Drug Night Courts:  The Cook County Experience.


MENU TITLE: Drug Night Courts: The Cook County Experience     
Series: BJA
Published: August 1994
31 pages
63148 bytes

DRUG NIGHT COURTS: THE COOK COUNTY EXPERIENCE

Acknowledgments

This monograph is the result of the collective
efforts of a number of individuals who generously
lent their time and expertise to this project.  The
Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) wishes to thank
Barbara E. Smith, Robert C. Davis, Anna T. Laszlo,
and Sharon R. Goretsky, the research team for this
project and authors of this monograph.  In
addition, BJA recognizes the contributions of the
Honorable Thomas R. Fitzgerald, Presiding Judge of
Cook County Circuit Court, and the members of the
project advisory board: Steven R. Belenko, of the
New York City Criminal Justice Agency, Inc.; Joseph
A. Cairone, deputy administrator of the Court of
Common Pleas, Philadelphia; the Honorable Legrome
D. Davis, Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia; the
Honorable Richard J. Fitzgerald, of the Chicago
firm Winston & Strawn; Stephen Goldspiel, American
Bar Association, Chicago; Bruce Harvey, Justice
System Review Coordinator, Milwaukee, Wisconsin;
John Robinson, undersheriff of Cook County,
Chicago; Thomas P. Schneider, deputy district
attorney, Milwaukee; and the Honorable Michael
Skwierawski, Milwaukee. 

It is noteworthy that participation on the advisory
board does not necessarily reflect total support
for the concept of drug night courts.  In
particular, Randolph Stone, currently Clinical
Professor of Law and Director of the Mandell Legal
Aid Clinic, University of Chicago, and the Public
Defender in Cook County when the drug night courts
began, then opposed and continues to oppose the
segregation of cases into such a court. However, he
was invited--and he consented--to participate on
the Advisory Board specifically so that his
criticism could be heard. 

BJA and the authors also acknowledge Arthur Lurigio
and Susan Popkin of Loyola University, Chicago, for
their efforts in observing court operations and
assisting in the authorship of other publications
on this topic; and Miki C. Akimoto of The Circle,
Inc., for creating the worksheets and forms.

Table of Contents

Executive Summary

Chapter 1  Introduction
The Need for Specialization
Choice of Study Site
Purpose of This Document
Issues and Concerns

Chapter 2  Strategic Planning
Preliminary Steps
The Strategic Planning Approach
Implementing the Strategic Plan
Conceptual Foresight: A Critical Element

Chapter 3 Drug Night Court Components
Policy Development 
Intake Control and Case Management 
Training for Court Personnel 
Access to Information 
Drug Treatment
Dedicated Teams (secondary component)
Community Outreach (secondary component)

Chapter 4  Implementing the Drug Night Court
Selecting a Program Coordinator or Manager
Establishing a Program Task Force
Conducting a Needs Assessment 
Establishing Components and Writing Policies and
Procedures
Implementing an Internal and External Communication
Strategy
Preparing a Training Plan 
Developing a Model for Evaluating Program
Activities
Identifying Funding Resources and Options 

Chapter 5   
Evaluating the Drug Night Court
Selecting a Team of Evaluators
Developing an Evaluation Plan
Conducting the Evaluation
Analyzing the Evaluation Results

Sources for Further Information

Selected Bibliography

Appendix:  Planners' Worksheets




Executive Summary

The drug night court program in Cook County
(Illinois) Circuit Court began as an emergency
measure to cope with rapidly expanding caseloads.
In 1975, 6,000 felony cases were filed in the
court. Two years later that number had more than
doubled--to 14,000.  In another 10 years, filings
doubled again, to 28,000--and half that 28,000 were
narcotics arrests.

When the County Board remained reluctant to add
courtrooms, the court decided to try its own,
hopefully temporary, solution:  extending the hours
of operation to make the existing physical facility
do double duty.  Because drug cases rarely require
civilian witnesses, can be adjudicated quickly, and
motions in them disposed efficiently, the court
decided to limit the evening session to narcotics
cases.  Five drug night courts opened on October
16, 1989, and an additional three opened a year
and a half later.

The Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) sponsored a
research inquiry into the establishment of drug
night courts and, by extension, into the
establishment of extra-hours courts for special
purposes generally.  At that time, Cook County had
the only existing example of a drug night court,
although Los Angeles and Brooklyn had operated
night felony courts earlier. 

The study found that night operations can be quite
efficient, with Cook County dramatically cutting
processing time for drug cases.  Innovative ways
had to be found, however, to find quality staff to
work the supposedly less desirable evening hours
and to maintain high morale and efficiency.  Those
wishing to set up special night courts, however,
must be vigilant to ensure that the quality of
justice is not compromised.  In Cook County, drug
sentencing became more lenient, trials fewer (as
opposed to pleas), and representation of defendants
by private attorneys rather than public defenders
less frequent.

The researchers recommend that those seeking
similar results amid limited resources undertake a
strategic plan that provides an overall vision for
change and allows for actual changes to be made a
step or two at a time rather than all at once. 
They stress that the specialized operation requires
willing participation and active policy
contribution by all principal participants--judges,
administrators, prosecutors, the defense bar (both
private and public), the sheriff's department, the
probation office, drug treatment providers, and any
labor unions involved.

Planning for the specialized operation should begin
with an inventory and analysis of existing
policies, followed by a determination of what new
policies are required.  The court must determine
what types of cases it will hear, how it will
handle problems of speedy disposition, what
sentencing guidelines will prevail, how to manage
guilty pleas without the appearance of "assembly-
line justice," and what rules will govern the need
periodically to reassign or realign staff
assignments. 

To avoid a worse backlog of cases than the one it
was intended to solve, the specialized court will
require workable intake controls and limits on
individual workloads, such as limits on the
caseload any one judge can accept.

One strong individual, usually the Chief Judge or
Court Administrator, must lead in coordinated
planning for the special court, but all the groups
with key roles in the eventual operations--
attorneys and accountants, deputies and
doorkeepers--must be represented in the early
decisionmaking if they are to function smoothly in
the completed organization.

All who will work in the new court organization
will require training to ensure they understand
their roles and possess the required skills to fill
them.  A retraining plan must be formulated, likely
requiring a new round of training whenever periodic
staff rotation occurs.

The court will need detailed knowledge of available
drug treatment facilities and how defendants can be
quickly and appropriately admitted to them. 
Without quick assessment for treatment needs,
speedy disposition may become only a vain hope.

The court must ensure that all its personnel have
needed access to criminal histories, probation
records, and any other records required for
efficient decisionmaking in its day-to-day
operations.  Computerized filing is ideal, but by
whatever means, the important element is access.

A final chapter offers suggestions for evaluating
the program.  Ideally, outside researchers would
report on the strengths and weaknesses of the plan
finally implemented.  A less costly alternative, a
series of internal evaluations--one a few months
after implementation, another 6 months later, and
yet another a year later--may serve the needs for
evaluation.  An appendix to the monograph provides 
worksheets for the planning and recording of 
decisions from the origin of a specialized court 
through the selection of sources for long-term 
funding.

Chapter 1: Introduction

The Nation's courts are coping with increasing
criminal litigation.  Many of these cases are drug
cases resulting from increasing enforcement of 
laws against drug offenses. Major "sting" and
"clean sweep" operations result in large numbers of
concurrent cases flooding the courts--cases that
already overcrowded dockets are ill-prepared to
handle.  Despite this explosion of litigation,
resources of State courts--courtrooms, judges,
prosecutors, and other staff--have remained
relatively fixed.

Many who work in the courts have reexamined their
methods of caseload management with an eye toward
increasing the capabilities of the court to handle
the increased filings.  Court delay reduction
techniques, such as differentiated case management
and expedited drug case management, have proved
successful by increasing disposition rates and
addressing backlogs.  However, improved case
management alone may not be sufficient to respond
to the overwhelming caseload.

The Need for Specialization

A growing number of jurisdictions have created
special courts to handle only drug or drug-related
cases.  These include Houston, Miami, Milwaukee,
New Orleans, New York City, and Seattle. 
Increasing the capacity of the court must take into
account the availability of human resources as well
as physical assets of the courts.  Most obvious is
the need for additional courtrooms, areas for
juries and witnesses, and office spaces.  Some
jurisdictions that might like to add special drug
courts on daytime schedules may find that costs for
additional physical assets make this option
economically prohibitive. 

Thus, an alternative to increasing court capacity
through capital expansion is to extend the hours
that existing courtrooms can be used.  Establishing
a specialized drug night court makes sense for a
number of reasons:

o Removing narcotics cases from the overall caseload
unclogs the felony trial backlog, allowing courts
to allocate more time to serious felony cases.

o Narcotics cases often do not involve civilian
witnesses or require jury trials, thus minimizing
the need for additional space at the court.

o Speedy disposition may be possible as a result of
the specialization that judges, prosecutors,
defense attorneys, and probation officers gain by
handling only drug and drug-related cases.

o Drug night courts may provide a way for judges as
well as prosecutors and defense attorneys, who
would otherwise not have the immediate opportunity
to try criminal cases, to gain such experience.

Choice of Study Site

At the time of assessment of drug night courts that
led to this and one prior monograph,1 Cook County,
Illinois, had the only operating drug night court
program. Of course, many large urban courts operate
night sessions, primarily to handle arraignments,
misdemeanors, or traffic cases. Two other courts--
Brooklyn, New York, and Los Angeles, California--
had operated felony night courts in the recent
past. Still other courts have specialized day drug
sittings. Lessons can be learned from these
operations and they have yielded experiences to
this text as appropriate. However, Cook County
served as the primary model.

The drug night court began as an emergency measure
to cope with rapidly expanding caseloads.  In 1975,
6,000 felony cases were filed in the Criminal
Division of Circuit Court. Two years later this
number had more than doubled, to 14,000.  By the
late 1980's, the number of drug cases filed far
exceeded the number of all cases filed 8 years
earlier.  By 1989, filings had doubled again--to
28,000--largely due to increased narcotics arrests,
resulting in a caseload-to-judge ratio of 500 to 1. 
Still, the County Board was reluctant to add
courtrooms or additional staff.  Thus, the idea of
operating the courts at night to handle drug cases
was born as a stopgap response to a critically
overcrowded court system.   

Purpose of This Document

This monograph was designed to help court officials
establish and manage a drug night court program
(DNCP).  In order to plan, implement, and evaluate
a DNCP, its judges, administrators, and
coordinator/managers will have to spell out its
issues and concerns and develop specific strategies
to address them.  This process ideally will:

o Identify the potential impact of the DNCP on the
overall court operation.

o Include all principal participants in the planning
process from the beginning.

o Ensure that the DNCP is tailored to the needs of
the court for which it is planned.

o Ensure that, as a result of this process, the
chief judge and administrators will have (1) a
series of policies addressing how the DNCP will be
implemented, (2) a series of management procedures
dealing with both internal and external issues, (3)
a communication and training plan, and (4) an
evaluation plan.

This monograph identifies planners and traces the
planning process in chapters 2 and 3, outlines
implementation in chapter 4, and discusses
evaluation in chapter 5.  Then, in an appendix, a
number of worksheets are provided both to help plan
the DNCP and to train staff to implement it.  To
use them for both purposes, one should make
photocopies:  on white paper for planning purposes
and on transparencies for training tools. 

While these strategies were developed for local
drug night courts, they are equally applicable to
any specialized court operation.  Thus policymakers
and planners can use similar strategies to improve
the court's response to a number of difficult
problems.

Issues and Concerns

As the Cook County DNCP was developed, a number of
issues and concerns emerged surrounding efficiency,
quality of justice, and the drain on the human
resources of the court. The impact of such issues
needs to be carefully measured in planning,
implementing, and monitoring the drug night court.

Efficiency  

Concern was expressed over whether night court can
be as efficient as day operations. Factors include
staff fatigue, availability of supervisors, access
to essential information such as probation or drug
treatment histories, and availability of courtroom
to accept overflow cases.

Quality of Justice 

Some practitioners say drug night courts promote
"assembly-line justice." They say specialization
and the pressures associated with disposing of
cases may make processing routine and create the
potential for stressing speed to the neglect of the
rights of the accused.

Randolph Stone, a University of Chicago law
professor who was Public Defender when the drug
night courts began, issued for inclusion in this
monograph a formal statement of his objections to
drug night courts.  

He wrote: 

First, it is another Band Aid or quick-fix approach
to a fundamental problem in the criminal justice
system, namely the absence of adequate and balanced
funding. Second, I believe drug night courts
enhance the sense of "apartheid" in our legal
system.  Third, the segregation of drug cases
encourages judges, prosecutors, and defenders to
dehumanize the accused citizen in their efforts to
dispose of cases.  For example, in 1989, the
"temporary" Cook County Night Narcotics Court with
five judges aimed to hear 5,000 cases.  In 1991,
this temporary solution had expanded to eight
courts and had disposed of almost 13,000 cases,
many in less than one hour.  Justice is not a
byproduct of an efficient court system; justice
must be the goal of the system.  The integrity of
the criminal justice system should not be
sacrificed at the altar of judicial efficiency and
case disposition rates.

Human Resources Issues  

Finding staff to work evening hours can be a
challenge. Extensive contract negotiations and
innovative strategies may be the only mechanisms a
court can use to recruit and maintain night court
staff. Most prominent of the problems affecting
morale and productivity are fatigue and the
impact evening schedules may have on family
responsibilities.  Another concern may be security,
both in the courthouse and traveling to and from
work.  Other problems may be the lack of time and
facilities at the courthouse for breaks, the fast
pace of evening sessions, and isolation from
colleagues working days.

"These and other issues were addressed," Judge
Fitzgerald wrote in the foreword to this monograph,
"and Cook County's experience is incorporated in
this monograph.  Cook County drastically reduced
pending cases in the daytime courts while
significantly decreasing processing time for drug
cases.  By these standards, the program has been a
resounding success."  So resoundingly were daytime
cases reduced, in fact, that median processing time
fell from 215 days to 170.  Judges had hoped for
5,000 drug dispositions a year, but the night
courts actually handled 9,700 cases in 1990. 

Judge Fitzgerald also wrote, however, that "the
Cook County program was never intended to be a
permanent solution to our overcrowded courts.  We
look forward to the day when our country is able to
provide sufficient court facilities to process all
cases during the normal business day."  

Chapter 2: Strategic Planning

Courts that consider implementing a drug night
court program face a range of issues so complicated
(and sometimes apparently contradictory) that their
efforts require careful, effective strategic
planning.  This section outlines an approach that
should lead to effective implementation.

Strategic planning methods are common in both the
private and public sectors.1 These methods
typically include gathering information, exploring
alternatives, and setting a course of action based
on a clear organizational vision and identification
of specific issues on which action is required.

Application of the strategic planning approach also
relies on a management concept developed by Quinn.2
This approach encourages decisionmakers to
establish an overall plan or vision for change as
part of the strategic plan, but also acknowledges
that tight resources, competing priorities, and
obstacles to change are common in any
administration.  Therefore this approach encourages
adoption of the overall plan one or two steps at a
time.

Using the process of strategic planning to identify
what decisions need to be made, when they should be
made and by whom, and what actions are required to
implement them, this stepwise procedure often is
more likely to succeed than introducing change all
at once.  Lessons learned in implementing early
changes can make later changes more efficient. 
Some issues likely to arise over components of DNCP
can test an organization's real commitment to
change:

o Night operations require commitment from multiple
interests, all of which must have decisionmaking
roles during the initial planning stages.  These
interest groups include the defense bar (public and
private), probation department, sheriff's
department (or whatever other group is responsible
for making detainees available for trial), the
clerk's office, and community-based treatment
providers.

o Clear criteria must be developed for fitting the
night court program into existing operations.  Will
the night court try cases or will trials be
reserved for day court?  Will the night court hear
discovery motions and conduct pretrial hearings? 
Will it integrate existing cases or start with a
clean docket?

o Appropriate disposition guidelines must be set for
specific types of cases.  Prosecutorial standards
also must be made clear (and made public) so that
defendants know up front what a plea-bargain offer
entails.

o Recruiting and rotation policies must be
determined for judges and other court personnel.

Problems of this nature are not susceptible to a
quick fix, but the strategies of incremental change
may help avoid the quick fix in a tight-resources
environment when these strategies are based on the
overall vision of what the court wishes to
accomplish.  Incremental change thus becomes, in
effect, a commitment to doing things right even if
the changes are implemented over a period of time. 
Without such a guiding philosophy, organizations
frequently fall into quick-fix, stereotyped
patterns of response that have more to do with
anxiety and defensiveness than with good problem
solving.3

Preliminary Steps

A number of preliminary steps will help the court
define the purpose of DNCP, identify the principal
participants, and assess the needs and resources of
the court.  These preliminary steps should be
accomplished before undertaking the implementation
strategies described in section 4.

Defining the Purpose of the DNCP:  Short- Versus
Long-Term Needs 

A court may examine the possibility of establishing
a drug night court for several reasons:  to reduce
the backlog of drug cases or other felony cases; to
focus on the quality of drug case disposition (for
example, trying to find more appropriate treatment
solutions) to prevent the "revolving-door" syndrome
of drug-related cases; to resolve without capital
expenditure the lack of sufficient courtrooms to
handle the volume of criminal cases; or to
integrate the court operations into an overall
communitywide approach to addressing drug-related
problems.

Although night operations can serve both short- and
long-term needs of the court, it is imperative that
courts thoughtfully examine why they are
considering implementing night operations and what
they hope to accomplish by instituting a DNCP. 
Defining the purpose is an essential part of the
preliminary planning process because the components
of the DNCP will be guided by the program's
intended purposes.  For example, a community
outreach element will be important if the program
is intended as part of a proactive effort by the
court to involve the community in drug abuse
prevention and enforcement strategies.

Identifying the Challenges:  Human Resources and
Operations  

The DNCP will require both human and operational
resources to function.  Thus, the challenge to the
court is to attempt to identify both the human and
operational challenges that may thwart a successful
implementation of the DNCP. Such challenges may
include:

o Maintaining the quality of justice so the night
court does not become "assembly-line justice."

o Selecting and motivating court staff, including
judges, prosecutors, probation officers, defense
bar, and treatment personnel.

o Developing intake control procedures to ensure
that appropriate cases are selected for the night
court. 

o Developing a way to access case files, probation
records, treatment history, and other needed
information at night.

o Setting up communications so other court personnel
and the public learn about night court operations. 

o Addressing overtime and other contract issues for
unionized personnel.

o Addressing night security issues.

Once the court has identified the challenges, it
must also identify the plan to address the
challenge, the individual agencies charged with
implementing the plan, and the time when it will be
implemented.

Identifying the Principal Participants  

Although instituting a DNCP may rest with a single
individual within the court (a chief judge or a
court administrator, for example), successful
implementation of the program will require the
commitment and cooperation of many agencies both
inside and outside the court. To secure their
cooperation, the principal participants must be
identified early and invited to assist in the
planning.  Failure to include them may hinder the
program's progress.   

In Chicago, Milwaukee, and New York, the defense
bar was especially critical of specialized evening
sessions.  In Milwaukee, public defenders at first
refused to staff the specialized day-court drug
cases, but after the court regularly appointed
defense attorneys for indigents, the public
defenders eventually acquiesced.  

Despite objections in Cook County, the public
defender's office did staff the night court, but
expressed concern that the private bar would be
forced out of criminal defense work in drug cases
by the "double shift" of day court and night court. 
This apparently has occurred; the private bar
appears in few night cases.

These examples show the importance of the early
involvement of all players if the program is to
succeed.  The objective of this preliminary task
should be to ensure that each unit that has daily
interaction with the court is identified and
notified of the emerging program.

Assessing Existing Policies and Procedures

Existing prosecutorial policies, plea-bargaining
guidelines, intake control procedures, case
management systems, and the existence of
computerized case files are examples of existing
policies that will have to be examined and perhaps
modified to meet the needs of the drug night court. 
Because drug treatment programs are vital to
program implementation, their policies regarding
client eligibility and availability of services as
well as their current relationship with the court
will be important to evaluate.  Any needed changes
to these policies must be incorporated to make the
drug night court concept maximally effective.

Assessing whether these existing policies and
procedures may be modified or expanded to
incorporate the needs of the DNCP is critical
before decisions are made to develop new policies.

The Strategic Planning Approach 

The strategic planning process may require weeks or
even months to develop a set of goals and proposed
activities.  The final strategic plan should
address policy issues, specific planning activities
to take place, and the means by which the DNCP will
be integrated with the court's existing operations. 

A strategic plan that provides detail without
exhaustive background material will provide the
most useful guidance for creating a program. For
example, the strategic plan may outline the main
components of the DNCP without developing a full
text of this policy.  It may set goals and general
procedures for training about the program without
detailing training content.  Appendixes to the plan
may provide more specific information, if needed,
or a separate guide to implementation might be
developed.

The strategic plan should address the timeframe for
implementation of the program and whether an
incremental-change approach will be used.  If the
incremental approach will be employed, the
strategic plan should state clearly the rationale
for the order in which components will be
initiated, the manner in which feedback from early
implementation efforts will be used to guide later
activities, and what problems may be encountered
with a new program that is up and running while
still missing some key ingredients.

Once the strategic plan is drafted, it should be
reviewed by representatives of each of the
principal agencies to determine whether its general
goals and procedures are fair, technically correct,
and feasible.  In a union environment, full review
by labor officials is essential for later support.

Implementing the Strategic Plan

Once these preliminary steps have been completed
and the strategic plan made final, the court can
develop the DNCP following these steps:

o Developing policies for the drug night court. 
Typically, these need to be written policies that
clearly delineate the court's position on issues
including staffing, the types of cases that need to
be heard by the court, intake control procedures,
and case management procedures.

o Developing training for all court personnel
addressing the purpose and operation of the DNCP. 
The key to effective implementation of the program
will be support for it by all court personnel. 
Training is one of the most important ways to
foster that support. 

o Developing an internal and external communication
program to inform the court, agencies that provide
support to the court, the community, and the public
about the DNCP and its operation.

o Developing and expanding the treatment resources
available to the court.

o Identifying potential funding resources for the
continuation of the program.

o Developing recordkeeping and evaluation program
components.  Keeping good information about the
program will help operate it efficiently by
supplying mechanisms for program improvement. 

Conceptual Foresight: A Critical Element

A good strategic plan has built-in components for
conceptual foresight--for anticipating possible
deficiencies or problems in implementation and
planning in advance for their resolution.  Many
otherwise good programs fail because their
designers did not anticipate problems.

Planners of specialized court programs such as the
DNCP should consider five basic questions about
their newly designed programs:

o Are there any deficiencies in available leadership
resources?  Does the plan have the approval of the
Chief Judge and the heads of each of the principal
agencies involved?  Are one or more top managers
giving enthusiastic lip service to the program but
expressing private doubts or hesitations?  In a
union environment, are labor leaders supportive?

o Are there any deficiencies in available personnel
or financial resources?  Do key personnel have
sufficient skills, knowledge, and experience needed
to implement a full-scale program plan?  For
example, despite excellent commitment of finances,
could county budget cuts create a funding crisis? 
What would happen if certain key personnel left the
organization?

o Might there be a problem of overresponse,
developing a program more intense than the court's
current problems really justify?  An overly
intensive program, especially one that is expensive
or contains controversial elements, may lose
credibility quickly.

o Might there be a problem of overexpectation?  Is
the program being "sold," or at least being viewed
by the court or the community as leading to an
immediate cure of all problems related to drug
abuse in the community? If so, when this unrealistic
expectation is not fulfilled, the other benefits
of the program may be ignored, and credibility
can be permanently compromised.

o Might there be a problem of overextension--a
program that is intended to meet a real need, but
sets more ambitious goals than it can realistically
accomplish?  Again, quick loss of credibility can
occur.

With all these potential problem areas, the key to
success is advanced planning--starting with the
assumption that problems can and will occur, but
that negative consequences can be limited or
avoided with indepth strategic planning. 
Understanding the strategies for using existing
resources can also be of enormous help.

Chapter 3: Drug Night Court Components

This discussion sets out the components of a model
drug night court program.  It describes five
essential components and explains why each is
considered indispensable to implementation of the
program, then describes two secondary components
that will enhance the operation.

Policy Development

Comprehensive written policies and operating
procedures provide the foundation for the DNCP. 
Planners first should complete the policy and
procedures analysis to assess existing 
policies before they begin writing
the new policies for the DNCP.  Policy 
development should begin with the following 
issues, and each subsequent program component 
should have a corresponding written policy. 

Types of Cases Heard  

A clear delineation of the types of cases the night
court will hear is critical for both the court's
image and its operation.  For example, a policy
that limits the night court to hearing motions,
arraignments, and misdemeanor cases may at first
facilitate reducing the backlog of cases and be
relatively simple to manage.  Over the long term,
however, such a policy may make the court only a
"process" treadmill.  Such a situation may make
attorneys, defendants, and the community view the
night court as an inadequate response.

The drug night court might consider both
misdemeanor and felony cases appropriate, with the
possible exception of complex conspiracy cases. 
The intake control and case management components
of the program could develop a policy addressing
the disposition of minor drug offenses.

Speedy Disposition Guidelines  

Whenever a court faces severely overcrowded
dockets, speedy disposition becomes a critical
issue.  Drug night courts are no exception; they
may, in fact, need speedy disposition guidelines
more than any other specialized court operation.
Speedy disposition guidelines, developed with the
advice and consent of all principal parties in the
court, should carefully address issues such as plea
cutoff dates, motion settlement dates, and trial
dates.  The guidelines should be periodically
reviewed and modified.

To further speed their disposition, Cook County
applies a timeline to drug night court cases.
Instead of considering motions on trial dates as
day court does, night judges set motion hearings
within 30 days of assignment.  Trial dates are
normally set within the subsequent 30 days.
As the processing time for narcotics cases
dramatically lessened under the Cook County drug
night court program, so did the time for other
felony cases.  Formerly, only 18 percent of
narcotics cases were adjudicated and sentenced
within 90 days of assignment; after the night
courts opened, 52 percent were disposed within 90
days in 1990 and 48 percent in 1991. Median time to
disposition dropped from 245 days in 1989 to 86
days in 1990 and 95 days in 1991.1 

Prosecution and defense representatives alike
agreed that the drug night courts made it possible
to give more time and attention to violent felony
cases.  After the night courts opened, 48 percent
of all felony filings went to them, cutting
case-to-judge ratios in the other felony courts. 
Case processing times for nondrug cases dropped
from a median of 215 days to 170 days.

Sentencing Guidelines and Plea Management  

Guidelines should be developed addressing all
phases of the sentencing process, including plea
negotiations.  Clear, written guidelines should
govern prosecutors' roles and practices.  The
absence of such guidelines can foster sentencing
disparity and can have a significant impact on plea
negotiations, informal and private by their nature. 

Written guidelines give defense attorneys and their
clients a set of options and possible dispositions,
thus minimizing disparities among sentencing
recommendations for similar types of offenses and
defendants.  Giving defendants an early
understanding of how they will be sentenced if they
plead guilty can encourage prompt disposition. 
Developing a method for managing guilty pleas can
improve the quality of justice.  For example,
providing defendants with a written statement
describing the plea process and requiring defense
attorneys to thoroughly explain its consequences
may minimize what, in many courts today, seem to be
"assembly-line guilty pleas."

Staff Recruitment and Rotation 

Recruiting judges, lawyers, and other court
personnel to work nights is a formidable task. 
DNCP is unlikely to be perceived as a desirable
assignment.  Planners need to consider a number of
ways to identify and maintain competent staff.  The
use of incentives, such as the following, may be
appropriate: pay differential for support staff or
unionized employees; trial experience, such as an
opportunity for less experienced attorneys to try
felony cases; or choice of court assignments for
judges who are rotating out of the program.  In
Cook County, judges were recruited for night duty
by making the assignment an upward step.  The
presiding judge hand-picked volunteer judges from a
panel of associate judges presiding over
misdemeanor court and traffic cases--and arranged
for them, in night court, to achieve special
authority to try felony cases.

Establishment of a rotation policy for all court
personnel is essential.  Rotation policies should
balance the competence of staff, which comes from
experience, with the nightwork problems of fatigue,
burnout, and family disruption.

The least desirable way of assembling a DNCP staff
is to assign individuals summarily without offering
any incentives, rotation, or options.  The "I'm in
charge and you will do what I say" style of
management will never be effective for longer than
the short term. If the DNCP is to become an
integral part of the court's operation, it will
demand the support of dedicated staff.

Intake Control and Case Management

Docket overcrowding can be forestalled if cases are
screened and tracked at the preliminary hearing
stage.  Intake screening of cases is a critical
component of an effective court operation inasmuch
as cases that might be more suited for diversion
(such as an order for treatment) may be identified
early and handled appropriately.  Consistent
screening procedures can help both prosecutors and
defense attorneys identify cases that will be tried
instead of pleaded.

In Cook County's drug night courts, which process
an impressive number of cases in any given session,
intake control is exercised by the presiding judge,
who keeps a watchful eye on caseload while
assigning cases to night court.  When he determines
that caseloads are becoming prohibitively high in
night court, he keeps drug cases in the day
division until night caseloads diminish.
Intake control should also limit the number of
cases assigned to individual judges.  Principal
parties, including prosecutors, defense bar,
treatment professionals, and probation officers
should clearly define an acceptable and practical
range of cases.  Perhaps formulas, much like
classification systems, could be calculated to help
administrators render assignment decisions that
weigh elements of the case, discovery issues, and
sentencing options.

Tightly imposed sentencing orders keep cases
proceeding smoothly through the system.  Finally,
courts should consider different models of case
processing for felony and misdemeanor cases as well
as for "possession" and "delivery" cases.  These
cases may require specialized case management in
response to their inherently disparate features.

Training for Court Personnel

All court personnel--including judges,
administrators, the sheriff's department, probation
officers, and the defense bar--should undergo
training before implementation of the night
program.  Training should address the basic
operational issues of the drug night court, the
roles and responsibilities of all key staff, and
the policies and procedures of the court.  Judges,
attorneys, and probation officers should get
specialized training in the etiology,
manifestation, and treatment of drug addiction. 
Training sessions should occur when staff rotation
does, or as needed.

Access to Information

The court must have access to accurate criminal
histories, probation records, and other information
to make case decisions efficiently.  A computerized
system for accessing such information is
preferable, but regardless of the court's existing
or planned system, the key ingredient is access. 
In Cook County, although access to information at
night is more difficult than during the day, there
was no evidence that information needed in night
court was missing more often or that adjudication
was delayed as a result.

Drug Treatment

Many of the defendants coming before the court will
be drug users.  Thus, whether the court orders
probation or commits the defendant to a
correctional facility, a system for identifying new
treatment resources and for maintaining close
working relationships with drug treatment agencies
and providers is a primary component of the DNCP. 
In addition DNCP's should develop procedures by
which defendants can be quickly assessed for their
treatment needs. Without prompt assessment, delays
will inevitably defeat the goal of speedy
disposition.

Planners for this component should focus on several
critical aspects:

o Availability of treatment slots--in many areas,
these are severely limited.

o Limitations set by specific treatment providers,
or by statute, concerning the kinds of defendants
they will accept.  For example, legislation in
Illinois prohibits TASC2 from accepting offenders
charged with violent crimes or drug sales.

o The impact that the involvement of treatment
agencies has on the time it takes to process a
case.  Does involvement delay the process?  If so,
what strategies can be designed to minimize the
delay?

o Provisions for training judges, attorneys, and
probation officers regarding the consequences of
addiction.

Dedicated Teams (Secondary Component)  

Although not essential to the operation of a DNCP,
a dedicated team of prosecutors improves the
efficient management of cases.  Such a team can
help facilitate establishment of uniform standards
for screening cases, charging decisions, and
sentencing recommendations.  An effective
prosecutorial team can also contribute to the
police investigatory function, expedite open and
early disclosure motions, and facilitate consistent
plea negotiation policies that foster due process
and the overall quality of justice. Finally, team
prosecution can give less experienced attorneys an
opportunity to work with more senior staff,
building expertise and providing an incentive to
work on the DNCP.

Community Outreach (Secondary Component)

By taking a proactive approach to informing the
community about the drug night court, this
component involves the community in a partnership
with the court to address the problems of drug
abuse in the community.  The premise is that drug
cases are not victimless crimes but instead that
the community as a whole is the victim of the drug
dealer and his network.  Thus communities, as
victims, deserve the right to allocution during the
court proceedings as a part of the case
disposition. 

Clearly this component is important if the court
views drug night courts as a long-term solution to
an endemic problem.  Although controversy remains
over the wisdom of incorporating this component
into all drug night court programs, the concept
complements other community-involvement,
community-empowerment approaches in other sectors
of the criminal justice system (such as community
policing, community crime prevention, and community
partnerships for drug abuse prevention programs).

Chapter 4: Implementing the Drug Night Court

Implementing a specialized court program, such as
that of a drug night court, requires the commitment
of all court officials.  This section describes
specific steps in establishing a DNCP based both on
the principles of strategic planning and the
experience of court officials in developing
specialized operations.  It also refers the user to
worksheets to be used by policymakers and trainers
in developing their programs.

Practical steps to implementing a drug night court
program include the following:

Selecting a Program Coordinator or Manager  

The DNCP needs a champion and leader.  Preferably
this person should be the Chief Judge or the Court
Administrator.  If coordination is to rest with 
the administrator, it is imperative that the Chief
Judge support the concept and use his or her
influence to ensure successful implementation. 
Someone with the following characteristics and
skills is likely to be successful as the
coordinator:

o An individual who commands the respect of the
entire court and who holds a position of authority
to make the necessary operational changes within
the court.

o A risk-taker who is willing to take positions on
controversial issues and is willing to take a
leadership role to address these controversies.

o A problem-solver who can identify any barriers to
the program and the means to overcome them.

o A coalition-builder who can work effectively with
and negotiate among conflicting interests within
the court, bringing them together toward a common
goal.

o A strong communicator who can articulate vocally
and in writing the incentives, goals, objectives,
and mission of the DNCP and who can deliver
briefings to all of the principal participants of
the program as well as to the community.

In addition, the coordinator should be able to
identify and evaluate existing and emerging
services that may be of value to the program.  For
example, many medical, legal, and social service
agencies have developed special treatment programs
for drug offenders.

Establishing a Program Task Force  

Creation of a task force ensures involvement and
open dialog among all of the principal
participants, not just judges and the court
administrator, and engenders program "ownership"
necessary for successful implementation. The task
force should represent all interested parties,
including prosecutors, the defense bar (both public
and private), the sheriff's office, probation,
treatment providers, and labor unions.  It should
consist of persons who have earned the respect of
their organizational peers, have excellent
communication skills, and are willing to serve as
program advocates.  An effective task force can be
instrumental in:

o Developing policy statements for operation of the
DNCP, the rationale for each policy, and
implementation strategies.

o Garnering program support from a cross-section of
the court.

o Identifying court employees' concerns about DNCP
operations.

o Examining existing policies and procedures and
identifying linkages to the DNCP.

o Planning the communication strategy and providing
recommendations for the training program.

o Implementing the program.


Conducting a Needs Assessment  

A needs assessment may determine what existing
court resources can be used to ensure success of
the DNCP and what issues and concerns principal
participants and court employees have about the
DNCP operation.  Thus, the assessment should:

o Determine what concerns judges, prosecutors,
defense attorneys, and others have about
implementation of the DNCP.

o Determine what concerns other court employees
have about DNCP operations.

o Identify the necessary provisions of labor
contracts that would expedite or impede
implementation of the DNCP.

o Identify any existing policies, procedures, and
resources that may be used for the DNCP.


The program components are the foundation for the
DNCP.  Once the components have been identified and
policies and procedures have been written, the DNCP 
can be introduced through an internal and external
communication strategy.

Implementing an Internal and External
Communication Strategy  

A well-designed and executed communication
strategy, targeted both at the court and,
sometimes, the community at large, can help ensure
the DNCP's success.  Communication should be viewed
as a proactive part of the program rather than as a
series of reactive responses.  As with all aspects
of the DNCP, the communication strategy must have
the support of the principal participants.  

Further, it should:

o Involve representatives from all segments of the
court.

o Identify the target audiences (judges, probation
officers, treatment agencies, the community) and
priorities for each.

o Include a plan, including messages, content, and
timing, for implementing the communication
strategy.

o Identify appropriate trainers to implement the
communication strategy.

The communication strategy includes the nature of the
communication, the messages to be disseminated, the
intended audiences, and the methods to be used.

Preparing a Training Plan  

The training plan is a part of the internal
communication strategy.  It might include a series
of initial seminars for all court personnel to
introduce the DNCP as well as periodic updates
addressing changes in policies and procedures and
specialized training sessions for specific
audiences.  The training plan should describe the
training audience, the goals and content of the
training, how the training will be delivered, and
what resources will be needed to complete the
training.


Developing a Model for Evaluating 
Program Activities

Planners often overlook evaluation, which is an
essential part of any comprehensive program. Even a
simple evaluation strategy can help ensure that the
DNCP continues to meet the court's needs and
remains responsive to changes in the types of drug
cases seen by the court. The evaluation strategy
should include five major components:

o Defining the program's goals and objectives.  This
process consists of examining written program
documentation and discussing program goals and
objectives with the principal participants.

o Detailing the program's history.  This information
clarifies the program's scope and limitations. It
can often be obtained from those with the court who
were principally responsible for the program's
design.  Issues to address include origins of the
program, changes in the program since its
inception, and recommendations for the program's
future.

o Defining the program's content.  The evaluation
should determine whether the court has adopted each
of the essential program components and, if any
were not adopted, document the reasons.

o Describing program processes and outcomes.  This
step requires discriminating between program
implementation processes and outcomes.

o Summarizing the program and providing
recommendations for change.  A report should be
developed describing the evaluation activities and
findings.  Abbreviated versions of the report may
be prepared for different audiences inside and
outside the court in the form of employee annual
reports, reports to the Chief Judge and County
Commissioners, news media briefings, and reports to
the community at large.

The evaluation strategy involves systematically
examining the DNCP to document its impact and
identifying and solving barriers to its overall
functioning.  Evaluation results can serve as
valuable guidance for modifying the DNCP as
necessary.  Section 5 details how to implement the
program evaluation.

Identifying Funding Resources and Options  

Often specialized court operations receive their
initial funding from State or Federal grants or
private sources.  These funds are typically
earmarked for development and are not intended to
sustain a successful program over the long term. 
As program planners focus their attention on
developing the program and overcoming early
obstacles to the program, they often overlook
long-term financing issues and fail to address them
until initial development funds are almost
exhausted.  It is important, however, that during
the planning process, policymakers and
administrators attempt to identify potential
funding options and resources beyond the initial
ones.  In fact, this process should be ongoing
throughout the implementation of the DNCP.



Chapter 5: Evaluating the Drug Night Court

The decision to establish a drug night court
involves substantial commitment and resources. 
Program planners have a right to know how well the
program works and a need to know how to improve on
it.  Although an outside evaluation by persons
trained in social science methods provides an
objective, third-party expert opinion, the cost may
be prohibitive.

However, self-evaluation by officials within the
program can provide meaningful insight. The
following steps should prove useful:

Selecting a Team of Evaluators  

Among a number of ways to conduct an evaluation of
the program, one is to select a team from among the
key components of the drug night court program,
including a judge, prosecutor, public defender,
probation official, corrections official, treatment
specialist, etc.  Although this approach avoids the
appearance of bias by any one part of the system
and helps ensure that all the concerns of the
various participants are addressed, such an
internal evaluation has inherent bias problems. 

An alternative method may be to select professional
researchers to assess the program.  Local colleges
and universities as well as professional
associations may serve as valuable resources to
identify suitable evaluators.

Ideally the team should plan a series of
evaluations--one a few months after the onset of
the program, one 6 months later, and one a year
later.  In this way, evaluation results can be fed
back into the program to make midcourse corrections
and improvements.

Developing an Evaluation Plan   

The team must decide which elements of the program
need to be evaluated and what level of effort to
expend.  At a minimum, the evaluation should assess
the speed and types of dispositions before and
after implementation of the DNCP.  A more complete
evaluation would ideally include examining other
important outcome measures, such as the rate of
placement of defendants in treatment programs, the
percentage of defendants represented by private
counsel, and the percentage of cases resolved by
jury trial before and after implementation of the
DNCP.

Individual and focus-group interviews with those
who staff the drug night court can be extremely
helpful in gaining private perceptions of what
works, what does not work, and suggestions for
improvement.  Using an outside facilitator to
conduct the focus groups, if possible, will help
ensure that respondents will be candid and
unbiased. Additional evaluation components can be
added depending on the goals of the evaluation and
resources available to conduct it.

Conducting the Evaluation

The evaluation team must project a systematic,
nonbiased approach to selecting its sample of
before-and-after cases and in surveying the staff. 
Anonymous written surveys of staff may encourage
honest responses, and well-run focus-group sessions
may uncover shared common concerns. The evaluation
team should encourage critical discussion rather
than adopt a defensive stance on issues raised by
the drug night court staff.

Analyzing the Evaluation Results  

Whether the plan calls for a series of evaluations
throughout the drug night court program or a single
assessment, the evaluation goal must be to develop
recommendations to improve the process--not simply
to produce a report card on how well the program is
doing.

Sources for Further Information

Cook County (Chicago) Contact
Judge Thomas R. Fitzgerald
Presiding Judge
Cook County Circuit Court
Criminal Building, Room 101
2600 South California Avenue
Chicago, IL 60608
312-890-3160

Bar Association/Author Contact
Dr. Barbara E. Smith
American Bar Association
1800 M Street NW.
Washington, DC 20036
202-331-2649

BJA Contact
Charles Hollis, Branch Chief
Courts/Prosecution Branch 
Bureau of Justice Assistance
633 Indiana Avenue NW. 
Washington, DC 20531
202-307-1430

Document Ordering

For additional copies of this monograph and
information on the availability of reports cited in
the selected bibliography, contact:

Bureau of Justice 
Assistance Clearinghouse
Box 6000
Rockville, MD 20850
Telephone: 800-688-4252
Fax:  301-251-5212


Selected Bibliography

Argyris, C. 1985. Strategy, Change, and Defensive
Routines. Boston: Pitman.

------. 1988. "Managing AIDS at Work." V. 1, No. 2
of Healthy Companies

Backer, T.E. 1989. Strategic Planning for Workplace
Drug Abuse Programs. Rockville, Maryland: National
Institute on Drug Abuse..

Belenko, Steven. 1990.  "The Impact of Drug
Offenders on the Criminal Justice System."  In
Drugs, Crime and the Criminal Justice System, ed.
R.A. Weisheit. Cincinnati, Ohio: Anderson.

Belenko, S., J. Fagan, T. Dumanovsky, and R
Davis.  1993.  New York City's Special Drug Courts:
Recidivism Patterns and Processing Costs.  New
York:  New York City Criminal Justice Agency, Inc.

Belenko, S., R Davis, and T. Dumanovsky.  1992. 
New York City's N Parts.  New York: New York City
Criminal Justice Agency, Inc.

Belenko, S., and Y. Dumanovsky.  1993.  Special
Drug Courts.  Program Brief.  Washington, D.C.: 
Bureau of Justice Assistance.

Bureau of Justice Assistance.  1993. 
Differentiated Case Management.  Program Brief. 
Washington, D.C.

Byars, L.L. 1984.  Shaping Management Planning and
Implementation.  New York: Harper and Row. 

Cooper, Caroline S., M. Solomon, and H. Bakke. 
1992.  Differentiated Case Management: 
Implementation Manual. Washington, D.C.:  Bureau of
Justice Assistance.

Cooper, Caroline S., M. Solomon, H. Bakke, and T.
Lane.  1992.  BJA Differentiated Case Management
(DCM) Demonstration Program:  Overview and Program
Summaries.  Washington, D.C.:  Bureau of Justice
Assistance.

------.  1992.  BJA Expedited Drug Case Management
(EDCM) Demonstration Program:  Overview and Program
Summaries.  Washington, D.C.:  Bureau of Justice
Assistance.

Davis, Robert C.  1993.  The Queens County (NY)
Narcotics Courtroom--A Case Study.  New York:  New
York City Criminal Justice Agency, Inc.

"Drug Cases Clog the Courts,"  ABA Journal. April
1989.

Falkin, Gregory P.  1993.  Coordinating Drug
Treatment for Offenders:  A Case Study.  New York: 
National Development and Research Institutes, Inc.

Finn, Peter, and A.K. Newlyn.  1993.  Miami's "Drug
Court";  A Different Approach:  Program Focus. 
Washington, D.C.:  National Institute of Justice.

Goerdi, John, and J.A. Martin.  1989.  "The Impact
of Drug Cases on Case Processing in Urban Trial
Courts."  State Court Journal. Fall:  pp. 4-12.

Goldkamp, J.S., and D. Weiland.  1993.  Assessing
the Impact of Dade County's Felony Drug Court. 
Evaluation Bulletin.  Washington, D.C.  National
Institute of Justice. 

Jacoby, J.E., E Ratledge, and H.P. Gramckow. 
1992.  Expedited Drug Case Management Programs: 
Issues for Program Development, Executive Summary.
Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Justice.

Lipscher, Robert D.  1989.  "The Judicial Response
to the Drug Crisis:  A Report of an Executive
Symposium Involving Judicial Leaders of the
Nation's Nine Most Populous States." State Court
Journal. Fall:  pp. 13-17.

Press, Aric.  1988.  "Piecing Together New York's
Criminal Justice System:  The Responses to Crack." 
Record of the Association of the Bar of the City of
New York.  43, 5:  pp. 541-569.

Quinn, J.B.  1980.  Strategies for Change:  Logical
Incrementalism.  Homewood, Illinois: Richard D.
Irwin.

Smith, B.E., R Davis, and S.R. Goretsky.  1991. 
Strategies for Courts To Cope With the Caseload
Pressures of Drug Cases.  Alexandria, Virginia: 
State Justice Institute. 

Smith, B.E., R Davis, and S.R. Goretsky of the
American Bar Association, and A.J. Lurigio and S.J.
Popkin of Loyola University in Chicago.  1993. 
Assessment of the Feasibility of Drug Night Courts. 
Monograph.  Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Justice
Assistance.

------.  1993.  Drug Night Courts:  How Feasible
Are They?  Bulletin.  Washington, D.C.:  Bureau of
Justice Assistance.  

State Justice Institute. 1991.  Preliminary
Recommendations Regarding the Application of
Differentiated Case Management Principles to the
Drug Caseload in the Circuit Court of Palm Beach,
Florida.  Technical Assistance Assignment 3-012.
Alexandria, Virginia.

------.  1991.  Recommendations to the Pima County
(Tucson), Arizona, Justice Court Regarding the
Development of a Differentiated Case Management
System for Civil Cases.  Technical Assistance
Report No. 3-0006. Alexandria, Virginia.  

Tauber, Jeffrey S.  1993.  The Importance of
Immediate and Intensive Intervention 
in a Court-Ordered Drug Rehabilitation Program:  An
Evaluation of the F.I.R.S.T. Diversion Project
After Two Years.  Oakland, California:  Municipal
Court, Oakland-Piedmont-Emeryville Judicial
District.

------.  1993.  "A Judicial Primer on Unified Drug
and Court-Ordered Drug Rehabilitation Programs." 
Presented at the California Continuing Judicial
Studies Program, Dana Point, California,
Oakland-Piedmont-Emeryville Municipal Court.

------.  1993.  "National Strategy for the
Co-Funding of Unified Drug Court Systems:  Proposal
for Legislative Action."  Presented to the National
Institute of Justice conference "Drug Courts:  The
Next Step," Miami, Florida, December 1.

Yavitz, B., and Newman, W. H.  1982.  Strategy in
Action:  The Execution, Politics, and Payoff of
Business Planning.  New York:  The Free Press.

Footnotes

Chapter 1

1. Assessment of the Feasibility of Drug Night
Courts, Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Justice
Assistance Monograph, June 1993.  NCJ 142415.

Chapter 2

1.  L.L. Byars, Shaping Management Planning and
Implementation, New York: Harper and Row, 1984, p.
6.  B. Yavitz and W.H. Newman, Strategies in
Action: The Execution, Politics, and Payoff of
Business Planning, New York: The Free Press, 1982. 
T.E. Becker, Strategic Planning for Workplace Drug
Abuse Problems, Rockville, MD: National Institute
on Drug Abuse, 1989; also, Becker, "Managing AIDS
at Work," Healthy Computers 1, 2 (1984).

2.  J.B. Quinn, Strategies for Change: Logical
Incrementation, Homewood, IL: Richard D. Irwin,
1980, p. 58.

3. T.E. Becker, "A Strategic Planning Approach to
Program Development." A.T. Laszlow and M.B. Ayres,
1994, Workplace HIV/AIDS Policy and Planning:
Lessons Learned From Workplace Substance Abuse
Programs, Rockville, Maryland: Center for Substance
Abuse Prevention, p. 34.

Chapter 3

1.  These results were reported earlier by Barbara
E. Smith, Robert C. Davis, Sharon R. Goretsky,
Arthur J. Lurigio, and Susan J. Popkin in a Bureau
of Justice Assistance Bulletin, Drug Night Courts:
How Feasible Are They? July 1993:p. 2 (NCJ 142725);
also in a BJA Monograph, Assessment of the
Feasibility of Drug Night Courts (June 1993:pp. 10-
16; NCJ 142415). 

2. Treatment Alternatives to Street Crime, a
program that allows a drug-dependent offender to
enter treatment as a condition of release.