The author(s) shown below used Federal funds provided by the U.S.

Department of Justice and prepared the following final report:

Document Title: Analysis of 26 Drug Courts: Lessons Learned,

Final Report

Author(s): Michael W. Finigan Ph.D. ; Shannon M. Carey

Ph.D.

Document No.: 194046

Date Received: 04/30/2002

Award Number: Commissioned Paper

This report has not been published by the U.S. Department of Justice.

To provide better customer service, NCJRS has made this Federallyfunded grant final report available electronically in addition to

traditional paper copies.

Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect

the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
I, 

PROPERTY OF 

National Criminal Justice Referen& Service (NCJRS) 

Box 6000 

&ckvi!le. MD 20849-6000 

www.npcresearch.com 

Analysis of 26 Drug 

Courts: Lessons Learned 

I 

Final Report 

Submitted to 

Janice Munsterman 

Project Officer 

National Institute of Justice 

Submitted by 

Michael W. Finigan, Ph.D. 

Shannon M. Carey, Ph.D. 

NPC Research, inc. 

5200 SW Macadam Ave., Suite 

420 

Portland, Oregon 97201 

fax: (503) 243-2454 

e-mai I: 

f inigan @npcresearch.com 

(503) 243-2436 

4, ' 
December 11,2001 
# 

.... . I I 

Table of Contents 

Section J: Issues and problems in iinpleinentation 2 

1 . Contextual issues .......................................................................................................... 2 

Issue # 1 : Lack of cooperation among collaborators .................................................... 2 

Issue # 3: The balance of rewards and sanctions .......................................................... 4 

Issue # 4: Problems with transitions through program phases ..................................... 5 

Issue # 5: Developing an effective MIS ....................................................................... 6 

I1 . Implementation issues ................................................................................................. 7 

Issue # 6: Lack of consistencv in program deliverv ..................................................... 7 

Issue# 7: Screening and assessment instruments issues ............................................... 8 

Issue # 8: Smaller numbers of participants than expected ........................................... 9 

Issue #9: Larger numbers of participants than expected ............................................ 10 

Issue #I 0: Lack of proerain resources ........................................................................ 10 

Issue # 1 1 :Turnover of personnel ................................................................................ 11 

Issue #12:Urinalvsis issues ......................................................................................... 12 

Issue #I 3:Hjgli incidents of’bench warrants .............................................................. 12 

e ............................................................. 

Issue # 2: Need for a system of graduated sanctions .................................................... 3 

.. 

. 

Section IT: Notable progani practices .............................................................................. 13 

Gender specific case management ................................................................................. 13 

Pu bl i c re 1 at i on s .............................................................................................................. 13 

.. 

! Aftercare 13 ........................................................................................................................ 

Screening and Assessments ........................................................................................... 13 

Urine Testing ................................................................................................................. 14 

Adjunct Resources ......................................................................................................... 14 

Close Cooperation between the Court and the treatment pro\ ider ................................ 14 

Satellite office for drug court ......................................................................................... 14 

Public defenders ............................................................................................................ 14 

Section 111: Intermediate Outcomes and measurement/evaluation issues ......................... 15 

Recidivism ..................................................................................................................... 15 

Graduatjon Rates ........................................................................................................... 15 

Other intermediate outcomes: ........................................................................................ 16 

Mental Health issues .................................................................................................. 16 

Characteristics of graduates versus non-graduates ..................................................... 16 

Evaluating the Evaluations ............................................................................................ 16 

Section IV: Lessons Learned and Recomi7iendations ....................................................... 17 

Appendix A: Mapping the Courts on Key Questions ....................................................... 20 0 
he purpose of this report is to analyze the content of 26 different process T evaluations of drug courts across the country using a lessons learned approach. 

The stress is not on simple descriptions of the reports or the programs but on key 

issues that can be identified to inform drug court policy and guide fUrther program 

development. In particular, this report focuses on the following: 

Section I: Issues and problems in implementation. 

This section summarizes the major issues in implementation being reported by the drug 

court evaluators. 

Section 11: Notable programmatic strengths and practices. 

This section identifies some notable programmatic practices reported in the evaluations. 

Section 111: Intermediate outcomes and measurement/evaluation issues 

This section discusses some intermediate outcomes that were reported and discusses 

issues of measurement and evaluation in drug court research. 

Section IV: Lessons learned and recommendations 

This final section summarizes some of the lessons that can be learned from these reports 

to help guide new courts in implementing drug court programs. 

I 

BACKGROUND 

In the past decade, interest has grown in the effectiveness of integrating substance abuse 

treatment and criminal justice within models of collaborative justice. The collaborative 

justice approach posits that substance abuse treatment in a criminal population is most 

effective when elements of the court system, law enforcement system, and treatment 

system work together as a team. Drug courts have been the most popular version of this 

approach. Drug courts can be defined as dedicated courtrooms that provide judicially 

monitored treatment, drug testing and other services to drug involved offenders.' The first 

drug court began operations in Dade County, Florida, in 1989. Since then the drug court 

movement has grown dramatically with over 438 drug courts nationwide. 

This report reviews process evaluations from 26 drug courts funded by the Drug Court 

Program Office. These reports varied widely in their scope, their methodology, and their 

quality. Since this review is dependent on the 26 evaluations that were conducted for its 

findings, its conclusions and recommendations are defined by the limits of those studies. 

Due to these limits, there are many issues relevant to developing effective drug courts, or 

to understanding their effectiveness, (e.g., costs) that cannot be addressed or cannot 

thoroughly be addressed in this report. This report's purpose is not to summarize all the 

information provided in the various evaluations or to judge the courts individually in 

terms of their success. We may, for example, ignore the many positive (but typical) 

achievements of a particular court in order to focus on a problem area that is of interest, 

because the drug court field can learn a lesson from this problem. Therefore, it should not 

' Steven Belenko, Research on Drug Courts: A Critical Review, National Drug Court Institute Review, Vol. I 

issue 1, Summer, 1988. p. 3. 

Analysis of 26 Drug Courts: 

Lessons Learned 

1 NPC Research 

December 2001 
be concluded that because we cite a problem issue in a particular drug court that this 

implies that the court is not meeting its goals. The purpose of this report is to glean fiom 

the work of 26 program evaluators some insights into emerging problems and issues in 

order to inform the &her development of policy and program. ’ 

Section I: Issues and problems in implementation 

In the following sections, key issues are identified and individual court examples are 

noted. Not every instance of a particular issue is cited, but examples are given so that the 

reader has a feel for the nature and range of the issue. 

I. Contextual issues 

1 These are issues that operate in the environment for a drug court that can dramatically 

influence the chances of its effective implementation and success. These issues can be 

best addressed in the planning phase for a new drug court. 

Issue # I: Lack of cooperation among collaborators 

Many programs reported difficulties gaining the cooperation of important parts of the 

judicial or criminal justice system. 

In New Orleans, one of the greatest barriers to successful implementation 

was the lack of cooperation fiom the District Attorney’s Office. In the preimplementation period, the district attorney promised cooperation with the 

drug court, but the nature of the cooperation was not clearly defined. In 

practice, the district attorney’s office has taken a long time to process the 

drug court relevant cases. As a result, the drug court judge admits a client 

into the program believing the charges against him will be pursued. Then 

after a period of time, with the client in drug court, the district attorney’s 

office dismisses the charges, undercutting the drug court work, This last 

sentence is a recommendation. None of your other examples have them. Do 

you want to take it out and put it in the recommendation section?) 

All of the Bernalilio County courts reported the need for increased 

coordination and cooperation among different partners involved in drug 

court programs. The Santa Fe adult court reported numerous and 

uncoordinated changes in policies and procedures by various key system 

partners that hampered the effective operation of the drug court. The Santa 

Fe Juvenile Court reported a serious lack of cooperation between the 

Juvenile Probation Office and the drug court team. The Bernalilio county 

adult DWI/Drug Court reported that its advisory board composed of key 

players in the system met too infrequently to be of use and that its staff were 

often called away fiom its drug court duties to attend to other system 

demands such as budget hearings, grant meetings and media requests. 

The Gary City Drug Court reported that its treatment provider staff did not 

cooperate fully in staffing sessions at the court. In response, there was a 

period in which the court tried to operate without staffing sessions but this 

0 

0 

Analysis of 26 Drug Courts: 

Lessons Learned 

L 

December 2001 
, 

’ /,,1 

was not effective and the stafing sessions were re-introduced with increased 

commitment and cooperation. 

The First Judicial District Drug Court of Santa Fe reported uneven coordination 

and cooperation among drug court stakeholders. The evaluation suggested 

(without naming them) that some stakeholders were much more invested in the 

drug court process than others and that this limited the court’s effectiveness. 

The Third Judicial District Juvenile Drug Court (Santa Fe) evaluation 

reported a lack of coordination between the Juvenile Probation Office and 

the drug court staff. 

On the other hand, the San Joaquin County drug court process evaluation 

interviews revealed that collaboration among the key components of the 

judicial and criminal justice systems was central to its success. The 

prosecutor and defense council have shed their traditional adversarial roles 

and have agreed in practice to work together as a team to place and keep the 

individual in drug court. 

Summary: The issue of cooperation among key stakeholders was one of the most 

frequent implementation problems discussed. The presence of cooperation was cited as a 

key component of successful implementation and its absence noted as a key contribution 

to problems in implementation. 

Recommendation: Simply gaining vaguely worded formal agreements of cooperation may 

not be sufficient. Developing clear and specific protocols for cooperation among the key 

collaborators is essential for the successful implementation of drug courts. Likewise, 

spending time and resources gaining genuine “buy in” among the collaborating line staff in 

the early phases of implementation can result in more successful long-term cooperation. 

Issue # 2: Need for a system of graduated sanctions 

One major difference between the criminal justice model and the treatment model lies in 

the imposition of sanctions for failure to comply. Criminal justice environments tend to 

demand strict compliance for diversion type programs and view failure to comply as 

grounds for conviction and jail. Treatment environments tend to see failure to comply as 

an element in the therapeutic process and are more tolerant of its occurrence. 

The San Joaquin County Drug Court is struggling with a disagreement 

among the district attorney’s office, the court, and treatment staff concerning 

how to handle failure to comply. The district attorney wants to terminate the 

client and impose the required jail time while the court and treatment 

provider want to allow for second chances. This is a common disagreement 

and its lack of resolution tends to drive a wedge between the drug court 

program and the district attorney’s office. A series of graduated sanctions 

might resolve this conflict to everyone’s satisfaction. 

The Orange County Juvenile Drug Court case manager reported noncompliance in what was termed “violation” reports. However, the court 

interpreted these reports as serious incidents requiring the youth’s 

Analysis of 26 Drug Courts: 

Lessons Learned 

J 

December 2001 
termination from the program. By re-labeling the reports as “noncompliance” reports the case manager was able to get the court to respond in 

a case-by-case manner. Again an up-front working system of graduated 

sanctions may be a better solution. 

0 The Syracuse Community Treatment Court evaluation reported a great deal 

of inconsistency in the judge’s implementation of sanctions on failure to 

comply, the judge reserving complete case-by-case discretion. In this case 

the judge appeared to be unwilling to impose threatened criminal justice 

sanctions, thus undercutting their credibility. 

, 

,I I 

Summary: One major issue related to cooperation among collaborators is how to handle 

non-compliance. Realistically, an interpretation of noncompliance as program failure could 

lead to a small graduating class. Nonetheless, a completely lenient attitude removes much of, 

the sure and swift consequences that are central to the success of judicial oversight. Several 

of these programs reported conflicts among collaborators concerning this issue. 

Recommendation: Developing a system of graduated sanctions in the early phases of 

drug court planning that can be consistently applied but allow room for judicial discretion 

could avoid many of these problems. One of the most difficult problems for the drug 

court concept is that it creates a new role for the judge. Judges are used to a role that 

allows them great discretion in how they implement rewards or sanctions. Judges resent 

being bound by protocols that limit their authority. Yet, for programs to be effective, 

judges have to cooperate with and be in-sync with other members of the drug court team, 

including the district attorney’s office and the providers. 

Issue # 3: The balance of rewards and sanctions 

Most courts impose some sort of sanctions for non-compliance and most operate at least 

informally on verbal rewards for compliance. Few seem to have thought through their 

systems and few seemed to have thought through the balance between rewards and 

sanctions. For example: 

0 The Syracuse Community Treatment Court judge is equally likely to assign 

a reward as a sanction in court. However, the (intensity of response differs 

greatly. The Court adopted a range of sanctions from increase in the 

frequency of drug testing to termination of the program. The rewards are 

largely verbal, including applause and positive words. 

The Chester County (PA) imposes sanctions such as intensifjhg 

supervision or treatment and incentives are primarily praise and 

recognition. 

The Dallas DIVERT drug court program has a wide range of incremental 

sanctions that are clearly spelled out. Included in this is a Zero Tolerance 

phase in which the client is under strict compliance or faces jail time as the 

next sanction. No reward system seems to be in place. 

The Ithaca Drug Treatment Court has sanctions that range from verbal 

admonishments and seating in a jury box during judicial reviews to 

0 

0 

Analysis of 26 Drug Courts: 

Lessons Learned 

4 

December 2001 
increased probation supervision and jail time. Rewards are mostly verbal 

although may include decreased supervision. 

Summary: It continues to be difficult for programs to have sanctions and rewards that 

are symmetrical. Rewards tend to be verbal and personal, while sanctions tend to be 

criminal justice sanctions. The criminal justice sanctions are often severe, ranging from 

increased supervision to jail time. Few programs appear to have thought through in a 

systematic way their continuum of responses to client behaviors. Minor behavior 

problems should elicit minor sanctions, minor positive behaviors should elicit minor 

positive rewards. Conversely as the negative or positive behavior grows in importance, 

the sanction or reward should be appropriate. This lack of a systematic plan may 

, influence consistency in the program, since some judges may be unwilling to implement 

,$be harsher criminal justice sanctions. 

Recommendation: Develop a balanced system of sanctions and rewards in the early 

phases of drug court planning that can be consistently applied. 

, 

Issue # 4: Problems with transitions through program phases 

The Drug Court model usually involves a program of three or more phases. Programs 

differed widely in the length of the phases and the components of each phase but were 

common in their movement from more intense phases to less intense phases. At this time 

it is hard to comment on issues of the appropriate length or characteristics of phases from 

these reports. Yet one major issue that does surface in the reports is the question of how 

to transition clients from one phase to another. For example: 

0 The Third judicial district drug court (juvenile) in Santa Fe graduates its 

clients from one phase to another as a cohort. While the idea of having a 

cohort move through the program together has some merit, the practical 

effect is that some individuals are passed on to the next phase before they 

necessarily have earned that right. For example, one individual had 9 positive 

out of 10 urinalysis tests and yet was passed on to phase 2 because the cohort 

had reached its assigned number of calendar weeks. 

The Jefferson Parish Intensive Probation Drug Court in Louisiana abandoned 

a point system for advancement to phases and instead adopted set time 

periods for the phases. The primary reason for this appears to be that the 

point system was viewed as too time-consuming for the court. 

The Syracuse Community Treatment Court adopted a system of four phases: 

an initial orientation phase, a stabilization phase, a case management and a 

community transition phase. However, the process evaluation suggests that 

only phase 1 (orientation) and phase 4 (graduation) are distinct. There is little 

consistency in the other two phases, which, of course, represent the main part 

of the program. Therefore, other than beginning and graduating they have no 

clear means of assessing appropriate transitions. They are currently working 

on a “report card” system to provide clearer phases and transitions. 

0 

0 

Analysis of 26 Drug Courts: 

Lessons Learned 

5 NPC Research 

December 2001 
I 

*A,/ LH, 

I 

Summary: While many drug courts have adopted a system of progression through the 

program based on phases, several of the process evaluations mentioned that these phases 

were either not clearly defined andor the transition between the phases was not 

operationalized in a manner that assured that clients were advancing through the program. 

, 

Recommendation: In planning a drug court care needs to be taken in defining and 

operationalizing a phase model. Graduating to another phase should be based on merit 

and represent a completion of the program related to the client’s ultimate success If 

graduation is simply a matter of spending a certain amount of time in drug court and not 

based on some measure of client progress, graduation rates may climb, but the relation 

between graduation and positive client outcomes will be diluted. 

, 

,Issue # 5: Developing an efsective MIS 

One of the most common issues that these evaluations reported as a significant barrier for 

their program was difficulty in developing an MIS. For example: 

The First Judicial District Drug Court in Santa Fe reported difficulties arising 

from a frequent revision of MIS forms and the fact that there was no 

standardization of forms making it difficult to use the information system. 

The Third Judicial District Drug Court in Santa Fe reported that the lack of 

standardized urinalysis records, frequent missing data and no automated data 

system hampered its ability to operate effectively. 

The Third Judicial District Drug Court (Santa Fe) evaluation also reported 

the lack of an automated database, although they reported efforts to adopt the 

adult database to the juvenile system. 

The Bernalilio County Metropolitan DWI/Drug Court decried its lack of an 

automated database system. It reported difliculties in effective 

implementation that can be traced to the court’s lack of standardized data 

collection forms, lack of standardized assessment instruments and lack of 

any system to track and monitor clients through the system. 

The Syracuse Community Treatment Court experienced continuing delays in 

the development of an MIS and was forced to conduct assessments on its 

own and re-enter them for the Court staff. 

The Montgomery County (Dayton, Ohio) Drug Court depended on its MIS to 

develop a statewide database for drug courts through a grant received by the 

Ohio Supreme Court from the U.S. Department of Justice. The Ohio 

Supreme Court contracted with the University of Cincinnati to develop this 

standardized database. Although the University did develop five different 

standard forms for all drug courts, this has not yet been of help to the 

Montgomery County court. No automated system yet exists for them. The 

database was developed in Access (part of the Microsoft Office package) and 

the court did not have the right computers or software. In addition, the 

court’s past data had not been re-entered in the new system, and there was no 

way to link to its county’s centralized MIS. These factors considerably limit 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Analysis of 26 Drug CounS: 

Lessons Learned 

6 NPC Research 

December 2001 
a the current value of developing statewide system to the court. Its usefulness 

for evaluation or assessment was also deemed questionable. 

0 The Ithaca Drug Treatment Court tried to adopt the successful Buffalo 

COURTS MIS system but found that the version it received (which turned 

out to be a demo) lacked needed data fields and capabilities. Even when that 

confusion was resolved, it was determined that the statewide system was not 

close to implementation. The IDTC then had to begin modifying its current 

database in order to successfully operate. This long, slow, and inefficient 

process of database development is common and is a major distraction in 

resources and time to the successful implementation of drug court. 

Summary: None of the reports really provided a recommendation for a good MIS but 

many implied that a good system would be of great value. While some had implemented 

systems with high potential (such as the Buffalo COURTS system), implementation 

issues remained high. While an effective MIS has the potential to have great value to a 

successful drug court, the efforts to reach that goal have been a major source of 

frustration, lost time, and inefficiency to many courts. 

Recommendation: Finding and developing a useful standardized data collection system 

may be the most important and difficult issues confronting the planning of a drug court. 

Drug Court planners need to not only identify and develop a plan for this at the earliest 

stages, but to also identify resources that can support its implementation. 

11. Implementation issues 

These are issues that the program evaluations reported had effected the implementation 

and success of their drug court plans. It should be noted that some of these examples 

reflect issues previously discussed as relevant to the planning of drug courts. Clearly 

some issues can be relevant for planners but also emerge at implementation. This section 

focuses on issues that can be best addressed by program staff during implementation. 

Issue # 6: Lack of consistency in program delivery. 

As programs struggled to implement the drug court concept, a large number reported a 

lack of consistency in the delivery of the program. 

The Jefferson Parish Intensive Probation Drug Court in Louisiana reported 

that Services are not always delivered in a consistent manner due to high 

turnover of staff. The high turnover undercut the original plan in part 

because many of the original team left. 

The Jefferson Parish Intensive Probation Drug Court in Louisiana also 

reported a frequent inconsistency between the treatment team decisions on 

recommended sanctions for behavior and the judge’s ultimate sanction. In 

this case, judges were often more lenient, undermining the treatment team’s 

recommendations. 

The First Judicial District Drug Court of Santa Fe reported difficulties 

arising from frequent changes in policies and procedures. This not only 

1 

0 

Analysis of 26 Drug Courts: 

Lessons Learned 

7 NPC Research 

December 2001 
affected the workflow but necessitated frequent changes in the data 

collection tools. I 

The Bernalilio County Metropolitan DWI/Drug Court reported that the judge did 

rlot consistently adhere to original eligibility requirements. The judge used his 

discretion to let offenders into a program that he felt might do them some good. 

The Third 'Judicial District Drug Court (juvenile) in Santa Fe reported 

problems arising fiom the lack of standardization of program requirements 

between its two branches at different geographic locations. An individual in 

one branbh was subject to a different set of requirements than an individual 

in the other branch. The client grapevine quickly picked this up, and this led 

to complaints about inconsistencies in standards. 

The Third Judicial District Juvenile Drug Court (Santa Fe) evaluation also 

reported a high number of unexcused absences among program clients 

averaging 3.3 unexcused absences per client. It seemed that clients were not 

reporting for important components of the program and yet would still be 

advanced through the program. No sanctions appeared to be in force. , 

0 

0 

I 

(1 t' 

0 I 

I 

Summary: It is not unusual for programs to have problems in program delivery. It 

should also be noted that programs tend to evolve over time and that this evolution can be 

a strength. However, several of the evaluations reported delivery issues that undercut 

program success. Staff turnover, staff burnout, deviations from fundamental protocols 

and inconsistent implementation can limit success. 

Recommendation: Program staff need to address problems that may produce staff 

burnout and high turnover. In cases where turnover cannot be avoided, programs should 

have clearly defined and written protocols on program process. Ongoing drug court teams 

need to be aware of what impact deviations from the agreed on program model may have 

on program success. 

Issue# 7: Screening and assessment instruments issues 

Courts implemented a wide variety of screening and assessment tools and mostly 

reported no major issues. However, a few courts chose to abandon an early screening and 

assessment process because they felt it wasted resources. For example: 

0 The New Orleans Drug Court and the Amherst Drug Court used no formal 

screening instrument. It was felt that such an instrument created unwarranted 

challenges to the court process. Instead, they chose to have providers conduct 

assessments at time of treatment entry. 

The Montgomery County (Dayton, Ohio) Drug Court found that when they 

screened all the referred individuals, they were spending an enormous 

amount of time screening and referring clients when only 20 percent of its 

referrals were actually getting into drug court. Issues of residing out of 

county, mental health issues, prior records or offender's choosing to take the 

case to trial were deterring referred cases from entering the drug court. 

Analysis of 26 Drug Courts: 

Lessons Learned 

8 NPC Research 

December 2001 
0 The San Joaquin County Drug Court began using the AS1 as an assessment 

tool only when the client demonstrated a failure of sobriety after entering the 

drug court. Thus, not everyone gets this more complete assessment, which 

was one complaint heard in the process interviews. 

Summary: The tendency to shift assessment to the provider obviously reduces costs for 

the court. However, it also reduces the amount of data it can collect on its referral process 

and on its population and shifts control of the assessment process to a provider who may 

have vested interests in how it assesses potential clients. 

Recommendation: Courts need to be careful about the location and content of the 

screening and assessment process. This kind of information is vital to the court’s ability 

to understand its client population and to effectively evaluate its process. 

Issue # 8: Smaller numbers ofparticipants than expected 

Most of the reports suggested that the referral and program entrance numbers were 

smaller than what had been projected. The more egregious examples are as follows: 

The Gary City Drug Court originally was planned for a case flow of 25 new 

participants per week but has found in practice that the actual number is 

about 7 per week. Some of this disparity can be explained by the perception 

among those eligible to participate that drug court is actually harder than 

doing jail time or probation. It is not unusual for an eligible individual to opt 

to do a year of jail rather than a year of drug court. 

, 

0 

0 The Orange County (Florida) Juvenile Drug Court has yet to meet its target 

goal of admitting 160 youths. Of 300 youth who have been referred, in over 

two thirds of the cases either the youth or the family have refused the 

program. The report identifies a solution as better-structured incentives to 

encourage youth and their families to participate. 

The St. Louis 22”d Judicial Circuit Court adopted very loose screening 

mechanisms in order to increase its numbers to meet grant expectations. It 

also expanded the list of acceptable charges to add 18 additional charges 

largely related to burglary, theft, and forgery but also including DWI and 

criminal non-support. This solution increased its numbers but failed to solve 

the problem in the end. Many of these cases were terminated after a short 

period because they were inappropriate for the drug court. More stringent 

screening mechanisms were then adopted, bringing the court back to its 

problem of lower numbers. 

The Syracuse Community Treatment Court targeted about 200 clients a year 

for the program. In a little over 2 years they have averaged only 74 enrolled a 

year. The lack of a coordinator in the first 8 months of operations negatively 

affected referrals. In addition, there seems to be cofision among key sources 

of referrals including the District Attorney and court judges about the referral 

process. Changes in personnel at pretrial services also affected the process. 

0 

Analysis of 26 Drug Courts: 

Lessons Learned 

9 NPC Research 

December 2001 
I 

I 

, ,I 

I 

Summary: There is a tendency for drug court programs to overestimate enrollment 

numbers. Low enrollment is attributed to the difficulty of the program combined with a 

lack of incentives and with confusion in the referral process. Loosening the screening 

mechanism is not an effective solution since some types of clients are not appropriate for 

drug court. 

Recommendation: Bujld appropriate incentives into the program that encourage 

enrollment and make the difficulty of the program worth all the work. Make sure the 

referral process is clearly delineated and explained, verbally and in writing, to the 

participating agencies. I 

I 

Issue #9: Larger numbers of participants than expected 

In spite of the fact that most reports indicated referral levels below what had been 

projected, one report indicated the opposite, with the court overwhelmed by referrals. I 

0 The Montgomery County (Dayton, Ohio) Drug Court had anticipated in the pregrant period a caseload of 113 per year based on referred caseload of 532. In 

fact in 1998 referred caseload for treatment in lieu of conviction doubled to 930, 

making 265 eligible for drug court, which overwhelmed drug court StafY. The 

reasons for this increase were not made clear. The response of the drug court 

was to restrict entrance in to the drug court to fifth degree possession of cocaine. 

They also changed the application process giving an offender 72 hours to apply 

to drug court and assessing them only after they choose to apply. 

Summary: Unanticipated numbers overwhelmed drug court staff. Entrance to the drug 

court program was restricted to a single charge, resulting in manageable numbers. 

Recommendations: There is only one example of this reported. However, this has been a 

problem for other drug courts not covered in this review. Based on this, we would make 

two recommendations: 1) make the eligibility criteria stricter, which the program in this 

example did or 2) write grants for funds to increase program capacitl. 

Issue #I 0: Lack of program resources 

Not surprisingly, given the fact that implementing drug courts is still relative new, many 

program evaluations indicated that the programs did not plan for sufficient resources to 

do all they wanted to do. 

The Jefferson Parish Intensive Probation Drug Court in Louisiana reported 

that it seriously underestimated the time needed for the trial court 

administrator position. 

The Charleston South Carolina Juvenile Drug Court indicated that its staff 

was not spending 100% of its time on drug court cases. In other words, staff 

was drawn to work on tasks outside of the program. 

In New Orleans, employment and GED services originally provided on site 

were not of sufficient scope. Ultimately they used a GED specialist primarily 

for assessment for literacy and referral to off-site services. 

0 

0 

Analysis of 26 Drug Courts: 

Lessons Learned 

10 NPC Research 

December 2001 
I 

I 

t ,I 

, 

0 The Santa Fe 1'' US District Municipal Drug Court initially provided 

childcare for participants, which increased compliance and sense of support 

for the program among participants, but was forced to eliminate the sevice 

due to vandalism and lack of budget. 

The Charleston South Carolina Juvenile Drug Court found that dealing with 

family-related issues was a difficult and time- and resource-consuming 

activity. The court suggests that it is something that best be done well with 

adequate resources or not done at all. 

The Monigomery County (Daytoq, Ohio) Dwg Court found that POs had 

caseloads of 100 or more, which is too large for an intepsive program such as 

a drug court. It suggested that the drug court diversion significantly 

lengthened the time the average offender spent on probation increasing 

caseload. This drug court also suggested'the need for more adequate clerical 

support to handle the intensive paperwork necessary for a drug court. 

0 

I 

t 

I1 0' 

0 

Summary: RCsources are always an issue. However, the experiences of these drug',courts 

suggest that fairly frequently the court has misjudged the resources needed tp engage in a 

certain activity or provide a certain service. 

Recommendation: These experiences should help guide applicants for future funding to 

thoroughly research and then be realistic about what can be accomplished within a certain budget. 

Issue #ll:Turnover of personnel 

Several evaluations reported that turnover in personnel can wreak havoc with 

implementing a drug court program. For example: 

0 In the New Orleans Drug Court a change in the chief judge nearly ended the 

program. 

The Jefferson Parish Intensive Probation Drug Court in Louisiana reported 

that services for the drug court were not delivered in a consistent manner due 

to high staff turnover. 

The Ithaca Drug Treatment Court found that turnover in its coordinator 

position changed the nature of the position. The first individual who 

occupied the position focused on case management, while the second shifted 

to MIS development as a prime focus. The shift was at least partly motivated 

by the differing skills each brought to the position. 

0 

0 

Summary: This is particularly a problem for smaller drug courts. Drug Courts often are 

created by a team of individuals in the court and criminal justice system who become 

excited about the concept as a result of a training or a presentation. These individuals 

provide energy and enthusiasm that help make the court a reality. Unfortunately, this 

often also makes the drug court vulnerable to any turnover that might occur in these roles. 

A new judge, a new district attorney, or a new drug court coordinator, for example, may 

not share the same vision as the original team. 

Analysis of 26 Drug Courts: 

Lessons Learned 

11 NPC Research 

December 2001 
, 

**.*/, 

I 

Recommendation: New drug courts need to learn from these experiences and try to 

institutionalize the court from the very beginning. Clearly defined roles and written 

procedures can help maintain consistency when a new individual steps into a given role. 

Issue #12:Urinalysis issues 

Urinalysis is a mainstay of drug courts. Several evaluations reported problems with 

effective implementation of a urinalysis program. For example: 

0 The First Judicial District Drug Court of Santa Fe evaluation reported that 

urinalysis results were not clearly documented and that, at least from an 

evaluation standpoint, it was not possible to determine whether a sanction 

was imposed because of a positive urinalysis report. 

The Charleston South Carolina Juvenile Drug Court indicated that serious 

delays in receiving its urinalysis results delayed the imposition of sanctions 

weakening the whole program. 

The Syracuse Community Treatment Court found that while local providers 

gave them frequent and timely urine results many out of town providers 

ignored the court. 

0 

0 

Summary: An objective measure of how well a participant is adhering to the program is 

invaluable in determining appropriate sanctions for a participant’s behavior. Lack of 

clearly documented urinalysis results in a timely manner can have a strong detrimental 

effect on the success of a drug court program. 

Recommendation: Programs should either make a point of finding a urinalysis provider 

who will consistently provide the court with timely urinalysis results or hire staff and buy 

equipment to perform the urinalyses in-house. 

Issue #13:High incidents of bench warrants 

0 The Gary City Drug Court reports a high incidence (60%) of bench warrants 

in the first phase of the program, a 35 percent rate in phase 2 and dropping to 

5 percent in phase 3. At that site 70 percent of the individuals who continue 

past the first 90 days complete the program but those who bench warrant in 

the first 60 days rarely complete the program. 

The First Judicial District Drug Court of Santa Fe reported a high rate of 

absconding. Of the 61 individuals who were admitted 29 (nearly half) 

absconded. In addition 12 were terminated leaving only 9 who graduated and 

11 still active. With about two out of three individuals who enter the program 

either abscond or are terminated this is a serious problem for the program. 

This has been a post-adjudication court and the consensus seemed to be that 

a pre-arraignment model might be more successful in motivating retention in 

the program? 

0 

’ It should be noted that this predominately Hispanic group of clients had a modal age category of 19-25 

and a modal drug category of opiates. They are therefor typically young and opiate users, a tough group to 

maintain retention in the program. 

Analysis of 26 Drug Courts: 

Lessons Learned 

12 NPC Research 

December 2001 
, I 

I 

1 I1 

, 

Summary: Absconding, requiring the need for bench warrants, is a common problem in 

drug court programs. This adds fwther expense to drug court processes and is inversely 

correlated with successll completion of the program. 

Recommendation: Build incentives into the program that encourage participant buy-in. 

Consider the eficacy of the pre- versus post-conviction model with the particular 

population served by ybur drug court. I 

Section II: Notable program practices 

, I I1 

In addition to providing important issues and problems in implementation, these process 

reports also highlighted some notable program practices. These include the folloGng: 

Gender specific case management 

, I 

The New Orleans had experienced gender specific training in case 

management and they credited that training with allowing them to be more 

effective with women clients. I 

, 

,I 

Public relations 

0 

Aftercare 

0 

0 

0 

The Santa Fe 1'' US District Municipal Dkug Court established a monthly 

open house held at the court since May of 1998. Over 1000 attorneys, 

community members, public officials, and educators have been invited to 

attend. Guest judges have been invited to sit on the bench with the drug court 

judge in order to showcase the process. These have included the Chief of 

Police, the Lieutenant Governor, city councilors, school board members, and 

other judges, including a tribal judge. 

The Santa Fe 1' US District Municipal Drug Court established a policy of 

no-cost aftercare for graduates. They require participants to attend monthly 

sessions to receive group counseling and acupuncture at no cost. This is 

typically three to six months of no-cost aftercare. 

The Orange County Juvenile Drug Court supplies 30 days of aftercare 

monitoring post-graduation. 

The San Diego County Drug Court observed that some of its participants 

were deliberately sabotaging their success as they neared program 

completion in order to avoid the loss of the support network provided by the 

program. A final phase was added to provide a post-treatment support 

network to alleviate this problem. 

Screening and Assessments 

The Orange County Juvenile Drug Court has developed a Juvenile 

Assessment Center (JAC) for all juveniles arrested in Orange County. At the 

Analysis of 26 Drug Courts: 

Lessons Learned 

13 NFC Research 

December 2001 
I I 

I 

8 II 

I 

JAC, they are assessed by a TASC (Treatment Alternatives for Safer 

Communities) assessor who completes a standardized screening form on the 

youth. Youth who are screened as having a substance abuse problem arq then 

referred to the Addiction Receiving Facility where they undergo three days of 

evaluation to assess treatment need. 

0 The Montgomery County (Dayton, Ohio) Juvenile Drug Court administers 

both the SASS1 screen and a urine test to all adjudicated juveniles. A positive 

result means the juvenile is immediately seen by a nurse assessor who is 

member of the drug court team. A thorough assessment is then done and drug court referrals are made. I1 

I 

, I I 

Urine Testing 

0 Although most drug courts use urine testing as a vehicle to enforce abstinence, , it is often quite costly to implement successfully. There are issues about how 

frequent the testing should be and how many drugs and at what level should be 

screened. The Santa Fe 1'' US District Municipal Drug Court concluded that 

80 percent of its participants were primarily alcohol abusers and elimigated 

urine screens in favor of much less costly random breath tests. ' 

/I ,I 

Adjunct Resources 

0 The Gary City Drug Court established a Family Support Unit designed to 

focus on the social and academic achievement ofthe children of drug court 

participants. The Family Support workers interact with the state family and 

social Services Administration to assist the family reunification process, 

interact with school officials to ensure ac,ademic progress and in general 

work with the children of participants. 

Close Cooperation between the Court and the treatment provider. 

The Amherst Drug Court share ajoint bank account for program funds with 

its treatment provider, and funds can only be accessed through the joint 

signature of the judge and the Court Coordinator (who is an employee of the 

treatment provider.) 

Satellite office for drug court 

0 The Ithaca Drug Treatment Court developed a storefront satellite ofice in a 

central downtown mall with offices for program staff, including probation 

officers. However, hds are insufficient for all the services envisioned. 

Public defenders 

0 The Amherst Drug Court has no assigned public defenders. The Erie Bar 

association provides attorneys for indigent cases. 

Analysis of 26 Drug Courts: 

Lessons Learned 

14 NPC Research 

December 2001 
I 

Section 111: Intermediate Outcomes and 

measurement/evaluation issues 

While these were process evaluation reports and primarily focused on implementation 

issues, several provided some data on intermediate outcomes of their drug courts. The 

two outcomes most often presented in the reports were recidivism and graduation rates. 

Recidivism 

While not always consistent in their definitions of recidivism, all who attempted to 

examine this data focused on re-arrests. Unfortunately, none of those who examined 

subsequent recidivism data were able to compare the results for drug court participants 

with a reasonable comparison group. All who tried compared the results for graduates of 

the program with those who terminated from the program. The problem with this is that 

both graduates and terminators are self-selecting groups. One key element in the 

definition of a graduate of a drug court program is that he/she has avoided arrest during 

the period of the program and one key reason for termination may be a re-arrest. Whether 

graduates can avoid re-arrest after graduation better than a terminator because the drug 

court reoriented their life away from crime or whether graduates are simply those whose 

readiness to change was already so high that they would not have re-offended as often 

anyway is hard to tell from this data. 

Graduation Rates 

The major intermediate outcome measure used by most of the reports is the graduation 

rate. However, there was disagreement among the reports on how that should be 

calculated. Based on the different calculations they often came up with very different 

rates. Most reported the rate as the percentage of successful (graduation) discharge as 

compared to all discharges in a given reporting period. For example: 

The Orange County (Florida) Juvenile Drug Court reported an overall rate of 

successful discharge at 42 percent. 

The problem with this approach is that both graduates and non-graduate discharges may 

bunch together in a particular time period. A set of graduations in a time period may 

reflect participants from many different cohorts (e.g. some who started the program years 

ago and some who graduated quickly). A more accurate approach is to take a cohort of 

individuals (e.g. those who entered the drug court program within a particular fiscal year) 

and follow those individuals until they all graduate or terminate. For example: 

0 The San Joaquin County Drug Court used a cohort analysis to analyze its 

graduation rate. The court reported that 26 percent of the drug court 

participants who started in 1995 had graduated. This percentage of graduates 

rose to 30 percent for the 1997 cohort. 

Analysis of 26 Drug Courts: 

Lessons Learned 

15 NPC Research 

December 2001 
Mental Health issues 

0 The Orange County Juvenile Drug Court uses the CGAS (Children’s Global 

Assessment Scale), which has allowed it to assess and be in a position to 

respond to mental health issues from its youth. It also allows the court to 

assess the mental health functioning at both intake and dischargq. They 

report an average increase in 18 points (increased functioning) of the CGAS 

from intake to discharge for those who graduate from the program. 

Characteristics of graduates versus non-graduates 

0 The Orange County (Florida) Juvenile Drug Court was able to conduct an 

analysis of the discriminating characteristics between graduates and nongraduates. Although the sample was small (66), which is likely why they 

include no information about statistical significance, the results are 

interesting. Good attitudes and being in school at the time of entrance into 

the drug court were two of the most interesting characteristics of the 

graduates. 

I$$ , 

Evaluating the Evaluations 

There was quite a variation in the kinds of process evaluations presented as well as 

varying levels of usefulness. Many reports were predominately descriptive in nature 

offering little insight into the implementation of the drug court. Others provided data on 

the demographics of clients but seemed unsure of how to evaluate a program in its early 

years of operation. No information of value for this report was gleaned from a few of the 

evaluations, but most scattered interesting and useful insights in various sections of their 

reports. There was, however, great inconsistency in approach and structure. It appears 

that what constitutes a good process evaluation of a drug court is not clearly established 

among the evaluation and drug court community. 

I 

Other intermediate outcomes: 

Analysis of 26 Drug Courts: 

Lessons Learned 

16 NPC Research 

December 2001 
a Section IV: lessons learned and Recommendations 

Lesson # 1: Cooperation among key stakeholders in the drug court is central to its 

success. 

Comments: Many of these reports discussed problems that related to a lack of 

communication or conflicts among stakeholders. For example, the district attorney’s 

office may in practice undercut the efforts of the drug court, or the judge may act in ways 

that undercut the activities of the drug court staff. 

Recommendation: The exact roles, expectations and policies of various stakeholders 

with regards to drug court should be clarified and agreed to in writing at the outset of 

court operations. In addition, a mandatory and functioning advisory board composed of 

representatives of the key stakeholders should be implemented to deal with ongoing 

issues of cooperation and consistency. 

Lesson # 2: An effective MIS is critical to the successful implementation of drug 

court. However, paradoxically, the effort to create it can seriously hinder the 1, 

implementation of the drug court. 

$ 

I I,, 

I 

I 

Comments: Complaints about the problems in the development of an MIS were numerous 

and the negative impact on the courts was clear. However, equally numerous were 

complaints about problems due to the lack of a good automated database system. 

Recommendations: The Federal Government needs to take an active role in finding and 

developing effective MIS models for drug courts. The costs in time and energy are 

beyond the means of local courts and perhaps even of the states. While there are serious 

issues about a one-size-fits -all approach to an MIS, having a handful of mature, well 

developed, well proven systems that are flexible enough to be adopted for local 

conditions may be the only solution. While some of those systems exist and programs are 

attempting to implement them, too few resources appear to exist that are dedicated to , 

adopting these systems to local conditions and to ensure that the locality has the right 

equipment, software, and training. Also, some of these MIS models end up costing the 

court nearly as much to modi@ them to suit local conditions as it would to create a whole 

new system. 

Lesson # 3: There is no real standard for program composition, the number of 

phases that are appropriate, and in particular, standards on how advancement is 

made from phase to phase. 

Comments: As Appendix A demonstrates, most of these programs had three or four 

phases. But the composition of the phases varied widely and many programs struggled 

with the question of the criteria for advancement from one phase to another. 

Recommendations: Standards for the quantity and composition of phases should be 

developed at the national level. We need to also have more research on what works and 

does not work. The federal level should recommend that drug court clients not be 

Analysis of 26 Drug Courts: 

Lessons Learned 

17 NPC Research 

December 2001 
advanced solely on the basis of time elapsed or by cohort, rather advancement needs to be 

based on the completion of clearly specified program requirements. The national level 

could develop guidelines based on the experiences of courts that have been evaluated. 

Lesson #4: There is often inconsistency in the way a program is implemented for 

each client. 

Comments: Some of this results from staff turnover or unclear program phases, but often 

the source of the inconsistency is the drug court judge. The judge, who is used to the role 

of absolute arbitrator, undercuts recommendations made by the drug court team in an 

individual case. Typically, an individual who violates one of the clear rules is not given 

the prescribed sanction because the judge decides to give them another chance. Yet, this 

* produces an inconsistency in implementation that makes it dificult for the program to 

operate effectively. This appears to be two issues. One is inconsistency of the judge’s 

treatment between different individuals. The other is judge leniency against the advice of 

the treatment provider, undercutting the provider’s credibility and encouraging the client 

to see what else they can get away with (testing the system. 

Recommendation: It is hard for a judge to give up discretionary power to a drug court 

team or a set of procedures, but this may be necessary for the court to operate 

successfully. At the outset of the drug court implementation, the judge needs to see the 

need to follow the protocols and procedures developed by the team. (Should also say 

something about follow-through and the importance for clients to feel like they know the 

rules and the limits.) 

Lesson #5: There needs to be more effort to find a balanced range of incentives and 

sanctions available to the drug court. 

Comments: More and more severe type of sanctions appeared to be available to the drug 

courts than there were types of incentives or rewards. Many courts imposed severe 

sanctions for violations that included increased supervision and jail time, so severe that 

some judges chose to ignore them. The rewards tended to be verbal. There appears to be 

an imbalance in the amount of sanctions available compared to rewards. The courts seem 

to need a broad continuum of rewards and sanctions that balance and fit the violations. 

Recommendation: There has been much effort placed on the question of appropriate 

rewards and sanction among drug court practitioners and evaluators. This does not seem 

to have resolved into at the local level standards and guidelines that can be used. These 

standards and guidelines need to be developed and implemented. 

Lesson #6: Most programs face serious problems connected to the fact that they 

have many fewer referrals and program participants than anticipated or, in some 

cases, they have more referrals than anticipated. 

Analysis of 26 Drug Courts: 

Lessons Learned 

18 NPC Research 

December 2001 
I 

*A/, “*4 

I 

Comments: programs are not accurately assessing their potential case flow when they 

apply for these grants and often commit themselves to numbers that are not realistic. This 

means that resources are not allocated effectively. 

Recommendation: All programs should be required to do a professional needs 

assessment using data collected by an independent source in planning their drug courts. 

Too often the data on case flow is determined in a manner that leads to inaccuracy and 

often mitigating conditions are not taken into account. It is not efficient for drug courts to 

be designed and funded based on highly inaccurate case flow projections. 

Summary 

review of 26 process evaluation reports revealed some common areas of 

implementation issues and problems. These issues include the following: 

Real effective cooperation among key stakeholders in the drug court is central to 

its success or failure. 

An effective MIS developed from the beginning of a program is crucial. 

There are no real standards yet developed in the drug court movement for 

program composition, the number of phases that are appropriate, and in particular, 

standards on how advancement is made from phase to phase. 

There is often inconsistency in the way a program is implemented for each client. 

An effective and consistent continuum of rewards and sanctions eludes most 

programs. 

Programs have often not accurately assessed the potential number of clients that 

will actually be admitted to the program, mostly overestimating those numbers. 

There is a need for research to help inform the process of implementation of drug courts. 

At the very least these process evaluation reports should alert programs to potential 

pitfalls and allow new programs to avoid the mistakes of others. At best these reports 

collectively inform a practical guide for the implementation of successful drug courts. 

Analysis of 26 Drug Courts: 

Lessons Learned 

19 NPC Research 

December 2001 
a 

Appendix A: 

, 

Analysis of 26 Drug Courts: 20 

Lessons Learned 

NPC Research 

December 2001 
t 

-. 

Operating How 

Long? court 

Program Characteristics 

Who's Eligible? PrelPost-Adjudication? 

Since January 

1996 Buffalo,NY 

New Orleans,LA 

Non-violent offenders that satisfy the drug screening criteria 

Both misdemeanors and limited felonies are accepted. 

Non-Violent offenders with misdemeanors or felonies with a 

Not Clear 

(Probably pre-) 

Pre-trial and probation (plead 

history of substance abuse who profess a desire for treatment. guilty) 

San Joaquin County, CA 

~~ ~~ 

First Judicial District Court, 

Santa FE, NM 

Since 1995 

~ ~ ~~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~~~~ ~ 

Adult Felons. Non-violent, second to fourth degree felony related Post-adjudication or 

Since Jan. lgg7 to illegal drug use. probation/parole violators. 

Misdemeanor and felony offenses that are drug related. More 

specifics are given in appendix (e.g. Health and Safety Codes, I DUI) 

Bernalillo County Metropolitan 

Court, NM I Since July' 997 

Not Clear 

Post-wnviction Adult Misdemeanants. Non-violent offenders convicted of 

misdemeanor DWI or misdemeanor offense. 

Santa Fe Municipal Court 

Any offender with suspected drug and alcohol problems including 

domestic violence and battery cases (which are considered 

misdemeanors) 

Since Jan. 1998 Preconviction 

Gary City, IN 

Montgomery County, Ohio 

Chester County, PA 

Not Clear 

Since 1996 

"those with significant drug and-crime problems" 

Changed over time. 1. Those charged with felony who were 

chemically dependent. 2. Possession of cocaine, felony of the 5* 

degree. No Dual Dx. 

Not clear. Postconviction? 

Not Clear. Postconviction? 

I Pre-trial 

Non-mandatory drug offenses, not currently under 

probation/Parole. no prior record of violent offense. 1 Since Oct. 1997 I 

Orange County, CA 

St. Louis 

Jan. 1997 Non-violent drug offenders charged with felony possession Postconviction 

Non-violent drug offenders or nondrug offenses if driven by a Pre-tria, April 1997 Ann- nrnhlsm I I UI Uy PI UUIGI 11. I 

Essex County I May 1997 I Non-violent drug driven or drug related indictable offenses I Postconviction 

Jefferson Parish, LA Non-violent felony or misdemeanor with indication of substance 

problem, no pending sentences 

Not Clear I Pre-adiudication? 

- 1 August 1997 1 

I I. - I 

Lexington County , SC 1 Summer 1997 I Non-violent repetitive offenders with current drug and drug I Pre-trial 

Analysis of 26 Drug Courts: 

Lessons Learned 

i NPC Research 

December 2001 
-a 

Suffolk County DTC 

Amherst DC 

related offenses. No first-time offenders 

September 1996 Non-violent misdemeanor and felony drug related offenses Post-conviction 

Misdemeanor and/or felony offenses. No history of "excessive" 

violence. NA pre- and Post-conviction 

Syracuse Community I Treatment Court -- 

Program 

I December 1996 I Non-violent misdemeanor and felony drug related offenses 

Must be charged with "state jail felony" possession. No evidence 

of dealing and no greater than class C misdemeanor. Pre-trial January lgg8 

I Pre-adjudication 

Third Judicial District Court, 

Las Cruces, NM - Juvenile 

Charleston County, SC - 

Juvenile 

Orange County, Florida - 

Juvenile 

Juvenile Felons. < 18 yrs., repeat offender, non-violent, drug use Deferred prosecution, postSince 997 problem, referring offense can be drug related or not. adj., probationlparole violators 

September 1997 Juveniles. NA Pre- and Post-adjudication 

November lgg7 pre- and post-adjudication Juveniles. No more than 3 previous offenses. Substance use 

problem. No history of violent offenses. 

lthaca Drug Treatment Court 1 Non-violent misdemeanor and "violation" level offenses. I Postconviction I NA 

rug treatment 

' NA=(lnfo) Not Available 

Analysis of 26 Drug Courts: 

I.- Leanred 

ii NPC Research 

December 2001 
Program Owration Details 

court 

Buffalo 

New Orleans - 

Scott Ray 

-~ 

Screen1 Assess-Tools 

for Eligibility? 

Not Clear. Screens and 

assessments are 

mentioned, but not 

when or how used. 

No formal screening 

instrument is used. 

NA. Appears that there 

is no tool. San Joaquin 

New Mexico First 

'"g. 98 days in 

treatment 

9pproximately one 

year 

Nine months 

NA. (8-week 

minimum per phase 

= 24 weeks) 

Approx. ' 

including after-care. 

9 month minimum 

I Judicial District I NA 

Yes (Graduated Sanctions. )/Yes. 

(e.g. Inpatient tx, jail timelpraise 

from judge, extension of curfew). 

YesNes. (More jail time, or tx 

meetingslMovie passes) 

Yes/ Yes. (e.g. Demotion to prior 

phases, increased supervision, jail 

time/time reduction, certificates) 

YesNes. (e.g. jail time, increased 

3 phases meetings/supervision reduction, 

mementos) 

Yes. GraduatedINA. (Jail time and 

4 phases termination)/No incentives 

mentioned. 

- YesNes. (e.g. Increased 

3 phases supervision, community 

3 Levels 

phases 

3 phases 

Court 12/98 

New Mexico 

Bemalillo County 

Metropolitan Court 

AS1 (Addiction Severity 

Index) I 12/98 

Fe Municipal 

court 

"Defendant 

Questionnaire" (includes 

drug risk factors) 

Chester, PA 

Gary City Drug I court 

D&A Assessment done 

by a provider. No 

instrument mentioned. 

I I 

Avg. 11 months, 

max. 3 year 

Montgomery 

County, Ohio 

acknowledgement, gift certificates) 

YesNes. (e.g. Increased meetings, 

increased UAsIdecreased meetings 

and UAs, recognition). 

YesNes. (e.g. writing an essay, 

NA 

I "Formal interview". I Orange No tool mentioned. 

I NA 

NA YesNes (Not described in detail) 

I servicelpraise, recognition). 

1 YesNes. (ea jail time, additional I . -- 

NA I 3 phases 1 communitv service/public 

Min. 1 year 

increased dig testing or meeting 

I4phases I times, jaiVapplause, .. entered into I drawings) 

Rdvance Levels How? -~ 

NA 

Must complete goals for 

each level. - 

NA 

Not Clear. Appears to be 

time. 

I 

Must achieve goals. 

Must attend meetings and 

tx sessions. 

Must meet minimum 

standards. (Goals.) 

- 

Specified treatment 

objectives (goals). 

Analysis of 26 DNg Courts: 

Leasons Leaiii NFC Research 

December 2001 
ScreenlAssess Tools 

for Eligibility? 

Formal assessment by 

counselor included 

” Jellenik symptoms 

review“. 

Assessment by TASC 

Instrument used: 

Addiction Severity Index 

(ASI). 

court 

St. Louis 

Essex County 

Time to Complete 

Program 

Min. 12 months 

NA 

1 Min. 12 months 

I Requirements 

I Time. 1 - 

Suffolk County DTC 1 AS1 I Min. 1 year 

Jefferson Parish 

(LeDoux) 

I I 

SASS,, ASI 

Amherst DC 

Lexington County 

DC, SC 

“Bio-Psycho-Social 

Severity Index” Min. 12 months 

No formal screening or 

assessment 

Analysis of 26 Drug Courts: 

Lessons Learned 

months 

Phases? 

Syracuse 

Community 

Treatment Court 

Dallas DIVERT 

Court Program 

lthaca Drug 

Treatment Court 

New Mexico Third 

3 “Paths” 

NA 

AS1 Approx. 1 year 

SASS1 and AS1 1 year-18 months 

AS1 NA 

SASS1 and T-AS1 (for Not Clear. Adding 

4 “Levels” 

3 phases 

NA 

3 phases 

NA 

3 phases 

3 phases 

4 phases 

iv 

Sanctionsllncentives? 

YeslYes. No description given. 

YesNes. (e.g. tighter curfew 

restrictions, jail timehot describgl). 

YesNes. (e.g., verbal 

admonishment, increased UAs, 

home incarcerationlapplause, 

reduced court fees, prizes) 

YesNes. (e.g., community service, 

jail timellavish praise, applause) 

YesNes. (e.g., admonishmen& 

incarceration/decreased UAs, 

tokens) 

YesNes. (e.g., in-court 

admonishment, intensified 

treatmentljudge’s approval, - 

decrease treatment) 

YesNes. E.g., increased court 

appearances, weekends observing 

arraignments1 applause, decreased 

treatment) 

YesNes. (e.g., client pays for 

positive UAs, jail timelno incentives 

described) 

YedYes. (e.g., Essay assignments, 

community servicelapplause, 

certifiates) 

YesNes. (e.g. community service, 

Advance Levels How? 

Specific goals 

NA 

- 

Requirements 

Not Clear 

(GED or high school 

diploma required for 

Graduation) 

Requ iremen ts/Goals 

Requirements 

NA 

Requirements 

NPC Research 

December 2001 
~~ 

court 

Judicial District 

Court 12/98 - 

Juvenile 

Charleston County, 

SC -Juvenile 

Orange County, 

Florida - Juvenile 

NA=(lnfo) Not Availal 

teens) program phases = 

24 weeks 

curfew, graffiti removallsupervision 

reduction, movie passes, neck-ties) 

NA NA 3 phases YesNes. No description. Requirements 

YesNes. (e.g., stricter curfew, 

specified) 

Avg. 6 months 3 phases increased UAs/lncentives not Requirements Assessment not 

specified. 

Not Clear. Use tools, but 

not clear if for Approx. 9 months 3 phases YesNes. (e.g., /food, recreation) Requirements 

screening. SASS1 

e 

Analysis of 26 Drug Coults: 

Lessons Learned 

V NPC Research 

December 2001 
25 and 

under Marijuana 

Judicial District Court 

12/98 

New Mexico 

Bernalillo County 

Metropolitan Court 

12/98 

Santa Fe Municipal 

court 

Chester, PA 

, Gary City Drug Court 

Montgomery County, 

Ohio 

Orange County, CA 

Screened 

Under 2 1 

Participants 

(80%) 

Avg. Age 

CC33yrs 

SC 29yrs 

NA 

NA 

NA 

Avg. age 

28yrs 

NA 

NA 

marijuana 

Not Clear Not Clear 

hics ~~ 

Gender (XM) = Modal Age Modal Drug RacelEthnic 

(X Highest) 

~ ~~ 

Degree of Criminality Notes 

MisdemeanorslLimited felony 

possession are eligible (Nonviolent offenders) 

Buffalo 336 (56%) 

New Orleans - 

Scott Ray 

NA 30-39? I Crack 1996-1 998 

~- I 

82.5% AfricanAmerican 

41% Caucasian 

49.6% Hispanic 

45.6% Anglo 

NA (Non-violent offenders and no 

68.8% history of violent offenses or 

65% 

I 

30-39 [ I Heroin (37%) New Mexico First 

60.6% Opiates 

(47.6%) 19-25 DWI, Larceny, drug sales, drug 

possession 

Top Offense: DWI (6 times more 

frequent than the next most 

frequent offense) 

1197-1 0198 

7197-1 0198 Alcohol 

(80.3%) 

33-39 

(33%) 

40+ (30%) 

those 

183%) 

on program 

74.8% 

Not Clear. No data 

participants, 

NA 

NA 

82.2% 

screened. 

just 

53.7% Anglo 

I 

Screened 

A few had past drug related 

arrests and felony arrests. 

Screened 

78.2% Hispanic 1198-1 I99 

NA 

NA 

64.1% "Black" 

White 

CC 61% 

SC 92% 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

1198-1 2/98 

1997 

CC=Central 

Court, SC=South 

court 

cc 74% 

sc 57% NA 

NA NA 

NA NA ~ 

71 % 

Not Clear 

64.7% white NA I ILeDoux) 

I Lexington Countv Not Clear NA 1 DC,SC 

Analysis of 26 Drug Courb: 

Lessom Learned 

vi NPC Research 

December 2001 
court Gender (%M) X Highest Modal Age Modal Drug Degree of Criminality Notes 

I Suffolk County DTC NA NA NA NA NA 

49% AfricanAmherst DC 70% American 22-30 NA NA NA 

Syracuse Community 

Treatment Court 

Dallas DIVERT Court 

Program 

lthaca Drug 

Treatment Court 

45% Caucasian 

58% 66.9% American African 30-39 Crackkocaine NA 12/96-1199 

73% NA - 1198-1 2198 "polydrug 

use" 75% 31 -40 52% African 

American - 

Info from DC 

satisfaction 

survey (34 60% 62% Caucasian 20-30 NA NA 

New Mexico Third 

Judicial District Court 

12/98 - Juvenile 

Analysis of 26 Drug Courts: 

Lessons Learned 

completed) 

Top Four Offenses: 

1Z97-10198 Marijuana Drug Possession, Vandalism, 

(59.3%) Larceny, Assaults (non- 84.1 % 85.7% Hispanic 16-18 

annravaterl\ 

vii 

Charleston County, 

SC -Juvenile 

Orange County, 

Florida -Juvenile 

Montgomery County 

Juvenile Drug Court 

- Ohio 

NFC Research 

Dsoember 2001 

-==.-.-.-- . .. 

NA NA NA NA NA 

83% 54% white Avg. 17yrs "fairly minor offenders" 8120197-1 0131198 Marijuana 

Marijuana 

(92%) 

(94%) - 

75% 70% Caucasian Avg. 16yrs NA 1/98-4199 
Program Numb 

court 

Buffalo 

New Orleans - 

Scott Ray 

# Screened 

NA 

NA 

NA 

San Joaquin 

# Admitted 

604 

21 8 

871 

61 

New Mexico First 

Judicial District 

Court 12/98 

New Mexico 

Bemalillo County 

Metropolitan 

Court 12198 

Santa Fe 

Municipal Court 

Chester, PA 

Sary City Drug 

:ourt 

VA=(lnfo) Not Ava 

NA 

250 

NA 

NA 

119 

130 

169 

NA 

59 1 

(67%) 

41 

19 

70 

18 

NA 

Graduated 

113 (18.7%) 

165 

(20%) 

9 

45 

34 

20 

28 

Where did they get these Numbers? 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

From Defendant Questionnaire, intake 

assessment, program records, and exit 

interview. 

NA 

NA 

Notes 

1996-1 998 

1995 - 1999 

"There are no attorneys in 

the San Joaquin Drug 

Court." !!? 

1197-1 0198 

7197-1 0198 

1198-1/99 

10197-1 2/98 

NA 

Analysis of 26 Drug Courts: 

Lessons Learned 

vni NPC Research 

Deamber 2001 
court 

Montgomery 

County, Ohio 

Orange County, 

CA 

St. Louis 

Essex County 

Jefferson Parish 

(LeDoux) 

Lexington 

County DC, SC 

Suffolk County 

DTC 

Amherst DC 

Syracuse 

Treatment Court 

Dallas DIVERT 

Court Program 

lthaca Drug 

Treatment Court 

New Mexico 

Third Judicial 

District Court 

12198 -Juvenile 

Charleston 

County, SC - 

Juvenile 

Orange County, 

Florida - 

Juvenile 

Montgomery 

County Juvenile 

Ohio 

NA=(lnfo) Not 

Community 

Drug Court - 

Analysis of 26 Drug Courts: 

Lessons Learned 

# Terminated # Graduated Where did they get these Numbers? Notes # Screened # Admitted 

Probation department reports and 

proposals, interviews. 

NA 121 records, "official documents", grant 1996-3199 (1 997-1 998) 

378 NA 

NA NA NA NA NA 

NA 

NA NA NA NA NA 

484 162 64 NA 4197-2199 

NA 170 29 5 From forms in files - - 8127197-1 119198 

276 Not Clear 95 20 NA 1997-? 

NA 290 NA 78 Drug Court database 9115196-1131199 

NA 219 50 137 NA 18 month period 

296 148 NA NA NA 118197-1131199 

306 159 43 NA 1198-1 2198 

NA 81 NA 5 - NA NA (1 998?) - 2/99 

None at time 

of report 

- 

63 17 16 NA 12197-1 0198 

NA 80 32 7 NA 1997-1 999? 

Data forms, case notes from client files 8120197-10131198 28 = and program tracking efforts. 38 Not Clear 

671 NA 

Not Clear 5 NA 1198499' 181 808 98 

- 

Available 

ix NPC Research 

December 2001