U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

71–696 PDF 2012

S. HRG. 112–179 

DRUG AND VETERANS’ TREATMENT COURTS: 

SEEKING COST-EFFECTIVE SOLUTIONS FOR PROTECTING PUBLIC SAFETY AND REDUCING 

RECIDIVISM 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME AND TERRORISM 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JULY 19, 2011 

Serial No. J–112–34 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont, Chairman 

HERB KOHL, Wisconsin 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

CHUCK SCHUMER, New York 

DICK DURBIN, Illinois 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

AL FRANKEN, Minnesota 

CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware 

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut 

CHUCK GRASSLEY, Iowa 

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah 

JON KYL, Arizona 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina 

JOHN CORNYN, Texas 

MICHAEL S. LEE, Utah 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

BRUCE A. COHEN, Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

KOLAN DAVIS, Republican Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME AND TERRORISM

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island, Chairman 

HERB KOHL, Wisconsin 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

DICK DURBIN, Illinois 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware 

JON KYL, Arizona 

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina 

STEPHEN LILLEY, Democratic Chief Counsel 

STEPHEN HIGGINS, Republican Chief Counsel 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS 

Page 

Coons, Hon. Christopher A., a U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware, 

prepared statement .............................................................................................. 52 

Franken, Hon. Al, a U.S. Senator from the State of Minnesota .......................... 2 

Whitehouse, Hon. Sheldon, a U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode Island ...... 1 

WITNESSES 

LaFazia, Jeanne E., Chief Judge, Thode Island District Court, Providence, 

Rhode Island ......................................................................................................... 16 

Marlowe, Douglas B., Chief of Science, Law & Policy, National Association 

of Drug Court Professionals, Alexandria, Virginia ............................................ 18 

Muhlhausen, David B., Research Fellow in Empirical Policy Analysis, Center 

for Data Analysis, The Heritage Foundation, Washington, DC ....................... 20 

Sheen, Martin, Los Angeles, California ................................................................. 14 

Tucker, Benjamin B., Deputy Director of State, Local and Tribal Affairs, 

Executive Office of the President, Office of National Drug Control Policy, 

Washington, DC ................................................................................................... 4 

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS 

Responses of Douglas B. Marlowe to questions submitted by Senator Sessions 30 

Responses of Benjamin B. Tucker to questions submitted by Senators Sessions and Blumenthal .......................................................................................... 35 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Abrahamson, Daniel N., Director of Legal Affairs, Drug Policy Alliance, Washington, DC, statement .......................................................................................... 45 

LaFazia, Jeanne E., Chief Judge, Thode Island District Court, Providence, 

Rhode Island, statement ...................................................................................... 53 

Holahan, John L., Judge, State of Minnesota, Fourth Judicial District Court, 

Minneapolis, Minnesota, statement .................................................................... 60 

Marlowe, Douglas B., Chief of Science, Law & Policy, National Association 

of Drug Court Professionals, Alexandria, Virginia, statement ......................... 62 

Muhlhausen, David B., Research Fellow in Empirical Policy Analysis, Center 

for Data Analysis, The Heritage Foundation, Washington, DC, statement .... 70 

New York Times, Erica Goode, article ................................................................... 82 

O’Donnell, Denise E., Director, Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office of Justice 

Programs, Washington, DC, statement .............................................................. 89 

Sheen, Martin, Los Angeles, California, statement .............................................. 95 

Tucker, Benjamin B., Deputy Director of State, Local and Tribal Affairs, 

Executive Office of the President, Office of National Drug Control Policy, 

Washington, DC, statement ................................................................................ 99 

(1) 

DRUG AND VETERANS’ TREATMENT COURTS: 

SEEKING COST-EFFECTIVE SOLUTIONS FOR 

PROTECTING PUBLIC SAFETY AND REDUCING RECIDIVISM 

TUESDAY, JULY 19, 2011 

U.S. SENATE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME AND TERRORISM, 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, DC 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:31 a.m., in 

room SD–226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Sheldon 

Whitehouse, Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Whitehouse, Kohl, Klobuchar, Franken, Coons, 

and Blumenthal. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, A U.S. 

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND 

Chairman WHITEHOUSE. The hearing will come to order. 

This morning’s hearing will consider an important and growing 

component of our Nation’s criminal justice system. There are over 

2,500 drug courts in our country operating in every State and territory. Many jurisdictions, including my home State of Rhode Island, 

also are developing veterans’ treatment courts. Today’s hearing will 

closely examine these intervention and treatment courts and the 

role they can play as cost-effective solutions for protecting public 

safety and reducing recidivism. 

As many in the audience know, a drug court is a specially designed calendar or docket that addresses the case of nonviolent 

drug offenders. These courts require participants to commit to intensive substance abuse treatment programs generally for a year or 

more. Drug courts hold participants accountable through frequent 

court appearances and regular random drug testing for drug use. 

Individuals going through drug courts are rewarded for doing well, 

but sanctioned if they do not satisfy their obligations. 

They have worked in my home State of Rhode Island. As the 

Rhode Island Attorney General, I worked to establish our State’s 

first drug court. We now have ten drug courts operating in our 

State. 

Drug courts take many forms, but a consistent element in their 

success is the close cooperation of many players in the criminal justice system, including judges, prosecutors, law enforcement, defense attorneys, probation or corrections officers, and the community at large, including mentors, treatment organizations, and 

2 

counseling services. This cooperation and support is bipartisan, and 

it even reaches as far as Capitol Hill. I was pleased, for example, 

to join with Senator Thad Cochran this morning and Representative Shelley Berkley at an event in the warmer outside weather 

today. 

Drug courts have been in operation in the United States for over 

20 years. Veterans’ courts are a more recent phenomenon, first 

launched in 2008 in Buffalo, New York. Like drug courts, veterans’ 

treatment courts are special judicially supervised court dockets 

that provide directed services to a particular set of offenders. They 

respond to the fact that many veterans, who have sacrificed so 

much for our country, return from combat suffering from post traumatic stress disorder or other trauma that can adversely affect 

their behavior. Veterans’ courts work to identify and address the 

underlying causes of this behavior by referring veterans to treatment programs or providing other alternatives that can keep them 

out of jail while protecting public safety. Whether functioning within a drug court system or based on a drug court model, these courts 

team with the VA health system, volunteer mentors, and veteran 

support organizations to assist veterans in resuming successful 

roles in our communities. There are now at least 50 veterans’ 

courts in operation around the country, with dozens more being 

planned. 

Last month, I had the great pleasure and privilege of welcoming 

Attorney General Eric Holder and Assistant Attorney General Laurie Robinson to Rhode Island for a roundtable discussion focused on 

the pilot program serving veterans in our State. I came away from 

that discussion deeply impressed by the hard work, thoughtful 

planning, and extensive community participation that has gone 

into that project. I am glad that we will later be welcoming Chief 

Judge LaFazia of Rhode Island’s district court, who is leading the 

veterans’ pilot program and will tell the Senate about our State’s 

important work in this area. 

As my colleagues know, the budget constraints confronting our 

Federal, State, and local governments demand that we marshal the 

resources we devote to our criminal justice system as effectively as 

possible. Today’s hearing will allow Congress to consider the role 

of drug and veterans’ courts in such smart and cost-effective criminal justice solutions. 

I thank the witnesses for joining us today, and I look forward to 

working with Senators on both sides of the aisle as we continue to 

support these cost-effective solutions that protect our communities. 

I am now delighted to welcome the distinguished junior Senator 

from Minnesota, who is a honorary member of this Subcommittee, 

to make a few opening remarks and to join the hearing. 

STATEMENT OF HON. AL FRANKEN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM 

THE STATE OF MINNESOTA 

Senator FRANKEN. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling 

this very important hearing, and you are right. I am not actually 

a member of this Subcommittee, but in the Judiciary Committee 

every member of the Committee is invited to attend each Subcommittee’s hearings, and I wanted to be here because the effectiveness of drug courts and veterans’ courts is such a great new deVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:38 Jan 06, 2012 Jkt 071696 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\71696.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
3 

velopment. And I am a strong supporter of these problem-solving 

courts, and I believe we should be doing everything we can to promote these programs, which are extremely fiscally responsible. And 

as we have the debate over our budget, I think it is very important 

that we understand how cost-effective these courts are. 

First I wanted to take a moment to recognize and welcome Judge 

Robert Rancourt, who is attending. He is not testifying in this 

hearing today, but he is attending. He is from Chisago County, 

Minnesota, and I just learned that he is the incoming Chairman of 

the board of directors of the National Association of Drug Court 

Professionals, and I want to congratulate Judge Rancourt, and I 

am very pleased that you are here joining us for today’s hearing. 

In 2007, Minnesota adopted statewide drug court standards with 

the goal of enhancing public safety, ensuring participant accountability, and reducing costs to society. And I am pleased to say that 

the adult treatment courts, family dependency courts, juvenile 

courts, DWI courts, and our first veterans’ court are all doing exactly that: helping to prevent future crime, getting participants in 

the treatment that they need, and saving money—saving money in 

the long run. 

Judge John Holahan, who presides over the Hennepin County 

adult drug court, submitted a statement on his program that I 

would like to submit for the record with your approval, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman WHITEHOUSE. Without objection. 

[The information appears as a submission for the record.] 

Senator FRANKEN. He writes that participants in his court are 

subject to intensive probation, breath and urine testing, and counseling. They are also required to appear in his court every other 

week to update him on their progress. Judge Holahan quotes a letter that he received from the parents of a graduate from his drug 

court who wrote, and I quote, ‘‘Thanks to you and the Hennepin 

County court system, we have our daughter back, and she is conquering her addiction to alcohol and drugs. She has attended every 

court session and sees what happens if you screw up. Without a 

program like yours, a lot of young adults would not get a second 

chance and would waste a lot of time in jail.’’ 

I think this statement perfectly sums up how effective drug 

courts can be, and I look forward to hearing more from our witnesses about how we can continue to improve and expand the success of these great programs. 

So thank you again, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman WHITEHOUSE. You are welcome, Senator Franken. 

I am delighted to welcome Senator Kohl to the hearing, and I 

will take this opportunity to introduce our first witness. Benjamin 

Tucker is Deputy Director of the Office of National Drug Control 

Policy, overseeing ONDCP’s HIDTAs—High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas—Drug Free Communities, and National Youth AntiDrug Media Campaign programs. He has previously served in numerous positions in Federal and local government, including as 

Deputy Director for Operations at the U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of Community-Oriented Policing Services and with the New 

York City Police Department. He received his B.S. in criminal justice from the John Jay College of Criminal Justice and his J.D. 

4 

from the Fordham University School of Law, and we are delighted 

to have Mr. Tucker with us today. 

Mr. Tucker, please proceed. Your entire statement, which, if 

read, would take considerably more than 5 minutes, will be made 

a part of the record so that you can make a shorter statement orally here today. 

STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN B. TUCKER, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF STATE, LOCAL AND TRIBAL AFFAIRS, EXECUTIVE 

OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, OFFICE OF NATIONAL DRUG 

CONTROL POLICY, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Mr. TUCKER. Thank you very much, Senator. Chairman Whitehouse, Ranking Member Kyl, and distinguished members of the 

Subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity to testify here today 

on the importance of drug courts. As ONDCP’s Director for Office 

of State, Local, and Tribal Affairs, it is my job to work closely with 

our State, local, and tribal communities in support of prevention 

and law enforcement initiatives through development of policy and 

programs. 

I understand how important it is to identify and support alternatives to incarceration. Having walked the beat as a New York 

City police officer and having worked in the criminal justice field 

for the past 35 years, it is clear we cannot arrest our way out of 

the Nation’s drug problems. 

The Obama administration recognizes that addiction is a disease 

and that prevention, treatment, recovery, innovative criminal justice strategies, and law enforcement are all essential elements of 

a comprehensive strategy to reduce drug use. 

Just last week, the administration released its 2011 National 

Drug Control Strategy. It articulates a balanced approach to drug 

control while identifying and addressing issues of concern to specific populations confronting unique challenges relating to substance abuse issues, including active military service members, veterans, and military families, college students, women and children, 

and those involved in the criminal justice system. 

I am here today to discuss one of the administration’s fundamental policy objectives: stopping the revolving door of arrest, incarceration, release, and re-arrest through effective interventions 

and alternatives to incarceration. 

According to a 2007 Justice Department report reflecting on the 

success of drug courts, we know that of the State prisoners who 

were dependent on or abusing drugs, 53 percent had at least three 

prior sentences. These numbers have basically gone unchanged 

since 1997. Drug courts have existed for more than 20 years, as 

you indicated earlier, Senator, and their effectiveness in reducing 

recidivism and lowering criminal justice costs is well documented. 

With over 2,500 drug courts in operation today in the United 

States, approximately 120,000 Americans annually receive the help 

they need to break the cycle of addiction and crime, and the drug 

court movement continues to grow. They help participants recover 

from addiction and prevent future criminal activity while also reducing the burden and cost of repeatedly processing drug-involved 

offenders through the Nation’s courts, jails, and prisons. 

5 

Drug court participants receive intensive treatment and other 

services for a minimum of 1 year. They are subjected to frequent 

court appearances and random drug testing, with sanctions and incentives to encourage compliance and completion. But most important, graduating participants gain the necessary tools to rebuild 

their lives and re-enter society as productive, law-abiding, taxpaying citizens. 

Drug courts rely upon the daily communication and cooperation 

of judges, court personnel, probation, treatment providers, and 

other social service providers from throughout the community. This 

successful collaboration promotes the overarching goal of improving 

public health and public safety. 

In a recent Department of Justice study, drug court participants 

reported 25 percent less criminal activity and had 16 percent fewer 

arrests than comparable offenders not enrollled in drug courts. 

In times of serious budget cuts, the drug court model also offers 

State and local governments a cost-effective approach when developed and operated within longstanding proven standards. 

The success of drug courts has led to the development of other 

specialty courts like veterans’ treatment courts, as was mentioned, 

family treatment courts, juvenile drug courts, and tribal wellness 

courts. Veterans’ treatment courts are a priority for this Administration, and as Americans we must keep in mind the enduring debt 

we owe our country’s active-duty military and veterans. The serious challenges they face when returning home, particularly substance use and psychological health problems, often go untreated. 

Sadly, these challenges can sometimes lead to criminal and other 

destructive behaviors. 

According to a recent Justice Department survey of prison inmates, an estimated 60 percent of the 140,000 veterans in Federal 

and State prisons were struggling with a substance use disorder, 

while approximately 25 percent reported being under the influence 

of drugs at the time of their offense. 

There are now over 75 operational veterans’ treatment courts nationwide, and they are showing significant promise in successfully 

promoting sobriety, recovery, and stability for our Nation’s veterans. Consistent with drug courts, veterans’ treatment courts combine rigorous treatment and personal accountability with the goal 

of breaking the cycle of drug use and criminal behavior. However, 

in addition to the traditional partners in drug court, they incorporate the unique capabilities of Federal and State veterans’ services. In doing so, they connect veterans’ court participants to the 

treatment and support services they need, such as treatment, medical benefits, home loans, and other services intended to help facilitate their re-entry to the community. 

In conclusion, I would like to take a moment to acknowledge and 

commend our drug court professionals—our judges, our law enforcement officers, our treatment providers, and others who have 

dedicated their time and talent to helping others break the cycle 

of drug use and crime to become productive members of society. 

Again, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to testify here 

today. I look forward to working with you and this Committee to 

address these challenging and important issues, and I am happy to 

answer any questions you may have. 

6 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Tucker appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Chairman WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Mr. Tucker. 

First let me welcome Senator Blumenthal of Connecticut to the 

hearing. I appreciate that he has taken the trouble to attend. Everybody is very busy now, so people being here is a sign of very 

keen interest. 

Let me ask you about the Federal interest in drug courts. In a 

later panel, we will hear from a witness who says that the Federal 

Government should not bother with this, and that it should be left 

to the States to manage drug courts without support from the Federal Government. You have been involved in this for a long time. 

Make the case for a Federal role in supporting drug courts around 

the country. 

Mr. TUCKER. Certainly, Senator. First, in terms of my experience, 

as you indicated, I have been involved in this work for a long time, 

and it seems that in any number of programs that have been successful, such as drug court programs, over the last 20 years, it 

seems that very often the beginnings of those programs, the 

testings, the demonstration projects that give rise to these programs, are usually funded in some cases by private dollars, but 

very often through the interest of the Federal Government providing funding, seed money, if you will, so that these programs can 

get traction. 

That is what has happened with drug courts, and while drug 

courts are primarily funded through State and local resources, it is 

definitely in the best interest of the Federal Government to continue to support through funding for technical assistance and operational support so that our drug courts can continue to thrive. 

We have in the country, based on what we know about the success of drug courts, the opportunity to change the paradigm; that 

is to say, continuing to arrest offenders who have drug problems 

is not going to be very cost-effective. The notion that we can divert 

these folks and get them out of the system, and let us focus on public health and improve public safety at the same time as we save 

funds. For every dollar spent on drug courts, we yield $2 in savings 

for the criminal justice system. And so it makes sense financially, 

it makes sense in terms of the comments made earlier about the 

fact that we have the opportunity to give people their lives back. 

And so for all those reasons, the Federal investment and the assistance to sustain drug courts and to grow a model that we know 

has merit is the way to go. 

Chairman WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Mr. Tucker. Let me just add 

that, in addition to your testimony from ONDCP, there is also a 

statement coming in from the United States Department of Justice, 

which will be put into the record, but it was not ready in time for 

this hearing. So the hearing record will remain open for 7 days, not 

only for them, but for anybody who would like to submit an additional statement. 

[The Justice Department statement appears as a submission for 

the record.] 

Chairman WHITEHOUSE. I will now turn to my distinguished colleague, Senator Kohl. 

7 

Senator KOHL. Thank you very much, Senator Whitehouse, for 

holding this hearing today. Before getting to my questions, I would 

like to say a few words about the excellent work Wisconsin is doing 

in this field. 

Wisconsin has been a model for creating and using treatment 

courts to strike the right balance between holding nonviolent offenders accountable for their crime, but also helping them to break 

the cycle in and out of the justice system. Our adult and juvenile 

drug courts, DUI courts, and veterans’ courts enjoy broad support 

back home from Democrats and Republicans, law enforcement and 

judges, and local communities. Wisconsin’s 41 treatment courts 

draw such broad support because they have proven successful at 

reducing recidivism while saving State and local governments millions of dollars every year. For example, the drug court in rural 

Wood County has saved county taxpayers $400,000 since it began 

in 2007. 

Wisconsin has also been a leader in the creation of treatment 

courts that focus on drunk drivers. Waukesha County’s DUI court 

works with people who have been convicted of their third DUI. 

Under this program, in addition to serving their sentence, the 

judge and mental health counselors work with repeat offenders to 

stay sober and get their lives back on track. This program’s success 

has been a model for similar courts throughout the country and 

most recently in Dane County, Wisconsin, where Republicans and 

Democrats are working together to implement the DUI court. 

Finally, I am proud of our State’s veterans’ courts. In 2008, the 

State public defender’s office and the Wisconsin Department of Veterans Affairs led an initiative to bring veterans’ courts to Wisconsin. Now Wisconsin has six veterans’ courts, and most recently 

Brown County is establishing its own veterans’ courts to serve the 

Green Bay area. These efforts ensure that our vets are treated for 

the unique challenges they face after honorably serving our Nation 

and I applaud them. 

Mr. Tucker, we know that treatment courts are highly effective 

at saving taxpayer dollars by helping low-level offenders stay out 

of jail and overcome their addictions. State and local officials want 

to expand their treatment court programs and get new programs 

off the ground. In light of severe budget constraints at the Federal, 

State, and local levels, how can we work together to maintain the 

courts we have and also start new ones? 

Mr. TUCKER. It is really critical, Senator, for the collaborations 

that are really the foundation of the drug courts to continue to 

function and operate, and you are correct that the tight budget 

times I think will test the mettle of our drug court professionals 

in every respect. 

I think the advantage, though, is because drug courts and the 

model bring together law enforcement, social services, veterans administrators if it is veterans’ courts, probation officers, bring a 

number of people all together to work on these issues. And I think 

having all these folks work together in a way where they can focus 

and keep their own identity in terms of the work that they do, but 

the fact that they can come together and collaborate for the purpose of expressly improving the public safety and the public health 

by keeping the drug courts vibrant, alive, and focused on keeping 

8 

people out of the system as opposed to putting people in our criminal justice process will be very effective. 

It will, no question, be challenging. I think my experience has 

been from law enforcement when money and dollars get tight, I 

think people figure out how to come together when they know they 

have a program and a process that works, and they have to struggle to produce results. And so I think that is the challenge we face, 

no question that exists, and we know that our treatment providers 

are going to be strained. Nevertheless, the need remains, and I 

think we need to be focused on how we allow that to continue. 

Senator KOHL. Mr. Tucker, as you well know, DUI courts are a 

relatively new effort. What is the ONDCP doing to use the successes that we are seeing in DUI courts like in Waukesha County, 

Wisconsin, more broadly throughout the country? 

Mr. TUCKER. Well, as you may be aware, Senator, the Office of 

National Drug Control Policy and the National Drug Control Strategy, one of its focuses, particularly in the Inaugural Strategy, the 

2010 strategy, has been on drunk driving. And so drunk driving 

has been recognized as a serious problem across the country. It fits, 

I think, neatly into the connection, the nexus with driving under 

the influence. And so we are doing a number of things to sort of 

move the bar in the area of drugged driving in terms of educating 

drivers, in terms of working with organizations to get the word out, 

to be the bully pulpit, and sort of work with law enforcement agencies, drug recognition enforcement officers, to ensure that we put 

the resources where they should be—on the roads and focused on 

individuals, identifying individuals who may be driving while 

under the influence. 

And so we are providing resources to improve better ways to do 

roadside testing. We are providing resources to educate more police 

officers, both State law enforcement officers as well as local officers, to be aware of and to be able to identify those who might be 

driving while under the influence, if not of alcohol then be able to 

identify those who might be under the influence of some other controlled substance. 

Senator KOHL. Thank you very much, Mr. Tucker and Senator 

Whitehouse. 

Chairman WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Senator Kohl. 

I am delighted that the distinguished senior Senator from Minnesota, Senator Klobuchar, has joined us; the Senator from Delaware, Senator Coons, has joined us. The order on our side is Senators Franken, Blumenthal, Klobuchar, and Coons. Senator 

Franken. 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I noticed that 

former Congresswoman Jim Ramstad is here, and I would like to 

recognize him, too, for his leadership in mental health parity and 

in parity for treatment of addiction. 

Minnesota has been a leader, actually, in addiction treatment, 

and we are very proud of that. And in Minnesota, we have seen 

drug courts do very good things. You talked about really return on 

investment, both in your opening statement and your response to 

Senator Kohl, and part of this is recidivism. We have found in Minnesota that participants in drug courts are less than half as likely 

to be arrested for another crime as offenders who are prosecuted 

9 

in traditional courts, and this, of course, with equivalent kind of arrests, et cetera. I want to know if you are seeing that nationwide, 

that trend nationwide in drug courts in terms of recidivism. 

Mr. TUCKER. Senator, with respect to recidivism, yes, we are seeing that nationwide. In fact, drug courts, one of the primary things 

that make them effective is their impact on the participants. And 

so 84 percent of graduates who have gone through the program remain drug free, for example, after being graduated—after the first 

year of graduation. 

With respect to the 2-year mark, 2 years out of having graduated, 73 percent of those participants have not been re-arrested 

or charged with any serious crime. And this is true consistently 

with respect to the research and the data that we see. 

And so that is just another indicator of why this becomes so critical. The notion of sort of not just taking someone who has committed a crime but then getting them into treatment, trying to 

keep them in recovery, giving them the opportunity to get the support they need to stay in recovery and to be more productive citizens is, you know, what we are after. So the data suggests that we 

are in a position to have and repeat that success going forward. 

Senator FRANKEN. Well, let us talk about the return on investment and where it comes from, because to me, as we are in this 

budget crisis and this deficit crisis—and we all recognize that there 

is one—we have to find ways in which to bring down costs to society and costs to the Government. So if you are reducing recidivism, 

you are reducing the number of people who are in prison. You are 

also reducing the crime, the costs to society. You are changing 

lives. People now who might be in prison have jobs, are paying 

taxes. 

I want to ask about one other thing, which is families, because 

to me one of the huge maybe overlooked aspect of addiction is the 

toll on families. And we have found a satisfying result from drug 

courts in Minnesota, that more families are staying together, are 

being reunited. In fact, in Dakota County, they found that children 

of drug courts recipients are being placed in foster homes far less 

often than children of other offenders. So to me that is a wonderful 

result. 

What impact do you think this has on families, both immediately 

and in the long term? 

Mr. TUCKER. Well, immediately, I can speak at it from personal 

experience with respect to the role that I played when I was a police officer, and it is no different today. I spent a lot of time going 

into people’s homes where there was domestic violence and a variety of other behaviors that were detrimental to the core of the family. 

One of the things that I think drug courts do and what we focus 

on through the National Drug Control Strategy, as we treat this as 

a public health issue as well as public safety issue, is to focus on 

ways in which we can provide the services and treatment that folks 

need. The challenges of someone who has a drug problem and who 

is an offender to the rest of the family we know is significant. 

I go to a lot of drug court graduations. I travel around, and I 

went to a drug court graduation several months back in Charlotte, 

Virginia, and sat next to, just coincidentally, the mother of one of— 

10 

the sole graduate of that graduation, and we struck up a conversation. And she was clearly supportive of her son. She was clearly enamored about the fact that he was successful in meeting the conditions of being in the drug court and participating and getting himself on the right track to being clean. But at the same time, you 

could see that she was apprehensive. She clearly had been through 

a lot. But it really makes a huge difference, and if you have not 

attended a drug court graduation, I recommend that you do because you walk out feeling hopeful and renewed about the fact that 

the work that we do with drug courts really matters for sure. 

With respect to the cost, in terms of cost at the State and local 

level, when we compare traditional case processing in drug courts 

and—regular courts processing with drug court processing, we are 

saving a serious amount of money per individual because of some 

of the issues that you raise. 

For example, some of the research tells us that for every drug 

court participant, we have savings somewhere in the area of 

$1,400. We have additional savings that may approach $6,700. So 

we are roughly in the area of just over $8,000 in savings for participants who go through the program, who we remove from the criminal justice system, and the associated outcomes for—the yield from 

the associated outcomes in all the other respects in terms of getting 

them back to work and making them productive really does have 

some financial benefit overall. We should continue—— 

Chairman WHITEHOUSE. Mr. Tucker, let me stop you there so we 

can go on to Senator Blumenthal. 

Senator FRANKEN. Just let me say one last thing, and I have to 

leave and go to Energy so I will not be here for the second round. 

You talked about the hope these families feel. Hope is—what is 

it?—fear that said its prayers. And these are inspiring things. 

Treatment does not always work. It does not always work. But I 

want to say that as we get past this current budget crisis right 

now, this debt crisis, this budget crisis, and we move on after that 

to start addressing our problems and start addressing long-term 

debt problems, this is a bipartisan thing. I wrote a letter to make 

sure that we keep funding for this, and I got bipartisan support. 

What is great about this is that this is something where we can 

address—there really is a return on investment on this, and it 

saves money, but it also saves lives, and I want to think everybody 

who is involved with this. 

I have to go. 

Chairman WHITEHOUSE. Senator Blumenthal is recognized. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to 

thank Senator Whitehouse for having this hearing, and I am going 

to be somewhat abbreviated in my questions because we do have 

another panel and there are other Senators waiting to ask questions, but not to indicate any brevity or shortness in my interest 

in this area, and I would like to follow up with you afterward on 

the very good work you are doing not only on drug courts but most 

particularly on veterans’ courts. 

As you know, many of the brave young men and women coming 

back from service and sacrifice abroad in combat return with 

wounds that are invisible—post traumatic stress, traumatic brain 

injury—which in turn lead, in some ways predictably, to alcohol 

11 

and substance abuse, domestic violence, all kinds of very serious 

and sometimes physically harmful activities. And for me, one of the 

most telling statistics as a member of the Armed Services Committee that I have heard is that about 30 percent of those 

incidences of post traumatic stress or traumatic brain injury are 

undiagnosed. And so many of these young men and women go back 

into society and are candidates for the kind of violence that very 

recently was documented. You may have seen it in the New York 

Times article over the weekend by Erica Goode about Staff Sergeant Brad Eifert and his struggle with exactly these problems and 

the way that he was in a sense rescued from suicide by cop through 

a veterans’ court, or at least treatment as a veteran. 

So my question to you is: Where would we look for the best models of these veterans’ courts, whether they are separate courts or 

dockets or specific schedules or calendars for veterans’ issues? Because I think the more we can do to spread the world, to spread 

the best practices, the better off States like Connecticut will be and 

our country. 

Mr. TUCKER. Yes, Senator, I did see that article on Sergeant 

Eifert and actually was going to reference it in my remarks as well. 

I think it is a classic example, unfortunately, that repeats itself 

over and over again. 

I think with respect to your question, I think we have to look at 

all the courts. I think when we have the drug courts and how they 

function, I think each one has something different to offer perhaps 

in terms of its success. I think the research—and you may hear 

some more about this from Doug Marlowe when he testifies. But 

my sense is that we have to continuously evaluate to look at, examine those programs that are working, take from them the best practices, support those, and replicate those where we think it makes 

sense. 

It is also helpful as we look at these we learn a lot about what 

does not work so well. But I think with respect to the examples 

that I have seen with respect to the veterans’ courts in particular, 

the coming together of the court personnel, the military services 

personnel, law enforcement personnel, the judges, and the veterans 

organizations both at the State and Federal level is the way to go. 

And so to the extent that we can keep that model, keep everyone 

informed, then I think we can continue to be effective in terms of 

the service provided. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. I appreciate your answer, and what I 

would like to do is for you, if you would, to provide me with maybe 

five of the best practices, what you regard personally as the five 

best examples of how the veterans’ courts are working in the country, perhaps on a confidential basis, and maybe some of the best 

practices as well so that we can perhaps use them as models in 

Connecticut and elsewhere around the country. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman WHITEHOUSE. A question for the record? 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Yes. Thank you. 

[The information appears under questions and answers.] 

Chairman WHITEHOUSE. Senator Klobuchar. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you very much, Senator Whitehouse, 

for chairing this hearing and holding it today. 

12 

Thank you, Mr. Tucker, for being here. We had a great event this 

morning to celebrate the work of drug courts, and I would note 

there were a number of Republican Senators there, and I think 

that just shows the bipartisan support for moving forward with 

drug courts. 

I see my former Congressman out there, Jim Ramstad, a former 

Congressman from the State of Minnesota, a Republican, and I 

would note that when Patrick Kennedy was splashed on the front 

page of the paper with his addiction problem, it was Jim Ramstad 

that went to stand by his side. And I think it shows us all—and 

was his mentor and his friend throughout his experience and 

throughout his experience in getting sober and going on to get married this last month. It shows again this is not a Democratic problem or a Republican problem; it is all of our problems. 

The numbers which my colleagues have mentioned are astounding: 75 percent of drug court graduates will not be arrested again. 

Compare that to 30 percent of the people who go through the traditional system. I have seen this firsthand in my State. I was a prosecutor for 8 years in our biggest county, the first drug court in our 

State. We now have 30 drug courts in our State, and I think that 

we all know the dollars and cents and the money that can be 

saved. But the reason so many people are here to support the concept of drug courts is not necessarily those numbers. It is the people we know. It is the teenager that can get their life back again. 

It is the family that can send their little kids out on the street corner without having to worry about drug crimes. And it is the addict 

who has a chance for another life, and so I want to thank you for 

the good work that you are doing. 

I did have a question about the dollars and cents because between the time we had this celebration and this hearing, I went to 

a budget meeting, and I know that a lot of my colleagues and I are 

very focused on that right now, and I think this actually can be a 

big part of it as we look at how we can save money and do good 

at the same time. 

Could you explain why drug courts save money? And what do 

you think is the most accurate estimate of the actual or potential 

savings? 

Mr. TUCKER. First of all, Senator, it is good to see you again. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. It took me a lot of words for you to get to 

that point, but thank you. 

Mr. TUCKER. The answer to your question relates to my earlier 

comment in response to Senator Blumenthal’s question, and that 

is, it has to do with sort of what we see based on the research in 

terms of the general savings. Obviously, when we take someone out 

of the system, I mean, just the fact that we incarcerate, as we do 

in this country, more people than anywhere else in the world, and 

we have maybe 7 million people in the system, 5 million are on 

probation or some sort of community supervision. But having those 

folks out there rather than having them in the system saves us 

money. To the extent that we can shut down their return to the 

system obviously also saves us money. 

So those figures that I gave, the $1,400 per participant and the 

$6,700 in sort of associated outcomes as a result of an individual 

13 

not remaining in our jails or our prisons is where we see the savings on a regular basis. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. One number I heard, the cost of participation is less than $7,000; the cost of incarceration, over $22,000. 

Would that be per year? 

Mr. TUCKER. I would have to get back to you. I am not sure. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. I think it is. 

Mr. TUCKER. I am not sure. I think it is a range, actually, but 

I am not sure whether it is annually. I suspect it would be in terms 

of how to measure it, but I can get a response for you on that. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. OK. Thank you. 

Mr. TUCKER. I will give you something more specific. 

[The information follows:] 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Then I just had one last question about 

synthetic drugs and what you are seeing with those. We had a 

young man die in Minnesota, ordered it off the Internet, had a 

party, others almost died as well. Senators Grassley and Schumer 

and I have been working on a number of bills to include these 

types of substances on the list of illegal drugs. What are you seeing? I can tell you in our State we have seen a number of kids— 

you have never even heard of these things before, and they are at 

the emergency rooms, doubling and tripling what we have seen. 

The New York Times reported just this weekend that they had 

3,470 calls about bath salts in the first 6 months of 2011 to poison 

control centers compared to 303 calls in 2010. 

Mr. TUCKER. Well, we are seeing a dramatic rise in such stimulants like that, bath salts and incense, the products that are sold 

that way. The Drug Enforcement Administration, as you may 

know, is focused on that and has begun to regulate some of the ingredients in some of those products. But I think the challenge is 

in some cases just knowing what is there. But we are, as you know, 

from the drug policy perspective at ONDCP and with our strategy, 

continuously trying to focus on the prevention side of this as much 

as possibly can. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. I think the education—and I know the Senator needs to end the hearing now, my part of it, but the education 

piece of it is going to be very important, and I think these bills are 

coming up on the docket next week, so that will be good. 

Thank you very much. 

Mr. TUCKER. You are welcome. 

Chairman WHITEHOUSE. Senator Coons. 

Senator COONS. Thank you, Senator Whitehouse, for convening 

this important hearing, and I will simply briefly say that I am from 

a State, Delaware, that has had a successful drug court since 1994, 

statewide since 1997. Like Senator Blumenthal, I am very interested in the progress of our veterans’ court, which our Attorney 

General, Beau Biden, has just launched in the past year. 

I will ask, if I could, for a brief answer to the question about 

what sort of constructive role in your view nationally has police 

participation in drug courts played, has veterans’ participation as 

mentors played in veterans’ courts, and how is NDCI providing 

training and best practices that helps engage State and local government. I am happy to take a brief response. 

14 

Mr. TUCKER. Well, just simply put, collaboration is the name of 

the game, Senator, and I can tell you that we have wide support 

from our National police groups when it comes to drug court participation, and probation departments as well. And so the notion 

that—I think people have finally come to the realization that this 

model works, and so any way in which we can support it is what 

I think people are choosing to do, and it has been, I think, one of 

the reasons it has been so successful. So law enforcement across 

the board, I mean, we work with the International Association of 

Chiefs of Police and others, and so we should just continue to do 

that. 

Senator COONS. I just want to thank you for your recognition 

that addiction affects every family, every community across this 

country, and we need to have a balanced approach, balancing law 

enforcement with treatment and with community engagement, and 

I think the drug courts and your leadership have been critical to 

achieving that balance. Thank you. 

Mr. TUCKER. Thank you. 

Chairman WHITEHOUSE. Mr. Tucker, thank you very much for 

your service and for your testimony. We will excuse you now and 

take a minute or so recess while they change the table for the next 

panel. Again, thank you for your testimony and your participation 

in this hearing. 

Mr. TUCKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[Pause.] 

Chairman WHITEHOUSE. I am delighted to welcome our second 

panel of witnesses, and we will just go right across the table, left 

to right from my side of the aisle here. 

Our first witness is Martin Sheen, who has appeared in more 

than 60 feature films, including ‘‘Apocalypse Now’’ and Martin 

Scorsese’s ‘‘The Departed,’’ and has starred in numerous television 

shows. His performance on ‘‘The West Wing’’ as President Jed 

Bartlett earned him six Emmy nominations. Mr. Sheen has been 

a vocal supporter of drug courts for several years around the country and here in Congress, and we are delighted that he has taken 

the time to come and offer his testimony here today. 

Mr. Sheen. 

STATEMENT OF MARTIN SHEEN, LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 

Mr. SHEEN. Thank you, Chairman Whitehouse and distinguished 

members of the Subcommittee. It is a very rare privilege to be here 

today and advocate on behalf of drug courts. I would like to emphasize, however, that I am not a drug court professional nor am I an 

addiction specialist. I make the distinction because we all know celebrity, to a greater or lesser degree, is so often confused for credibility. For instance, I am not a former President of the United 

States though I played one on TV. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. SHEEN. My first exposure to drug courts began nearly 20 

years ago and opened my eyes to the incredible capacity of human 

beings to change. I have seen individuals mired in the depths of 

addiction transformed by drug courts. I have seen families reunited 

after years of estrangement due to a loved one’s substance abuse. 

And while I prefaced my opening remarks confirming my amateur 

15 

status regarding this critical issue, I was, however, directly responsible for helping create a drug court system in Berkeley, California, 

in 1996, along with Father Bill O’Donnell and Dr. Davida Coady, 

an addiction specialist. We called it ‘‘Options,’’ and our chief focus 

was the homeless and addicted street population in Berkeley. With 

the help of drug court Judge Carol Brosnahan and Berkeley Police 

Chief Bobby Miller, we began a treatment center and one sober living house. Today there are six sober living houses. They are all run 

by drug court graduates, and nearly 6,000 people have gone 

through them and returned to their health, body, mind, and spirit. 

These miracles happen every day in drug court, and I believe 

that this country’s greatest untapped resource is our addicted population. Every year, drug courts help save over 120,000 seriously 

addicted people, bringing them from darkness to light and setting 

them on a course toward fulfillment, freedom, and enviable joy. But 

imagine for a moment the impact we could have if drug courts were 

available to all 1.2 million addicted individuals who would be best 

served by drug courts if one were available. Imagine the impact of 

1.2 million people making up for lost time in their community and 

serving their families and their country. This is the purpose of drug 

courts, and this is why it is critical that Congress fund drug courts 

at a minimum of $88.7 million for fiscal year 2012. 

It is no secret that our current prison system provides little re- turn on our investment. We spend over $70 billion on corrections, 

and it has done little to stem the tide of drugs and crime. Instead, 

addicted people cycle through the system at great expense to the 

public. Drug court stops that cycle. In drug court we have a proven 

budget solution that we can count on to cut drug abuse and crime. 

Every citizen benefits when one addicted person gets clean and 

sober. 

I would like to take a moment now to talk about drug courts 

serving veterans and the emergence of veterans’ treatment courts. 

I spent some valuable time yesterday with Judge Robert Russell of 

Buffalo, New York. This distinguished and renowned jurist is 

among drug court’s Hall of Fame. Two years ago, Judge Russell 

created the Nation’s first veteran treatment court to restore the 

honor of these heroes. We ask so much of our men and women in 

uniform, and they ask so little in return. In fact, they are often the 

last to ask for counseling or treatment. It is our duty to care for 

our veterans when they suffer as a direct result of their service to 

our country. 

Today there are 80 veterans’ treatment courts with over 100 

being planned. Drug courts and veterans’ treatment courts are on 

the front lines of ensuring that when our veterans suffer from substance abuse or mental health disorders and get in trouble with the 

law, they have the opportunity for treatment and restoration. By 

helping restore their health, we give honor to their service. 

Our criminal justice system has been transformed over the last 

two decades by dedicated drug court professionals who believe that 

a blend of accountability and compassion can and should be the 

foundation for which we handle our addicted offender population. 

Now these same professionals are forever changing the way this 

Nation treats veterans when their invisible wounds of war lead 

them astray. 

16 

Frankly, there is no better investment this Congress can make 

than drug courts and veterans’ treatment courts. The time has 

come to reap the staggering social and economic benefits of expanding this proven budget solution. 

Thank you for the honor of appearing before you today. I appreciate your time and your service to our country. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Sheen appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Chairman WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Mr. Sheen. 

Our next witness comes as a personal favorite. The Honorable 

Jeanne E. LaFazia is chief judge of our Rhode Island district court. 

Prior to her appointment to the bench, Chief Judge LaFazia was 

an active civil litigator in private practice and a leader in the 

Rhode Island community, serving on the Rhode Island State Parole 

Board, the Commission on Judicial Tenure and Discipline, and 

serving as the Rhode Island Chair for the International Association 

of Defense Counsel. As chief judge of the Rhode Island district 

court, she has introduced the pilot program for the State’s first veterans’ court and convened an extraordinary roundtable for Attorney General Holder on his recent visit to Rhode Island. Chief 

Judge LaFazia graduated from Boston University and Suffolk Law 

School, and we welcome her here today. 

Welcome, Your Honor. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JEANNE E. LAFAZIA, CHIEF JUDGE, 

RHODE ISLAND DISTRICT COURT, PROVIDENCE, RHODE ISLAND 

Judge LAFAZIA. Good morning. Thank you, Chairman Whitehouse and other distinguished members of this Subcommittee. 

Thank you for affording me this opportunity to discuss something 

which I feel so passionately about: the expansion of veterans’ courts 

throughout this country. 

Immediately prior to becoming chief of the Rhode Island district 

court, I spent 3 years on the arraignment calendar in Kent County. 

I noticed that both veterans and active members of the military 

were appearing in increasing numbers. Sometimes these individuals were immediately recognizable by their stance and occasionally by a uniform. Other times they would actually hide their status and attempt to quickly resolve the charge without further attention. I was also hearing from victims in domestic matters who 

would tell me that this defendant’s behavior would not have occurred prior to his or her deployment or prior to multiple tours of 

duty, which is a phenomenon that we are seeing more of in this 

war than ever before. 

It became apparent that some of these men and women were returning from combat with injuries that were very real, but which 

were not visible to the naked eye. I also realized that a sentence 

imposed on a member of the military could have a harsher result 

than the identical sentence imposed on a private citizen. Rhode Island judges sometimes offer a filing on a first offense. The intent 

of a filing is to give the defendant a chance to eventually start over 

with a clean slate. On domestic charges, the court also imposes a 

No Contact Order, which prohibits that defendant from carrying a 

firearm. There is an exception to this prohibition for law enforceVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:38 Jan 06, 2012 Jkt 071696 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\71696.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
17 

ment, but no such exception exists for the military. Active military 

must be qualified to carry a firearm, so this military defendant 

stands to lose his or her job, their future, and perhaps their benefits—hardly what we intended when we sentenced that defendant 

to a filing. 

Recent statistics indicate that close to 1.7 million Americans 

have served in Iraq or Afghanistan. And while this is a most significant number, nationwide this presents as less than one-half of 

1 percent of our National population. Rhode Island, however, has 

given more than its fair share to these statistics. The callback of 

Rhode Island’s National Guard is the second highest in the entire 

United States. As of September 30, 2010, the number of veterans 

living in Rhode Island who have served in the Gulf Wars is three 

times the national per capita average. 

Most of these veterans return home and successfully reintegrate 

into the fabric of society. But what about the small but increasing 

percentage who are unable to do so? Studies now indicate that one 

in five returning military will exhibit some symptoms of mental illness. Not all of them will become involved in the criminal justice 

system. 

‘‘No soldier left behind’’ is a code which Americans have always 

been proud to live by. We do not desert our soldiers on the battlefield. Shouldn’t this also be true on the home front? 

Do we not owe our returning soldiers a similar duty when they 

come home injured or affected in a way that has altered who they 

are and what they do? Especially if that injury causes or fuels behavior that puts them into the criminal justice system. 

These are men and women who were not drafted. They volunteered for this service. They put on a uniform, and they followed 

the American flag into combat to fight for and protect the fundamental rights and privileges that we as Americans enjoy every single day. 

Most people agree that we do have a duty. But what does that 

mean? How does it translate to the criminal justice system and to 

the role of the judiciary in these cases? 

In response, the Rhode Island district court, under a SAMHSA 

grant, is now a partner in implementing the first jail diversion program in Rhode Island for veterans. This grant has allowed Rhode 

Island to begin this important process, but it is only a beginning. 

Let me emphasize what this program or these programs does not 

mean. It does not mean that anyone will not be held accountable 

for their actions simply because of military status or even medical 

diagnosis alone. This is not a free pass. 

What this duty does mean is that we need to increase our focus 

on this group of people. We need to recognize them. We need to implement programs that will address their unique challenges and 

which will provide them with the tools and insight needed to become whole again, to reintegrate successfully into society. Veterans’ 

courts are problem-solving courts. 

Rhode Island is in a unique position because it is a small State. 

We have tremendous collaboration in Rhode Island with law enforcement, community mental health providers, and other State departments. The Rhode Island National Guard has been actively involved and fully supportive. 

18 

As we anticipate future drawdowns, the number of returning personnel who will require these services will undoubtedly grow substantially. The expansion of this program will allow us to fully address the various needs of these individuals and will allow us to 

include all individuals who enter the judicial system because of a 

service-related injury. 

We are ready and positioned to take on the responsibilities of a 

statewide veterans calendar. We have the network and the resources to make it successful and sustainable—an important word 

today, I think. I hope that we will see this in the relatively near 

future. For this, we do look to you, our leaders in Washington. 

I am proud to have the Rhode Island district court playing a 

leading role on this issue, and I thank you for the opportunity to 

discuss this today. I will happily answer any questions that you 

may have. 

[The prepared statement of Judge LaFazia appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Your Honor. 

Our next witness is Douglas B. Marlowe, who is the director of 

the Division on Law and Ethics Research at the Treatment Research Institute as well as an adjunct associate professor of psychiatry at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine. Dr. Marlowe has published over 80 professional articles and chapters on 

the topics of crime and drug abuse and is on the editorial boards 

of the Drug Court Review and Criminal Justice and Behavior. He 

is a member of the board of directors of the National Association 

of Drug Court Professionals, where he serves as chair of the Research Committee and the Drug Policy Reform Committee, and we 

are delighted to have him here for his testimony. 

Professor Marlowe. 

STATEMENT OF DOUGLAS B. MARLOWE, J.D., PH.D., CHIEF OF 

SCIENCE, LAW & POLICY, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF DRUG 

COURT PROFESSIONALS, ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA 

Mr. MARLOWE. Thank you, Chairman Whitehouse, members of 

the Committee. It is really a great honor to be here. I know you 

have all been waiting for Martin Sheen and the chief judge to be 

finished speaking so you could hear from the scientist in the room 

about the facts and data related to drug courts. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. MARLOWE. But that is my job as Chief of Science and Policy 

for the National Association of Drug Court Professionals, to stay on 

top of the scientific research, which is no easy task because the last 

time I did a search on drug courts I found well over a thousand 

published studies of drug courts. 

Drug courts have been studied more intensely than any other 

criminal justice program. In fact, there are people in this room taking medications for cancer, diabetes, and other medical conditions 

that have less evidence of success than drug courts. According to 

the leading national universities’ and research organizations, on 

average, all else being equal, drug courts will reduce crime anywhere from 10 to 26 percent. That is on average. The best drug 

courts will cut crime rates in half, which is unheard of in the criminal justice system. 

19 

As a matter of cost effectiveness, on average, all else being equal, 

for every dollar invested in drug court, you will get $2.21 back from 

your investment. Now, how many of you are getting a 221-percent 

return on your 401(k)s at the moment? Drug courts that are treating high-risk and more serious offenders are returning $3.36 for 

every dollar invested, and the best drug courts are returning $27 

for every dollar invested. 

The U.S. Government Accountability Office in 2005 concluded 

that drug courts reduce crime, but they wanted to know what else 

drug courts do besides reducing crime, so they launched the 

Multisite Adult Drug Court Evaluation. Those findings have just 

been published in the last few days. This was a national study of 

drug courts, located in every geographic region in the country. It 

involved over 1,200 participants in 23 drug courts. They found not 

only do drug courts reduce crime; but drug courts also reduce drug 

abuse; drug courts reduce family conflict; they improve family functioning, and these effects are associated with reduced domestic violence and child abuse. They also improve employment; and they 

improve annual income. 

We now have as good evidence as you are going to get on the effects of drug courts. If anybody tells you they have looked at the 

research on drug courts and they do not accept it, then they must 

reach the same conclusion about every other criminal justice and 

substance abuse treatment program in existence, because there is 

no other program that has equivalent evidence of success than drug 

courts. 

Some people will say that drug courts only have five to seven 

randomized controlled studies. Well, according to the FDA, you 

need two randomized controlled studies for a medication to be considered an evidence-based and a proven practice. Drug courts have 

many times that degree of efficacy. It is a highly proven intervention. 

Now, why a Federal role? Most crime is intra-State. Most crime 

is person on person, or person on property. It occurs at a single 

point in time in a single place. Drug crimes are interstate commerce. Everything that occurs in drug transactions and abuse— 

transportation, procurement, manufacturing, use—the effects of 

that are interstate if not international. That is why the Federal 

Government launched the War on Drugs over roughly four decades 

ago, and before that, in the Nixon administration there was an increase in demand reduction efforts. Drug abuse is a national event, 

it has a national impact, and, therefore, it needs a national level 

response. 

As far as veterans’ treatment courts are concerned, veterans 

have always been a national priority, and the biggest field currently in the drug court movement is to treat veterans suffering 

from drug addiction and mental illness. As you have heard, approximately 80 percent of veterans coming in contact with the 

criminal justice system, are addicted and/or mentally ill, and that 

is what is driving their involvement in the criminal justice system. 

So I am happy to answer any questions, and I am happy to provide you with the proof and the scientific evidence for any of the 

facts that I have asserted. Thank you. 

20 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Marlowe appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman WHITEHOUSE. Thank you very much, Dr. Marlowe. 

Our final witness is David Muhlhausen. He studies criminal justice programs in the Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis. Dr. Muhlhausen joined Heritage in 1999 after serving on the 

staff for this Senate Judiciary Committee. Welcome back, Mr. 

Muhlhausen. Prior to that he was a manager at a juvenile correctional facility in Baltimore. He holds a doctorate in public policy 

from the University of Maryland Baltimore County and a bachelor’s degree in political science and justice studies from Frostburg 

State University. 

Welcome, Dr. Muhlhausen. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID B. MUHLHAUSEN, PH.D., RESEARCH 

FELLOW IN EMPIRICAL POLICY ANALYSIS, CENTER FOR 

DATA ANALYSIS, THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION, WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. MUHLHAUSEN. Thank you. My name is David Muhlhausen. 

I am a research fellow in empirical policy analysis in the Center 

for Data Analysis at The Heritage Foundation. I thank Chairman 

Whitehouse, Ranking Member Kyl, and the rest of the Committee 

for the opportunity to testify today on drug and veterans’ treatment 

courts. The views I express in my testimony are my own and 

should not be construed as representing any official position of The 

Heritage Foundation. 

My spoken testimony will focus on three points: 

First, with out-of-control spending and surging public debt 

threatening our Nation’s stability, increased Federal funding of 

State and local courts should not be a priority. By the end of this 

fiscal year, the Congressional Budget Office warns that the Federal 

debt will reach roughly 70 percent of gross domestic product. This 

will be the highest percentage since shortly after World War II. 

This is hardly a good time for Congress to increase funding for 

grant programs that subsidize the routine criminal justice operations of State and local governments. Instead, Congress should 

consider reforming the drug court discretionary grant program to 

focus entirely on reimbursing drug courts for the costs of serving 

recently returned combat veterans with substance abuse problems. 

This reform would get the Federal Government out of subsidizing 

routine operations and quite likely save taxpayer Federal dollars as 

well. 

Second, while a large number of drug court evaluations have 

been performed, many of these studies have significant shortcomings in scientific rigor. Before we can judge a drug court program to be effective, we first must understand the importance of 

selection. It can be astoundingly difficult to distinguish between 

what is working and what is not, and nowhere is this predicament 

truer than when it comes to the criminal justice system trying to 

change human behavior. 

For example, individuals volunteering for a drug court program 

may be more motivated than individuals not seeking entry. Such 

motivational factors are often invisible to those assessing effectiveness. Failure to account for these crucial factors can produce a misVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:38 Jan 06, 2012 Jkt 071696 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\71696.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
21 

leading association between drug court participation and outcomes. 

Experimental evaluations, the gold standard of research designs, 

are the most capable of handling the problem of selection. 

In my review of the scientific literature, I was only able to obtain 

three experimental evaluations of drug courts. Clearly, more experimental evaluations are needed. The need for more experimental 

evaluations should transcend political party lines. Both Democrats 

and Republicans should agree on this issue. 

Third, while under some circumstances in particular locations 

drug courts may be more effective than traditional responses, Congress should carefully review the claims of effectiveness coming 

from advocates of increased Federal spending on drug courts. Three 

experimental evaluations and a particularly good multi-site quasiexperimental evaluation reviewed in my written testimony provide 

a mixed bag of evidence about effectiveness. Obviously, some drug 

courts are effective while others are not. Effective drug courts can 

produce cost savings, and some may even produce more benefits 

than costs. However, this rule is not universal for all drug courts. 

A relevant example is the cost findings of the newly released 

Multisite Adult Drug Court Evaluation performed by the Urban Institute. After comparing 23 drug courts to six other types of court 

interventions, the quasi-experimental evaluation found that drug 

courts produced an estimated average net benefit of over $2,000. 

However, this estimate is not statistically significant. In other 

words, policymakers cannot be sure that the drug courts participating in this evaluation produced more benefits than costs. The 

costs may actually outweigh the benefits. The estimate is simply 

too imprecise to draw strong policy conclusions. More details on the 

results of this evaluation and other evaluations in my testimony 

are available to you. 

Thank you for inviting me. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Muhlhausen appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Mr. Muhlhausen. 

I am going to, as Chair, be here until the end of the hearing, so 

rather than take up the other Senators’ time, I will wait until the 

end, and I will yield to Senator Blumenthal and then whoever else 

is next. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you 

for bringing together this really very, very impressive panel, impressive not only for its star power but its intellectual and scientific and persuasive power. 

I want to suggest that there is a danger here, which is to conflate 

veterans’ problems and drug problems, and to see a drug court as 

also potentially a veterans’ court. And I think what is so impressive 

about the work that you have done, Judge LaFazia, is that you 

have started to address not only the invisible wounds of post traumatic stress and the traumatic brain injury that can cause many 

of the addictive behaviors that result in criminal activity, but also 

to address the problems that are unique to veterans. And they can 

become addicted, but they also have other problems. 

And so I would like to invite you and others on the panel to perhaps talk about why we need to address separately the issues that 

22 

affect veterans as opposed to simply opening drug courts that may 

deal with veterans’ treatment issues. 

Judge LAFAZIA. I think there certainly is a lot of overlap, and 

that will involve both the cost factor of doing these programs, and 

also there is a huge overlap on the successes that we are able to 

celebrate. That being said, I think that the veterans have a number 

of unique issues that need to be dealt with, and I think some of 

the standard counseling that we provide for substance abuse 

issues, alcohol issues, and other issues are not always competent 

or able to address some of these underlying issues that veterans 

have to deal with. 

We have had tremendous collaboration in our project in Rhode 

Island. It is a small State. It lends itself to that. In addition to collaboration with law enforcement and our mental health providers 

and corrections and other State agencies, we have also had some 

great support from our legislature and our Governor this year. And 

we had a law signed into effect that allowed us for court-ordered 

counseling on DUI cases and domestic violence counseling. We now 

are able to do that counseling through the veterans association, 

and I think that makes a huge difference because they have a 

unique set of circumstances that most of us do not even have a 

point of reference for. And I think that you need to have people involved in these projects who have that background, have that insight, that understanding, and know how to get to those specific 

firing issues. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. And making use of veterans themselves in 

providing that kind of counseling and aid. 

Judge LAFAZIA. Yes, and on two fronts. One of the other elements of veterans’ courts that I think is critical for success is the 

use of mentors in the review process. And we are in our infancy 

stages in Rhode Island. We are now developing our mentor group. 

But I think not only from the professional counselors with the military background and military insight, I think you also need this 

support from a marine who can speak marine talk to a fellow marine. Whatever the branch may be, you need to have people who 

have been there, walked the walk, talked the talk, and come back 

and help you through it. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. You know, I would like to invite any members of the panel to do what I thought that New York Times piece 

did so well, which is to give a face and a voice to the veterans’ 

issues. You know, specific instances of a veterans’ court working for 

a veteran I think is very powerful, as the New York Times piece 

was, in depicting how a specific docket or calendar or channel for 

providing justice to a veteran can help address the specific and 

unique problems that veterans may face. 

Mr. MARLOWE. Can I take a stab at that? 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Sure. 

Mr. MARLOWE. It takes a tremendous amount of conditioning to 

get somebody ready for war. Our natural inclination is not to put 

ourselves in danger. Our natural inclination is not to harm other 

people. Our natural inclination is not to follow rigid authority. Our 

natural inclination is not to be constantly vigilant for threats everywhere we go. We have to be taught and conditioned to do that 

23 

over months and months, if not years in the military. We have 

known that since the beginning of war. 

What we have not known is that you then must be de-conditioned or prepared not to be hypervigilant, not to be overly obedient to authority when you return to society where those are undesirable traits. Mix that with trauma and substance abuse, you 

conflate those problems. 

So it is very much a new syndrome. It is not a drug court. It is 

not a mental health court. It is a re-entry program for people returning to civilian life who have been wounded and damaged. That 

is what veteran courts understand by using veteran peers and veteran mentors, and the Veterans Administration services. These are 

people who have been through that process, and they either had 

difficulty and learned through their dysfunction, or they have been 

trained and they come from that world and they understand. So it 

is a fundamentally different animal than these other programs. 

I am here to tell you, we have always seen huge numbers of 

homeless vets and vets in the criminal justice system after war, 

and we are seeing it now like we have seen it every time before, 

and we have multiple wars. So these veterans’ courts need to ramp 

up and be ready quickly for a large influx. 

Chairman WHITEHOUSE. Senator Klobuchar. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Sheen, I want to thank you for following in the footsteps of 

many former Presidents when they leave the Oval Office or leave 

the Oval Office set to pursue very important causes, and I just 

wondered why you had many things that you could have pursued 

as your cause and why you chose drug courts. 

Mr. SHEEN. Well, thank you, Senator. I would just say, quite 

frankly, that is an extension of my work with the peace and justice 

community. Social justice, it is, I think, incumbent on all of us to 

participate in, to bring healing where we can, to bring understanding, to bring some light in areas where there is a great darkness, and this was just a natural progression of my work in the 

peace and justice era. 

Dr. Marlowe’s description is quite extraordinary and gets right to 

the point of what Senator Blumenthal was talking about. I read 

that Times article yesterday, and as I mentioned, I was with Judge 

Russell yesterday, who initiated that first court, and he is quoted 

in that article about that gentleman and the parameters surrounding that horrible situation when he was in the woods out in 

Michigan with a gun and there were officers surrounding the area 

and felt they were being shot at and their lives were in danger. 

And this veteran, this fellow is alive and is getting help now, and 

those officers have actually dropped all their charges as well. It is 

an extraordinary level of compassion and understanding about 

what that guy in the woods alone with a gun was going through. 

He was back in Iraq, three tours, he lived with that extraordinary 

anxiety and tension and adrenaline. 

We have no idea, no comprehension at all of what that is like in 

a combat zone, and, we are in three countries now where it is just 

everyday normal life, and a lot of these men and women are serving multiple tours. 

24 

So we have to be aware of that, and, it is going to cost us. But 

anything of great value is going to be costly; otherwise, you are left 

to question its value. When I think of the work that drug courts 

are doing, I am reminded of the old Irish tale about the guy who 

came to the gates of heaven and asked to be let in, and St. Peter 

said, ‘‘Of course, just show us your scars.’’ And the guy says, ‘‘I 

have no scars.’’ And St. Peter said, ‘‘What a pity. Was there nothing worth fighting for? ’’ 

I cannot think of anything in the social justice and peace era 

today more worth fighting for than drug court. It just goes to the 

center of this issue in a deeply compassionate, understanding, and 

humane way, and I think it is the only way out, frankly. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you very much. 

Mr. SHEEN. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Dr. Marlowe, do you want to respond to 

some of the things that Dr. Muhlhausen had pointed out? When we 

look at this cost-effective issue, as we are engaging in a process 

right now in Washington where we have to bring our debt down 

and we are looking at smarter solutions in the criminal justice 

area, I have always found that people can be surprised. Sometimes 

there are ways to spend less money but actually get better results. 

Could you talk about that? 

Mr. MARLOWE. Yes. The research on the cost effectiveness of 

drug court is actually pretty powerful research conducted by independent organizations, and they have found, as I said earlier, that 

for every dollar invested, the average—if I do not know anything 

else about a drug court, I just know it is a drug court. If I have 

to guess how much I am going to get back for my money, for every 

dollar that I put in, I am going to get about $2.21 back. And if it 

is a particularly good drug court, I may get $3, $5, $12, $27 back. 

Now, as for the Multisite Drug Court Evaluation that was just 

published, they found that the average net benefit for drug court 

was just short of $6,000 per participant. Now, if drug courts are 

treating 120,000 participants and they are turning an average return on investment of $6,000 per participant—I might need a calculator to figure out how much money we would be saving, and if 

we hit the 1.2 million people that we should be serving, I would 

definitely need a calculator to figure out how much money we are 

saving. 

The way we do it now is we use incarceration as our primary response. It has no effect, but at least it has the saving grace of being 

enormously expensive. We have drug courts which are about, in 

some respects, a tenth of the cost of incarceration and many times 

better. 

So I actually would suggest to you that it is pretty common that 

doing too much tends to make people worse and also tends to cost 

too much money. If you bring a sledgehammer to knock in a thumb 

tack, you are going to do more damage than you need to, and picking a better hammer and a better tool and doing a more intelligent 

job is going to be a lot less expensive and is going to save you 

money. 

These are not speculative cost savings. These cost savings occur 

in the same budget year or the immediately ensuing budget year. 

You get your money back within 24 months. That is money to the 

25 

criminal justice system. I am not talking about, you know, foster 

care, saving children from losing their families. I am not talking 

about all those distal costs. I am talking about money back to the 

criminal justice system because he is not in jail, the police are not 

out arresting him. I do not have to have ten violation of probation 

hearings. I do not have to waste all the costs of having the prosecutor and defense counsel in the courtroom. I am saving all of that 

money right away. That is why drug courts have expanded as 

much as they have. The Federal Government seeds a program—it 

is rare for the Federal Government to seed a drug court and the 

State or locality does not pick it up after the Federal funding ends. 

That is a rare event when they do not pick it up. They are not picking up the costs out of inertia. They are not doing it out of the 

goodness of their hearts. They are doing it because they are saving 

an enormous amount of money. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. I just wanted to end—I will maybe have 

one more question when we come back and talk about the drug 

court graduations, and I have been at a number of them. And I 

know when we first started our drug court, there were a lot of 

issues with the police not supporting it, and we actually made some 

changes with taking some of the gun crimes out of there and some 

of the things where I believe prison was appropriate. And over the 

years, we gained the support of the police for that court, and it 

made a big difference because they realized there was actually follow-up as opposed to someone just being lost in the system because 

they had what was perceived as a more minor crime, but it was 

not minor for those kids that were standing out there trying to go 

to school and then get people on drugs getting in their path and 

potentially getting them on drugs. And what happened was that 

they started to see that with the drug court there was actual follow-up. They would have to come in. They would have to have the 

drug test. There would be a stick at the end if they did not comply. 

And it just was interesting to see the evolution with law enforcement through that time when I was county authority, so thank you 

very much. 

One more thing, yes. 

Mr. MARLOWE. Just one point about it. Remember I said some 

drug courts cut crime rates in half? The best drug courts? Those 

are the ones that have law enforcement on their team. That is one 

of the biggest findings, that law enforcement on the team increases 

the outcomes multi-fold, and I think for the reasons you suggest. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you. 

Chairman WHITEHOUSE. The dark cloud of budget and debt concerns that lies over Washington right now is a very real thing, and 

it is very important. But I would like to ask Mr. Sheen and Judge 

LaFazia, who seem to have the most personal experience with 

these courts, to talk a little bit about the intangible and non-monetary value that you see in what happens in a drug court and what 

we hope will also happen in a veterans’ court as the individual involved has to come to the difficult recognition and reconciliation of 

the wreckage that they have often made of their own lives, realize 

that a transformation is necessary, and start the hard and courageous path of recovery. That is a rather special human accomplishVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:38 Jan 06, 2012 Jkt 071696 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\71696.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
26 

ment, and I would like you to put that in the context of what you 

see every day in the drug courts. 

Mr. SHEEN. Thank you, Senator. My own personal experience 

with drug court, besides lobbying here in Washington on occasion, 

is confined to the State of California, which is no small spot on the 

map, but I have been a supporter of the Compton drug court, south 

of Los Angeles, with Judge DeShazer, as well as the downtown 

drug court in Los Angeles and the Bay Area courts, including 

Judge Stephen, who is here now—sorry, Stephen Manley. He will 

never forgive me. I am sorry. I have been a great supporter of his 

court as well as the Berkeley and Oakland courts. 

What I see so often are the drug courts focus on low-income, 

homeless, fixed-income people on the short end of the ladder. Very 

often they have public defenders. The across-the-board rule is that 

they are very rarely represented by a lawyer that they have to pay. 

They are generally all wards of the State at that point. So when 

they stand in front of a compassionate, understanding judge and 

they are offered a very fundamental choice: ‘‘Mister, I am going to 

put you in the State penitentiary for 3 years, or I am going to give 

you an opportunity to turn your life around in treatment that you 

can start today. What is your choice? ’’ Ninety-nine percent of those 

defendants will say, ‘‘Give me the treatment.’’ 

When you see them come in, I mean, they are right off their mug 

shots, you know. When they come dragging into court, they are still 

wearing the orange jumper, and they are generally in chains. Then 

you come back over a period of months, and you witness this gradual, extraordinary change where a human being is emerging from 

this chaos, this baggage that has been discarded, thrown away, 

where you see that they had no self-motivation, that they were totally dependent on the next hit or the next shot or the next drink. 

To see that development of a human being flower and reach its 

potential and then turn to the community after graduation, which 

usually takes a year of very hard, intense rehabilitation and 12- 

stepping, and begin to serve those people coming out of the cages 

in the orange jumpers and in the shackles, it is that turn toward 

the brother, the sister that is just coming out of the cage, and the 

look that they have with each other, it is like what veterans have 

that Dr. Marlowe was talking about. There is a jailhouse dialog. 

There is an understanding, a street dialog. There is a drug culture. 

And when it is broken, that has a miraculous effect. 

You know, the old saying is, ‘‘All you need for an AA meeting are 

two drunks, a pot of coffee, and a lot of resentment.’’ And that really has not changed. It is a deeply personal contact with one drug 

addict talking to another one that has come out of that same cell 

and that same uniform. And the hope, the possibility of returning 

to their humanity and then the service back to the community. 

The last step in all 12-step programs is we reach out to those 

still out there, and it is said that the only way to keep anything 

of real value is to give it away with love. And that is the basic, fundamental work of drug court. 

Chairman WHITEHOUSE. Judge LaFazia, hold that thought and I 

will come back to you. But my time is up, so we go back to Senator 

Blumenthal for a second round, and that will be my question in our 

second round to you. 

27 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

You know, I would like to follow up on some of the answers that 

have been given, especially the description of the training and 

preparation that goes into preparing a warrior to go into particularly modern-day battle where people come back from explosive situations that they might have even survived in past wars, and come 

back with wounds that are undiagnosed and, therefore, untreated. 

And so I think my question is: How do we prepare the courts, 

the law enforcement professionals, and others who are involved in 

this system for dealing with those individuals who may be within 

their jurisdiction and they may not fully understand? 

Mr. MARLOWE. The armed services have training curricula and 

interventions specifically for this purpose, training law enforcement, training judges. First of all, how do you recognize an invisible wound? How do you recognize somebody who has post traumatic stress disorder? What do you look for? What are the symptoms? What do you ask people to identify? The reality is all you 

have to do is ask the right questions, and in 3 to 5 minutes you 

will know. But if you do not ask those questions, you absolutely 

will never know. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. And what are the right questions? 

Mr. MARLOWE. Asking somebody if they get startled. Do you ever 

find that you get startled? Does anything make you, you know, like 

all of a sudden you turned quickly? If there is a slight movement 

in the courtroom, watch the veteran in the courtroom when there 

is some movement in the back of the room, and they turn to that 

movement because if they did not turn to that movement in Afghanistan or Iraq, they could very well be dead. In the courtroom 

what they may very well have done is set up an altercation or a 

negative situation. So you are looking for that startled response, 

you are looking for that hypervigilance, and you are looking for the 

hollowness. 

When you are that damaged, when you are that broken, when 

you feel that bad, you are not sure anybody can help you. In fact, 

you are pretty sure nobody can. You are pretty sure you are probably going to die, and you are not entirely sure you care. Looking 

for that broken, empty affect in people, almost the apathy, sort of 

like whatever happens happens kind of thing when you push on it, 

those are not hard to diagnose. They are not hard to detect, and 

we can train very reliably law enforcement and judges and police 

to do it. But if they are not trained, they do not see it. And so they 

think the guy is just being aggressive when he is really not. He is 

startled. They think the guy is being a wise guy and not answering 

him, when, in fact, they are just being obedient to a superior in 

uniform. They need to be trained, they need to be sensitized to it. 

I have a colleague who does it for the Navy. I just met somebody 

here in DC at our NADCP conference who does it for the Air Force. 

There are training curricula. We need to get it out to the judges 

in every State and every county, and we can do that. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Judge, did you have anything to add? 

Judge LAFAZIA. I do not want to repeat what he said, but in 

Rhode Island, our law enforcement for a couple of years now have 

been participating in something that we call a first responder program, which was originally initiated to allow them to address menVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:38 Jan 06, 2012 Jkt 071696 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\71696.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
28 

tal health issues right at the beginning of the scene, and they are 

trained to defuse dangerous situations. And now into that program 

we have put a component on recognizing veterans and the veterans’ 

issues in order to de-escalate it at the very beginning. 

I think the training is critical for every stakeholder involved in 

this process, but in addition to the training, I think that public 

education is also important, particularly from a court’s point of 

view on some of these cases. There is a ripeness for negative public 

perception. There is an issue out there or a potential for people to 

think this is a free pass, for people to think that people are not 

being held accountable. And there is a safety aspect part of it. 

There was mention before as to the DUIs which play a very big 

role in all of these courts, driving under the influence. In Rhode Island, we call them DUIs. They are ripe for public scrutiny when 

you bring somebody through this and they get taken out of the 

criminal justice system or they get a lesser sentence. If that person 

re-offends—and that possibility is always there, and God forbid 

somebody is injured, that will come right back to us on the front 

page of the paper. So you need to have some more public understanding as well as training for the stakeholders. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. And probably some training for the State 

legislators and Congressmen as well. 

Judge LAFAZIA. And that also, I suppose, yes. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thank you. 

Judge LAFAZIA. Thank you. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I would 

like to submit for the record later a copy of the New York Times 

article that has been referenced a couple of times by Mr. Sheen and 

Dr. Marlowe and the previous witness, if I may. 

Chairman WHITEHOUSE. Without objection, it will be included in 

the record. 

[The article appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman WHITEHOUSE. Let me go back to Judge LaFazia, if you 

wanted to add anything to Mr. Sheen’s remarks, and let me also 

ask you: How has it been dealing with the Veterans Administration 

in terms of the coordination with this particular means of serving 

veterans? 

Judge LAFAZIA. The Veterans Administration has played a critical role in this project in Rhode Island from the beginning. They 

have been supportive in every step of the process, including confirming identification of veterans if they get a call from police departments to the roles that they are playing in the court, the services that they are providing. They have been excellent on emergency care, on getting people in very, very quickly for assessment. 

So they have been a wonderful partner in this project. 

Chairman WHITEHOUSE. They get it. 

Judge LAFAZIA. They get it. They absolutely get it. 

Chairman WHITEHOUSE. And they play well with others. 

Judge LAFAZIA. And they do play well with others, and they have 

been cooperative and supportive and have had some good initiatives that they themselves have brought to the table for us. 

The one thing that I would add to what Mr. Sheen said is that 

when these veteran defendants are coming into the court one of our 

biggest challenges has been to identify them, because many of 

29 

them do not want to be identified as military or veterans. There 

is a shame element that accompanies them, and they have come 

from a background of rules and regulations and living and respecting those rules and regulations, and now they have found themselves in a very different situation. So that has been one of the 

challenges that we have had to deal with. 

They have, however, been very, very motivated. Most of them 

have remembered what their family lives were like beforehand, 

what their lives in general were like beforehand, and they have 

been very, very motivated to get into the programs. They have welcomed the treatment that has been given. There is nothing perhaps 

that motivates people like finding themselves in the criminal justice system. And when that option is given, it motivates and it 

works. And I will be happy to celebrate any motivation and any 

success story that is there. 

Chairman WHITEHOUSE. Senator Klobuchar. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Very good. I just had one question, and I 

wondered if any of you can answer it. We have significant Native 

American populations in our State, and I wondered to what extent 

drug courts are serving Native American populations, and if it is 

not very high how that could change. Anyone? 

Mr. MARLOWE. There is a number of what are called tribal healing to wellness courts. These are tribal courts, so they are not part 

of the U.S. court system. They are a separate court system, and 

they use what are called healing to wellness principles, so it is a 

administered by community elders, and involves a lot of community-based interventions, a lot of emphasis on spirituality, you 

know, our history and how what has happened to us in our history 

has contributed to our lot and to the devastation of our community. 

There is a lot of emphasis on giving back, a lot of restitution. 

NADCP does training for them. We do technical assistance. We 

have members from the tribal community on our board. They are 

at our conferences, and they are very active parts of the drug court 

community, the drug court world. 

Now, do we need more of them? Absolutely. Probably in the tribal community we are hitting probably 5 or 10 percent of the problem, like we are hitting 5 or 10 percent of the problem everywhere. 

But we have the knowledge, and the skills to do so. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Anyone else? 

[No response.] 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. All right. Thank you. 

Chairman WHITEHOUSE. All right. Let me call the hearing to a 

conclusion. I want to thank each of the witnesses for their testimony here today and for their contribution to our common effort 

to pursue the types of efficiencies, to put it coldly, and transformations, to put it a little bit more enlivenedly, that the drug 

court mechanism can provide and to expand that mechanism of 

community support and finding alternatives to direct veterans back 

out of the criminal justice system and in an effective way. 

So I really appreciate the testimony of everyone and the presence 

of so many people who have worked so hard on this issue in the 

room as well. 

So as I said earlier, the record of the hearing will stay open for 

an additional week, and if anybody wishes to add to it, they just 

30 

simply need to send in their materials, but subject to that, the 

hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:11 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Questions and answers and submissions follow.] 

31 


71696.001
32 


71696.002
33 


71696.003
34 


71696.004
35 


71696.005
36 


71696.006
37 


71696.007
38 


71696.008
39 


71696.009
40 


71696.010
41 


71696.011
42 


71696.012
43 


71696.013
44 


71696.014
45 


71696.015
46 


71696.016
47 


71696.017
48 


71696.018
49 


71696.019
50 


71696.020
51 


71696.021
52 


71696.022
53 


71696.023
54 


71696.024
55 


71696.025
56 


71696.026
57 


71696.027
58 


71696.028
59 


71696.029
60 


71696.030
61 


71696.031
62 


71696.032
63 


71696.033
64 


71696.034
65 


71696.035
66 


71696.036
67 


71696.037
68 


71696.038
69 


71696.039
70 


71696.040
71 


71696.041
72 


71696.042
73 


71696.043
74 


71696.044
75 


71696.045
76 


71696.046
77 


71696.047
78 


71696.048
79 


71696.049
80 


71696.050
81 


71696.051
82 


71696.052
83 


71696.053
84 


71696.054
85 


71696.055
86 


71696.056
87 


71696.057
88 


71696.058
89 


71696.059
90 


71696.060
91 


71696.061
92 


71696.062
93 


71696.063
94 


71696.064
95 


71696.065
96 


71696.066
97 


71696.067
98 


71696.068
99 


71696.069
100 


71696.070
101 


71696.071
102 


71696.072
103 


71696.073
104 


71696.074