Preface

Almost half of the criminals in jail or prison are clinically addicted

to drugs. Drug addicts overpopulate prisons, which is a burden for

taxpayers. A solution for this problem is drug courts; drug courts have

proven to be an effective way of getting drug-addicted criminals clean

and sober, thus making them less likely to get re-arrested, which

ultimately lowers taxpayer costs.

This report seeks answers to three questions:

1. What is a drug court?

2. Are drug courts effective at reducing both recidivism rates

and costs?

3. Does the country need more drug courts?

Using empirical, statistical, and anecdotal evidence, this report will

answer these questions.

Table of Contents

List of Figures........................................................................................iv Abstract..................................................................................................v INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................1 WHAT IS A DRUG COURT?....................................................................3 How a Drug Court Operates..........................................................4 Difference between Drug Court and Criminal Court......................6

Difference between Drug Court and Traditional Treatment Programs......................................................................................9

History of Drug Courts..................................................................9 CLAY/BECKER DRUG COURT: A CASE STUDY...................................12 DRUG COURT EFFECTIVENESS..........................................................21 Reducing Recidivism Nationwide.................................................21 Saving Money Nationwide............................................................24 Drug Court Graduate Testimonials..............................................31 THE NEED FOR MORE DRUG COURTS...............................................33 Drug Court Professionals’ Opinions.............................................34 CONCLUSION......................................................................................36 WORKS CITED.....................................................................................38

List of Figures

Figure 1: Different Paths Drug-Addicted Offenders Take Through the System.....................................................................................8

Figure 2: Drug Court Locations in the United States............................11 Figure 3: Operational Drug Courts in Minnesota...................................14 Figure 4: Clay/Becker Drug Court Graduate Jodi Klonowski with her

Children.................................................................................19 Figure 5: First Clay/Becker Drug Court Graduate Scott Salverson and

Judge Lisa Borgen.................................................................20 Figure 6: Thurston County Recidivism Comparison..............................25 Figure 7: Thurston County Cost Comparison........................................29 Figure 8: Kentucky’s Criminal Justice Options: Average Cost Per Person

Per Year.................................................................................30

Abstract

This report examines the effectiveness of drug courts throughout

the United States. A detailed description of the drug court model is given,

followed by an in-depth case study of the Clay/Becker Drug Court in

Minnesota. Based on interviews of drug court professionals and drug

court graduates, results from empirical testing, and national statistics, a

conclusion is made that drug courts are effective. The effectiveness of

drug courts is evidenced by their graduates’ low recidivism rate, which

leads to lower costs for taxpayers. Thus, a recommendation is made that

all counties without a drug court should adopt one.

Introduction

Prisons are being overpopulated with drug addicts: Almost half of

all criminals in jail or prison are clinically addicted to drugs. After they

are released from prison, sixty-to-eighty percent of drug-addicted

criminals commit a crime, a crime typically involving drugs (“The Facts

on Drugs”). This recidivism is a problem that needs to be addressed. One

effective solution to this problem is the use of drug courts. Drug courts

provide judicially supervised treatment for nonviolent drug-addicted

offenders. The goal of drug courts is to get addicts clean so that they will

be less likely to commit crimes.

The purposes of this report are to show that drug courts provide

an effective way to rehabilitate drug addicts, which reduces crime and

saves money and to convince counties without a drug court to adopt one.

This report presents national data and data from certain states and an

in-depth study of a drug court in Minnesota.

This report begins by explaining how drug courts operate and by

giving a brief overview of the history of drug courts. Next, a case study of

the Clay/Becker Drug Court in Minnesota is presented. The report then

shows the positive effects that drug courts have on reducing crime and

on saving money by presenting national statistics and testimonials from

drug court graduates and drug-court professionals. The report concludes

by explaining the need for more drug courts throughout the country.

What is a Drug Court?

A drug court involves the usual players associated with traditional

criminal court: a judge, a prosecutor, a defense attorney, and a

defendant. However, the process of a drug court is much different.

According to the National Association of Drug Court Professionals

(NADCP), a drug court is a program that combines judicial monitoring

and effective treatment to compel drug-addicted criminals to rehabilitate

themselves. For at least one year, participants in a drug court are

provided intensive treatment to get clean and sober; they are held

accountable by a judge for meeting their obligations; they are randomly

tested for drugs; they are required to appear in court on a regular basis;

and they are rewarded for following the rules and sanctioned when they

break the rules (“About NADCP,” “What are Drug Courts?”).

Instead of going to jail, drug-addicted criminals try to get clean and

sober. If so, they remain out of jail. If they relapse or break any other

rule, however, they will be punished by imprisonment. Caroline Cooper,

associate director of the Justice Programs Office of the School of Public

Affairs at American University in Washington, D.C., calls this the “carrot

and stick” approach (245).

Keeping criminals out of jail may sound like a “soft-on-crime”

approach, but Cooper assures that drug courts are based on a

“pragmatic recognition by criminal justice policy-makers that substance

addiction is a chronic, relapsing physiological condition—in addition to

the criminal activity it spurs—and that this condition requires treatment”

(245).

How a Drug Court Operates

According to the NADCP, only criminals who are chemically

dependent on drugs can participate in drug court. Although eligibility

requirements vary, some requirements are typical nationwide. For

example, most drug courts do not consider violent offenders. Drug courts

consider both drug crimes and “drug-driven” crimes (“What are Drug

Courts?”). Drug courts not only consider people accused of drug crimes

(i.e. possessing illegal drugs), but also consider drug-driven crimes.

According to the NADCP, drug courts typically employ a treatment

process divided into three phases: a stabilization phase, an intensive

treatment phase, and a transition phase. The stabilization phase usually

includes an initial treatment assessment and detoxification. The

intensive treatment phase emphasizes group and individual therapy. The

transition phase focuses on transitioning the participants from a life

addicted to drugs to a clean life. This emphasizes helping the

participants reintegrate into society by finding employment, education,

and housing (Defining Drug Courts 1).

Difference Between Drug Court and Criminal Court

Although drug court involves some aspects of traditional criminal

court, the two are vastly different. Attorney Mark Western of Fargo,

North Dakota, calls drug court a “parallel universe” to traditional

criminal court. The NADCP lists ten key components that a drug court

must have in order to be successful. One of those components describes

a key difference between drug court and criminal court:

Using a nonadversarial approach, prosecution and defense

counsel promote public safety while protecting participants’

due process rights. 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. (Defining Drug Courts 3)

The journey that drug-addicted offenders take through the legal

system is determined by their eligibility for drug court. Figure 1 contrasts

the different paths drug-addicted offenders can take through the legal

system, either drug court or criminal court. As shown in Figure 1, the

process starts with an arrest. If offenders are rejected from the drug

court program, they take the criminal court route, which includes a trial.

If they are found not guilty, they are free to go back to their lives. If they

are found guilty, they go to jail or prison. If offenders are accepted into

drug court, however, they go through the three phases of the program. If

they complete the program, their charges are either dismissed or

reduced. If they break the rules, participants can be dismissed from the

program and put into jail.

Different Paths Drug-Addicted Offenders Take through the System

Difference Between Drug Court and Traditional Treatment Programs

Drug court is also different from traditional treatment programs.

According to the NADCP, drug courts more closely supervise drug

addicts than traditional treatment programs (“Drug Courts Work”). In

drug court, however, if an addict quits the program, then he or she goes

to jail. Figure 1

Source: “The Drug Court Process.” Medscape. 20 Nov. 2009 <http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/topics/courts/drug-courts/welcome.htm>.

Drug courts seem to work better than traditional treatment

programs at getting addicts clean and sober because of their supervision

and strictness. The NADCP claims that if drug-addicted offenders are not

supervised by a judge, seventy percent quit treatment before they get

clean and sober (“Drug Courts Work”).

History of Drug Courts

According to the NADCP, the first drug court was created in

Miami-Dade County, Florida, in 1989. It was started by justice

professionals who were tired of seeing the same people go through the

system over and over again for drug crimes. Ten years after the creation

of the first drug court, there were 492 drug courts in the country

(“History”) compared to today’s 2,301. The great increase in the number

shows that more and more counties are adopting drug courts.

Figure 2 shows the locations of the numerous drug courts in the United

States.

Figure 2

Source: “Drug Courts.” United States Department of Justice. 20 Nov. 2009 <http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/topics/courts/drug-courts/welcome.htm>.

Clay/Becker Drug Court: A Case Study

In 2006, Clay County Judge Lisa Borgen began preliminary planning for

a joint drug court program between Clay and Becker Counties. While

trying to get approval for the drug court program, Borgen had difficulty

trying to convince the county commissioners that a drug court program

would ultimately save both time and money (Borgen). After Borgen and

the rest of the drug court team were able to convince the county

commissioners in 2007, the Clay/Becker Drug Court Program was

underway. Before the program could officially start, all the members of

the drug court team would have to attend training through the National

Drug Court Institute (Borgen).

Borgen stated that participants who go through the drug court

program must meet certain criteria before they can be enrolled in the

program. First, in order to be considered for the program, participants

must be convicted of a crime that furthers their drug addiction, such as

a burglary or forging a signature for prescription drugs. Then, the drug

court team, which consists of a judge, the drug court coordinator,

probation agent, public defender, and the drug court prosecutor, has to

decide if it feels that this person will able to successfully complete the

program. Also, he or she must have a nonviolent history in order to be

enrolled.

Figure 3 Source: “Operational Drug Courts in Minnesota (36).” Minnesota Judicial

Branch. 4 Dec. 2009 <http://www.mncourts.gov/Documents/0/Public/Drug_Court/Drug_Courts_Map_V

1.jpg>.

According to Borgen, the average drug court participant takes

eighteen months to two years to complete the program. Tama Puhr, the

drug court probation agent, oversees the “intensive supervision” aspect

of the drug court. Puhr goes to the participants’ homes (all of whom

must live in Clay or Becker County and be able to get to drug court on

their own) and periodically checks to make sure they are staying clean

and their home is chemically free. Also, the participants need to check

in and report to Puhr where they are at all times of the day.

Participants have three phases they must complete in order to

“graduate” from the program. The first phase of this program is the

“choice” phase. In phase one, the participants begin their commitment

to “establish abstinence and chemical dependency treatment”

(Clay/Becker Handbook). The participants must attend the weekly drug

court review hearings and attend Alcoholics and Narcotics Anonymous

meetings two to three times every week. Upon finishing phase one, the

participants move to phase two, where they establish their recovery

goals. While in phase two, the participants must either be employed or

be doing volunteer work within the community. Phase three is the final

and the most rigorous phase of the program. This “change” phase

requires participants to complete a volunteer project and to be

completely drug free for one year. The participants are required to have

a driver’s license and to have a paying job (Clay/Becker Handbook).

Upon the completion of phase three, the participants graduate from the

program and present their essay about their community volunteer

project or employment experience, along with an essay about what drug

court meant to them and how it changed their life (Borgen). Since Clay

and Becker Counties have used a drug court, eight people have

successfully gone through the program and have become chemically free.

Borgen said that drug court is a team effort. By this, she means

that the entire drug court team and the other participants are there to

support each other through each phase of the program. Participants

who attend the drug court meetings have to stay until every person who

is in attendance has had his or her turn. This way, if someone has a

particular accomplishment or slip-up, all the other participants can

support him or her.

These members felt that drug court has changed the lives of those

who have been involved. They all recommended that other counties, if

they have the means, institute a drug court program. For many

participants, drug court seems to provide structure and helps them learn

to set priorities, a new skill for participants (Puhr interview). “If it wasn’t

for this program, I would be dead,” says thirty-four-year-old drug court

graduate Jodi Klonowski. After losing custody of her son and realizing

she was pregnant, “things finally began to sink in that I had no control

anymore,” she admitted (qtd. in Lawonn, “I’ve Come This Far”). Figure 4

shows Klonowski with her children. Without drug court, Klonowski

would have lost her children.

The first drug court graduate, Scott Salverson, commented that

although he may not have gotten everything back that he lost when was

abusing drugs, what he has gotten back through drug court and rehab

has made “my life worth it” (qtd. in Lawonn, “Budget Woes Threaten

Drug Court”). Drug court provided Salverson the motivation he needed

to put his life back on the right track. Figure 5 depicts Salverson during

his graduation from drug court.

Clay/Becker Drug Court Graduate Jodi Klonowski with her Children

Figure 4 Source: Lawonn, Brittany. “'I've come this far': Clay County

drug court graduate regains life, son.” The Forum 4 June 2009: n. pag. Web. 7 Oct. 2009.

First Clay/Becker Drug Court Graduate Scott Salverson and Judge

Lisa Borgen

Figure 5 Source: Lawonn, Brittany. “Budget woes threaten drug

court.” The Forum 29 Jan. 2009: n. pag. Web. 7 Oct. 2009.

Drug Court Effectiveness

The structured model of drug courts has succeeded in reducing

both recidivism and costs. Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary defines

recidivism as a “relapse into criminal behavior” (“Recidivism”). Recidivism

for drug court graduates would be getting re-arrested for a drug crime or

drug-driven crime. Shelley Johnson Listwan, Deborah Koetzle Shaffer,

and Jennifer L. Hartman assert that drug courts have been empirically

tested in numerous studies, and the results of the studies generally

conclude that drug courts reduce recidivism and costs (630).

Reducing Recidivism Nationwide

Drug court is a highly effective method for reducing recidivism of

drug-addicted offenders. According to the NADCP, the average recidivism

rate for drug court graduates is sixteen percent in the first year after

graduation, and twenty-seven percent in the second year after

graduation. On average, people on probation violate their probation over

sixty percent of the time (“The Facts on Drugs”). The recidivism rate for

drug court graduates may sound high, but compared to conventional

probation, the recidivism rate for drug court graduates is actually very

low because the drug court model gets and keeps people clean and

sober. The following examples show how recidivism for drug court is

lower compared to traditional methods.

Clay/Becker. Since the Clay/Becker Drug Court officially started

back in 2007, there have been eight graduates. All eight of these people

have gone on to lead sober lives and have been contributing members of

society. Not one of these graduates has been re-arrested for the

possession of an illegal substance. Recidivism rates remain low in drug

court because drug court is also motivation for these people; if they do

not comply with the demands of the drug court or they happen to be

caught using drugs, they are sent to jail. “It’s this or prison,” said one of

the participants in a November 25 drug court hearing; “and this is better

than prison,” responded Judge Borgen. The Clay/Becker Drug Court

has been a success; with recidivism rates low, and graduation rates

high.

Baltimore, Maryland. Not only are drug courts better at reducing

recidivism than probation, but they are also better at reducing recidivism

than traditional treatment. Jeffrey A. Bouffard of Washington State

University and Katie A. Richardson of North Dakota State University

describe a study done in Baltimore, Maryland, that compares the

recidivism rates of drug court to the recidivism rates of traditional

treatment. In this study, drug-addicted offenders were placed either into

a drug court program, the experimental group, or they were placed into

traditional treatment, the control group. The study concluded that “the

participants placed in drug court were significantly less likely than the

control group to have reoffended after one year” (Bouffard and

Richardson 276).

Eau Claire County, Wisconsin. The positive effects that drug

courts have on recidivism rates can be seen in Eau Claire County,

Wisconsin. According to Dan Holtz of The Leader-Telegram, an Eau

Claire newspaper, drug court has reduced recidivism in Eau Claire

County by twenty-eight percent compared to the recidivism rate of prison

inmates. In Wisconsin, the recidivism rate for inmates released from

prison is forty percent. The recidivism rate for drug court graduates in

Eau Claire County is only twelve percent (Holtz). Compared to released

state prison inmates, drug court graduates in Eau Claire County are

substantially less likely to reoffend.

Thurston County, Washington. Thurston County, Washington,

has also experienced relatively low recidivism rates for its drug court.

According to the Thurston County Drug Court Website, the recidivism

rate for its drug court graduates is twelve percent. This number is

extremely low compared to the recidivism rate for released inmates from

Washington state prison, which is sixty-two percent, and the recidivism

rate for inmates released from Thurston County Jail, which is seventy-

two percent (“Value to Taxpayer”). The Thurston County Drug Court has

reduced recidivism by an incredible fifty to sixty percent. Figure 6

compares the recidivism rate of Thurston County’s drug court to that of

state prison and Thurston County Jail.

Saving Money Nationwide

Drug courts are not only effective at reducing recidivism, but they are

also effective at saving money. According to the NADCP, taxpayers on

average save $4,000 to $12,000 per drug court participant per year. This

is due to the fact that drug courts reduce the “revolving door” of

criminality (“Drug Courts Work”). The revolving door refers to the

rampant recidivism associated with probation, jail, and prison. When

offenders are released from jail or prison, they are likely to get arrested

again, and the cycle repeats, costing taxpayers more and more money.

The reduced rate of recidivism associated with drug courts decreases the

likelihood of revolving-door offenders, which ultimately decreases costs.

The following examples illustrate the positive effect drug courts have on

reducing costs across the entire country.

Thurston County Recidivism Comparison

Figure 6

Source: “Value to Taxpayer.” Thurston County Community Drug Court Support Foundation. 2 Nov. 2009 <http://www.tcdrugcourtfoundation.org/Index.htm>.

Clay/Becker. In addition to drug courts’ helping people with their

addiction, in the long run, it will save money for the county. Borgen

explained that many parents who are addicted to drugs will have their

children taken away and put into foster care. Those involved in drug

court, however, are usually sober enough to keep their children. Putting

someone in foster care can cost a lot of money (Borgen). According to

Borgen, housing someone in prison costs about sixty-five dollars every

day. Through drug court, these people save the county almost $24,000,

which is the cost to incarcerate a person for one year.

Eau Claire County, Wisconsin. The reduced recidivism rate in

Eau Claire County has led to a reduction in costs for taxpayers.

According to Eau Claire County Drug Court Judge Lisa Stark, “Drug

court has saved county and state taxpayers an estimated $2.3 million

over the past five years” (qtd. in Holtz). Since drug court participants are

not in jail or prison, taxpayers do not have to pay to house them. The

reduced recidivism rates associated with drug court graduates also plays

a role in reducing costs. Drug court graduates are not re-arrested as

often as released inmates, thus saving taxpayers more money in the long

run.

Thurston County, Washington. The Thurston County Drug Court

is also clearly saving money for taxpayers. According to the Thurston

County Drug Court Website, it costs the county $16.00 per day for each

drug court participant. It costs the county $72.83 per day for each

person housed in the county jail, and it costs $74.44 per day to house

an inmate in state prison (“Value to Taxpayer”). Thurston County shows

that a drug court is more economical than a jail or prison. Figure 7

compares the costs of Thurston County’s drug court to county jail and

state prison.

Kentucky. Another example of the reduced costs of drug courts

can be seen in Kentucky. According to Mary Meehan of the Lexington

Herald-Leader, a Kentucky newspaper, Kentucky has invested $56

million in its drug court program. Every county in Kentucky has a drug

court (Meehan). The amount of money that the state has invested in its

drug court program shows that drug courts save money. A state would

not invest such a vast amount of money in a program if it were not sure

that the program would decrease costs. Figure 8 compares Kentucky’s

cost per person per year of drug court to probation, jail, and prison. Note

that while drug court is significantly cheaper than jail or prison, it is not

the cheapest option. Probation is the cheapest option. The recidivism rate

for drug court graduates is much lower than the recidivism rate for

people on probation; therefore, the long-run costs will be lower because

the drug court graduates will not reoffend as often.

Thurston County Cost Comparison

Figure 7

Source: “Value to Taxpayer.” Thurston County Community Drug Court Support Foundation. 2 Nov. 2009 <http://www.tcdrugcourtfoundation.org/Index.htm>.

Figure 8

Source: Meehan, Mary. “The ‘Carrot’ is Help; the ‘Stick’ is Jail.” Lexington Herald-Leader 14 Oct. 2007. 20 Nov. 2009 <http://www.kentucky.com/670/story/198207.html>.

Drug Court Graduate Testimonials

John and Sam (real names withheld), two recent drug court

graduates (November 25, 2009), stated that drug court saved their jobs,

marriage, and their lives. Sam felt that drug court was a “second

chance.” At the end of the drug court hearing, both John and Sam

presented what drug court meant to them. John told the court how drug

court had saved his business and how he felt better both mentally and

physically. He said, “Thank you, drug court, for another chance in life.”

Both graduates had to also take part in a community service project.

John’s project involved helping younger children; he invested over 150

hours in helping these young people and seemed to enjoy every minute of

it. He told the court how rewarding this experience was for him and how

much he benefited through helping these kids.

Sam, the second graduate, told the court that “drug court was a

second chance, compared to the alternative.” Sam stated that drug

court was a gift. He knew he needed to make changes in his life, but did

not know how. He said during his graduation that drug court gave him

“the tools” to change his life. He feels that he has found a piece of the

contentment that others have because of drug court. Sam’s project

consisted of three separate, smaller projects.

The Need for More Drug Courts

Although the number of drug courts has significantly increased in

the last ten years, there are still not enough of them in the country.

According to the NADCP, only one half of the current drug-court eligible

population has access to a drug court. If drug courts were put in reach of

every eligible drug-addicted offender in the country, taxpayers could save

an estimated $1.17 billion per year (“The Facts on Drugs”). The data on

drug courts clearly show that they are effective at reducing recidivism

and costs. Every county in every state needs access to a drug court to

treat nonviolent drug-addicted offenders. Drug courts are already saving

money for the counties that have them, and if they were expanded to

every county in the country, they would greatly reduce recidivism and

costs nationwide.

Drug Court Professionals’ Opinions

All of the Clay/Becker Drug Court professionals who were

interviewed said that they would recommend a drug court program to

other counties. Borgen said that she is a big advocate for the program

and even travels to other counties to speak about the benefits of drug

courts. Greenley said that he can definitely see the benefit to having a

drug court, but only in larger counties where there is a larger pool to pull

from. Puhr said that she would recommend a drug court to other

counties if they can balance drug court and their other obligations.

Kautzmann said that having a drug court program is “definitely worth it.”

He said he would “recommend it for any county” and added that the

Clay/Becker Drug Court is getting “better results for less money.”

Conclusion

In sum, drug courts are more effective than traditional approaches.

The structured treatment environment of drug courts makes them more

effective at rehabilitating drug-addicted offenders. The Clay/Becker Drug

Court is an example of an effective drug court. It shows in detail how a

typical drug court operates. In addition, the empirical testing shows that

drug courts are successful at reducing recidivism and saving money.

This evidence leads this report to make several conclusions:

1. Drug courts are better at rehabilitating drug-addicted

offenders than traditional treatment programs.

2. The recidivism rate of drug court graduates is significantly

lower than the recidivism rates of people on conventional

probation and inmates released from jail or prison.

3. Drug courts save money in the long run because of the low

recidivism rate.

Even though drug courts are effective, nevertheless, they are only

accessible for about half of all eligible participants. Therefore, this report

recommends that all counties without a drug court adopt one. If all drug-

court eligible offenders have access to a drug court, the following will

result. Crime will be reduced, lives will be rehabilitated, and costs will be

lowered because taxpayers’ dollars will not be used for incarcerating

nonviolent drug-addicted offenders. The verdict is in: Drug courts work;

therefore, more counties need them.

Works Cited

“About NADCP.” NADCP. 8 Oct. 2009

<http://www.nadcp.org/learn/about-nadcp>.

Borgen, Lisa. Personal interview. 27 Oct. 2009.

Bouffard, Jeffrey A., and Katie A. Richardson. “The Effectiveness of Drug

Court Programming for Specific Kinds of Offenders:

Methamphetamine and DWI Offenders Versus Other Drug-Involved

Offenders.” Criminal Justice Policy Review 18 (2007): 274-93.

Clay/Becker Drug Court Participant Handbook. N.p.: n.p., 2009. N. pag.

Print.

Cooper, Caroline S. “Drug Courts—Just the Beginning: Getting Other

Areas of Public Policy in Sync.” Substance Use & Misuse 42 (2007):

243-56.

Defining Drug Courts: The Key Components. Washington DC: NDCP,

2004.

“Drug Courts.” United States Department of Justice. 20 Nov. 2009

<http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/topics/courts/drug-

courts/welcome.htm>.

“Drug Courts Work.” NADCP. 8 Oct. 2009

<http://www.nadcp.org/learn/do-drug-courts-work>.

Greenley, Matthew. Personal interview. 10 Nov. 2009.

“History.” NADCP. 8 Oct. 2009 <http://www.nadcp.org/learn/what-are-

drug-courts/history>.

Holtz, Dan. “Eau Claire County Drug Court Found Guilty of Success.”

McClatchy -Tribune Business News 2 Oct. 2009: n. pag. ProQuest

Newspapers. Web. 7 Oct. 2009.

John. Personal interview. 25 Nov. 2009.

Kautzman, Don. "Drug Court Info." E-mail to Chris Snyder. 6 Nov. 2009.

---. Personal interview. 5 Nov. 2009.

Lawonn, Brittany. “Budget Woes Threaten Drug Court.” The Forum 29

Jan. 2009: n. pag. Web. 7 Oct. 2009.

---. “'I've Come This Far': Clay County Drug Court Graduate Regains

Life, Son.” The Forum 4 June 2009: n. pag. Web. 7 Oct. 2009.

Listwan, Shelley Johnson, Deborah Koetzle Shaffer, and Jennifer L.

Hartman. “Combating Methamphetamine Use in the Community:

The Efficacy of the Drug Court Model.” Crime & Delinquency 55

(2009): 627-44.

Meehan, Mary. “The ‘Carrot’ is Help; the ‘Stick’ is Jail.” Lexington

Herald-Leader 14 Oct. 2007. 20 Nov. 2009

<http://www.kentucky.com/670/story/198207.html>.

“Operational Drug Courts in Minnesota (36).” Minnesota Judicial

Branch. 4 Dec. 2009

<http://www.mncourts.gov/Documents/0/Public/Drug_Court/Dr

ug_Courts_Map_V1.jpg>.

Puhr, Tama. Personal interview. 12 Nov. 2009.

“Recidivism.” Def. Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary. 2009.

Ringstrom, Bruce. "RE: Drug Court Interview." E-mail to Chris Snyder.

11 Nov. 2009.

Sam. Personal interview. 25 Nov. 2009.

“The Drug Court Process.” Medscape. 20 Nov. 2009

<http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/topics/courts/drug-

courts/welcome.htm>.

“The Facts on Drugs and Crime in America.” NADCP. 8 Oct. 2009

<http://www.nadcp.org/sites/default/files/nadcp/Facts%20on%2

0Drug%20Courts%20.pdf>.

“Value to Taxpayer.” Thurston County Community Drug Court Support

Foundation. 2 Nov. 2009

<http://www.tcdrugcourtfoundation.org/Index.htm>.

Western, Mark. Personal interview. 12 Oct. 2009.

“What are Drug Courts?” NADCP. 8 Oct. 2009

<http://www.nadcp.org/learn/what-are-drug-courts>.