a resource for drug courtsand other problem solving courts. This list represents any national organization thatreceives federal funding for such activities.
American Bar Association-Judicial Division DWI courts and other specialized courts (go to www.abanet.org)
Center for Court Innovation Community courts, domestic violence courts, drugcourts, and other problem solving courts (go to www.problem-solvingcourts.org)
Council of State Governments Mental health courts (go to www.consensusproject.org)
Family Justice Drug courts (go to www.familyjustice.org)
Justice Management Institute Community courts, drug courts (go to www.jmijustice.org)
Justice Programs Office of the School of Public Affairs at American University Drug courts(go to www.spa.american.edu/justice/)
National Alliance for the Mentally Ill Mental Health Courts (go to www.nami.org)
National Association of Drug Court Professionals and the National Drug Court InstituteAdult drug courts, campus drug courts, DWI courts, family dependency treatmentcourts, reentry drug courts (go to www.nadpc.org or www.ndci.org)
National Center for State Courts Drug courts, DWI courts, and other problem solvingcourts (go to www.ncsconline.org)
National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges Juvenile drug courts (go to www.ncjfcj.org)
National Mental Health Association Mental health courts (go to www.nmha.org)
National Treatment Accountability for Safer Communities Drug courts (go to www.nationaltasc.org)
National Truancy Prevention Association Truancy courts(go to www.truancypreventionassociation.com)
National Youth Court Center Teen courts (go to www.youthcourt.net)
Native American Alliance Foundation Native American healing to wellness courts (go to www.native-alliance.org)
The National Judicial College Campus drug courts (Back on TRAC), DWI courts,mental health courts and other problem solving courts (go to www.judges.org)
19
National Drug Court Institute
References
American University Drug Court Clearinghouse and Technical Assistance Project. (2004, November 9).Summary of drug court activity by state and county. Washington, DC: Author.
American University Drug Court Clearinghouse and Technical Assistance Project. (2003, October15). Drug court activity update: October 15, 2003. Washington, DC: Author.
Asmus, C.L. (2002). A campus drug court: Colorado State University. Drug Court Review, IV(1), 1-38.
Belenko, S.R. (1998). Research on drug courts: A critical review. The National Center on Addictionand Substance Abuse, Columbia University.
Belenko, S.R. (2001). Research on drug courts: A critical review 2001 update. The National Center onAddiction and Substance Abuse, Columbia University.
Bureau of Justice Assistance. (2004). Competitive grant announcement: Adult drug court implementa-tion grants. Washington, DC: Author, U.S. Department of Justice.
Conference of Chief Justices, & Conference of State Court Administrators. (2004, July 29). Joint res-olution: In support of problem solving courts. CCJ Resolution 22; COSCA Resolution IV. Adopted at the52nd Annual Meeting of the Conference of Chief Justices, Rapid City, SD.
Cooper, C.S. (2004, November). Costs associated with the birth of drug and/or alcohol addicted/exposedinfants. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Assistance Drug Court Clearinghouse, American University.
Council of State Governments. (2005). What is a mental health court? New York, NY: Author.
Farrell, M. Amherst, NY, Gambling Treatment Court. (2005, April 7). Personal communication withC.W. Huddleston.
Fox, C., & Huddleston, W. (2003, May). Drug courts in the U.S. Issues of Democracy, 8(1), 13-19.[Electronic journals of the U.S. Department of State.]
Government Accountability Office. (2005, February). Adult drug courts: Evidence indicates recidivismreductions and mixed results for other outcomes. Report to congressional committees. Washington, DC:U.S. Government Accountability Office.
Huddleston, C.W., Freeman-Wilson, K., & Boone, D. (2004, May). Painting the Current Picture: A National Report Card on Drug Courts and Other Problem Solving Courts, I(1). Alexandria, VA:National Drug Court Institute.
Janovsky, E. & Kalotra, C. (2003, October). Information relevant to female participants in drug courts:Summary overview. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Assistance Drug Court Clearinghouse,American University.
Koch, R., Miami-Dade County, FL Adult Felony Drug Court. (2004, January 13). Personal com-munication with C.W. Huddleston.
Lee, E. (2000, October). Community courts: An evolving model. Washington, DC: Bureau of JusticeAssistance, U.S. Department of Justice.
Lester, B.M., Lagasse, L., Seifer, R., Tronick, E.Z., Bauer, C.R., Shankaran, S., et al. (2003). Thematernal lifestyle study (mls): Effects of prenatal cocaine and/or opiate exposure on auditory brainresponse at one month. Journal of Pediatrics, 142, 279-285.
20
Painting the Current Picture: A National Report Card on Drug Courts and Other Problem Solving Court Programs in the United States
Loeffler, M., & Huddleston, W. (2003, November). DWI/drug court planning initiative training curricula. Alexandria, VA: National Drug Court Institute.
Lovell, A., Native American Alliance Foundation. (2005, May 12). Personal communication withC.W. Huddleston.
Mankin, L., Aspen Systems. (2005, April 13). Personal communication with C.W. Huddleston
Marlowe, D.B. (2004, September 9). Drug court efficacy vs. effectiveness. Join Together Online.www.jointogether.org/sa/news/features/reader/0,1854,574745,00.html
Marlowe, D.B., DeMatteo, D.S., & Festinger, D.S. (2003, October). A sober assessment of drugcourts. Federal Sentencing Reporter, (16)1, 113-128.
Marlowe, D.B., Festinger, D.S., & Lee, P.A. (2004). The judge is a key component of drug court.Drug Court Review, IV(2), 1-34.
Mazur, R., & Aldrich, L. (2003, Spring). What makes a domestic violence court work? Lessons fromNew York. American Bar Association, (42)2.
Merck Research Laboratories. (2005). The Merck manual of diagnosis and therapy. M. H. Beers (Ed.).Whitehouse Station, NJ: Author.
National Association of Drug Court Professionals. (1997, January). Defining drug courts: The key com-ponents. Washington, DC: Drug Courts Program Office, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Departmentof Justice.
National Truancy Prevention Association. (2005). http://www.truancypreventionassociation.com.
Office of Justice Programs. (1997). New survey documents dramatic rise in drug courts: Substantialprogress reported. Press release. Washington, DC: Author, U.S. Department of Justice.
Pierre, E., Bureau of Justice Assistance, U. S. Department of Justice. (2005, April 14). Personal com-munication with C.W. Huddleston.
Presenza, L.J., Philadelphia Municipal Court. (2005, May 6). Personal communication with A. Roussell.
Tauber, J., & Huddleston, C.W. (1999). Reentry drug courts: Closing the gap monograph series 3.Alexandria, VA: National Drug Court Institute.
Tribal Law & Policy Institute. (2003, April). Tribal healing to wellness courts: The key components.Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Assistance, U.S. Department of Justice.
Vickers, M. M. (2004, May). An overview of school-based youth court program design options.Selected topics on youth courts: A monograph. National Youth Court Center. Washington DC: Office ofJuvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice.
Vidaeff, A.C., & Mastrobattista, J.M. (2003). In utero cocaine exposure: A thorny mix of science andmythology. American Journal of Perinatology, 20(4), 165-172.
Walters, J.P. (2005, May 11). Drug courts save money and get better results. San Jose Mercury Newsonline, www.mercurynews.com.
Wheeler, M., & Siegerist, J. (2003, November). Family dependency treatment court planning initiativetraining curricula. Alexandria, VA: National Drug Court Institute.
Winick, B.J. (2000, Fall). Applying the law therapeutically in domestic violence cases. University ofMissouri-Kansas City Law Review.
21
National Drug Court Institute
End Notes
1 This annual report was commissioned by the National Drug Court Institute (NDCI) and wasmade possible with funding from the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP),Executive Office of the President, under cooperative agreement #2005-DC-BX-K003 with theBureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC.
2 The word “state” in this document represents all U.S. states, districts, and territories when usedin this context.
3 All data, except for the years 1990, 2003, and 2004, were obtained from the Drug Court ActivityUpdate: October 15, 2003 (American University, 2003, October 15). Data from 1990 wereobtained from the Miami-Dade County, FL Adult Felony Drug Court (Koch, 2004); data from2003 and 2004 were obtained from the National Survey of Drug Courts and Other ProblemSolving Courts, National Drug Court Institute.
4 This figure represents the total number of adult drug courts, juvenile drug courts, family depend-ency treatment courts, DWI courts, reentry drug courts, tribal healing to wellness courts, campusdrug courts, and federal district drug courts, and federal district drug courts.
5 NDCI received 2004 survey results from all states except Iowa. Therefore, in order to not artifi-cially deflate the actual number of operational drug courts, 2003 survey data were used for Iowa.
6 NDCI received 2004 survey results from all states except Iowa. Therefore, in order to not artifi-cially deflate the actual number of operational drug courts, 2003 survey data were used for Iowa.
7 77 percent (41) of jurisdictions reporting as of December 31, 2004.8 74 percent (39) of jurisdictions reporting as of December 31, 2004.9 An important caveat to this figure is that the total number of all births to drug court participants
was not assessed; therefore, it is not possible to ascertain from these data the actual percentageof drug-free births.
10 Conference of Chief Justices/Conference of State Court Administrators, 2004.11 For a review of current problem solving court research, see “Just the (Unwieldy, Hard to Gather
But Nonetheless Essential) Facts, Ma’am: What We Know and Don’t Know About ProblemSolving Courts,” by Greg Berman and Anne Gulick, published in the Fordham Urban LawJournal, Vol. XXX, No. 3 (March 2003).
12 NDCI received 2004 survey results from all states except Iowa. Therefore, in order to not artifi-cially deflate the actual number of operational problem solving courts, 2003 survey data wereused for Iowa.
13 NDCI received 2004 survey results from all states except Iowa. Therefore, in order to not artifi-cially deflate the actual number of operational problem solving courts, 2003 survey data wereused for Iowa.
14 At the printing of this publication, this correspondent is no longer employed in this position.
22
Painting the Current Picture: A National Report Card on Drug Courts and Other Problem Solving Court Programs in the United States
4900 Seminary Road, Suite 320Alexandria, VA 22311
(703) 575-94001-877-507-3229
(703) 575-9402 Faxwww.ndci.org
NATIONAL
DRUG COURT
INSTITUTE
PAINTING THECURRENT PICTURE:
A NATIONAL REPORT CARD
ON DRUG COURTS AND
OTHER PROBLEM SOLVING
COURT PROGRAMS IN THE
UNITED STATES
MAY 2005 • VOLUME I, NO. 2
NATIONAL
DRUG COURT
INSTITUTE
C. West Huddleston, III
Judge Karen Freeman-Wilson (ret.)
Douglas B. Marlowe, J.D., Ph.D.
Aaron Roussell