Directors’ Message

It is by now a commonplace that the number 

of people under criminal justice supervision 

in this country has reached a record high. As 

a result, the sentencing policies driving that

number, and the field of corrections, where 

the consequences are felt, have acquired an

unprecedented salience. It is a salience defined

more by issues of magnitude, complexity, and

expense than by any consensus about future

directions. 

Are sentencing policies, as implemented through

correctional programs and practices, achieving

their intended purposes? As expressed in the

movement to eliminate indeterminate sentencing and limit judicial discretion, on the one

hand, and to radically restructure our retributive system of justice, on the other, the purposes seem contradictory, rooted in conflicting

values. The lack of consensus on where sentencing and corrections should be headed is

thus no surprise. 

Because sentencing and corrections policies

have such major consequences—for the 

allocation of government resources and, more

fundamentally and profoundly, for the quality 

of justice in this country and the safety of its 

citizens—the National Institute of Justice and the

Corrections Program Office (CPO) of the Office

of Justice Programs felt it opportune to explore

them in depth. Through a series of Executive

Sessions on Sentencing and Corrections, begun

in 1998 and continuing through the year 2000,

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

National Institute of Justice

May 2000 Papers From the Executive Sessions on Sentencing and Corrections

No. 6

Research in Brief

The Rebirth of Rehabilitation:

Promise and Perils of Drug Courts

by Richard S. Gebelein

T

he proliferation of drug courts in the

past several years has been extraordinary, as is the broad support they have

won. Early evaluation results are not definitive

but are promising, and many judges, lawyers,

treatment providers, former offenders, and

others believe drug courts are achieving many

of their aims. All these favorable developments

do not necessarily mean that drug courts will

in the long term become core components of

the criminal justice system. There are different

kinds of drug courts with different kinds of

caseloads. Not all will be successful. And, as

with boot camps, there is the danger that

uncritical enthusiasm may not withstand the

effects of unfavorable evaluations.

Delaware’s experience is described here to

illustrate the development and evolution of

drug courts. The discussion is framed by an

exploration of the possibilities drug courts

offer for improving public safety and the pitfalls they may face. It is set in the context of

the shift away from indeterminate sentencing,

which occurred about the same time strong,

empirically based evidence of the link between

drugs and crime and the efficacy of treatment

was coming to light. Rehabilitation, all but

abandoned as a sentencing goal, was revived

for drug-involved offenders through the institution of drug courts. They were created in

some cases to relieve dockets overcrowded by

the rising number of drug cases in the late

1980s and to reduce prison overcrowding.

Most notably, they offered a treatment-based

alternative that also mandated judicially supervised sanctions. For drug-involved offenders,

drug courts replaced what was lost when

indeterminate sentencing was eclipsed as a

means to rehabilitation.

■ ■ ■

Shifting sentencing policies 

The rise of the drug court “movement” 

is best understood in the context of the

changing goals of sentencing policy in the

United States in the past half century. Several

traditional core justifications or purposes for

sanctions have been recognized:1

■ Retribution or punishment, sometimes

called just deserts—the idea that the offender

should receive the punishment deserved for

the crime committed.

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

National Institute of Justice

Research in Brief CONTINUED ...

SIssues for the 21st Century

ENTENCING & CORRECTION S S ENTENCING 

Issues for the 21st CenturyS
■ Deterrence—the notion that fear of punishment will deter people from crime. It can be

specific (geared to the offender) or general

(geared to a type of offending).

■ Incapacitation—placing the offender in

custody so that he or she cannot commit

additional crimes. 

■ Rehabilitation—the idea that offenders

should be reformed so they will not commit

crimes again. 

■ Restoration—the use of criminal justice

processes to rebuild the relationships among

the victim, community, and offender that were

disrupted by the crime and to repair the harm

done. Restoration encompasses rehabilitation

through the accountability it requires of 

offenders.

The rise of rehabilitation . . .

During the past 50 years, correctional philosophy in the United States has swung widely

toward and then away from rehabilitation as

the dominant rationale for sentencing. In the

early 1950s, rehabilitation was widely accepted as the primary goal.2

The dominance of rehabilitation led to the

creation of numerous programs that

addressed offenders’ needs. Many were 

based on a medical model designed to diagnose the deficiencies that led to the crime 

and then offer treatment to overcome them.

Others aimed at skills development (through

job training and education, for example). The

dominance of rehabilitation also explains the

support for indeterminate sentencing, in

which judicial decisions are tailored to individual offenders and release is determined 

by a parole board or commission.

. . . And its demise

By the mid-1970s, the effectiveness of rehabilitative programs (and consequently the rationale for indeterminate sentencing) began to be

questioned and, by the 1980s, they were widely

considered a failure. Crime and recidivism

were increasing despite major rehabilitative

efforts in most correctional systems. All the

reasons for the collapse cannot be presented,

but a few may serve as a cautionary tale. 

First, correctional systems tried to rehabilitate

offenders without knowing why people commit specific crimes. That lack of knowledge

persists to a large extent today. Second, the

exuberance of the 1950s gave way to questioning and self-doubt as the Vietnam War,

racial issues, and economic slowdowns

demonstrated that serious social problems

were not amenable to easy solutions. Some

faulted indeterminate sentencing for resulting

in disparate sentences for similar offenses.

Unbridled discretion was seen to defeat fairness in sentencing. The number of incoming

prisoners overwhelmed the financial ability or

commitment of most jurisdictions to provide

quality programs.

As the 1980s gave way to the 1990s, rehabilitation faded as a principal sentencing goal. The

change was expressed statutorily and in academic and other professional literature.

Punishment (retribution) and incapacitation

became dominant. Delaware was among the

many States in which rehabilitation had been

statutorily identified as the primary sentencing

aim. In 1984 that changed, as incapacitation

became the primary goal and rehabilitation 

the last.

In many other States the story was similar.

Parole boards were abolished. Mandatory

minimum sentences multiplied. Truth-insentencing laws proliferated. The “three

strikes” analogy seemed best to characterize

the philosophy of policymakers and the public. It did not appear that rehabilitation was

alive or respected anywhere. But that perception was wrong. Particularly for drug-involved

offenders, the groundwork was being laid for

reviving rehabilitation.3 One of the chief ways

was by a growing understanding of the drugcrime link and the effectiveness of drug 

treatment.

2 Sentencing & Corrections

practitioners and scholars foremost in their

field, representing a broad cross-section of

points of view, were brought together to find

out if there is a better way to think about the

purposes, functions, and interdependence of

sentencing and corrections policies. 

We are fortunate in having secured the assistance of Michael Tonry, Sonosky Professor 

of Law and Public Policy at the University of

Minnesota Law School, and Director, Institute

of Criminology, University of Cambridge, as

project director. 

One product of the sessions is this series of

papers, commissioned by NIJ and the CPO as

the basis for the discussions. Drawing on the

research and experience of the session participants, the papers are intended to distill their

judgments about the strengths and weaknesses

of current practices and about the most promising ideas for future developments. 

The sessions were modeled on the executive

sessions on policing held in the 1980s and

1990s under the sponsorship of NIJ and

Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government.

Those sessions played a role in conceptualizing

community policing and spreading it. Whether

the current sessions and the papers based on

them will be instrumental in developing a new

paradigm for sentencing and corrections, or

even whether they will generate broad-based

support for a particular model or strategy for

change, remains to be seen. It is our hope that

in the current environment of openness to new

ideas, the session papers will provoke comment, promote further discussion and, taken

together, will constitute a basic resource document on sentencing and corrections policy

issues that will prove useful to State and local

policymakers.

Julie E. Samuels

Acting Director

National Institute of Justice

U.S. Department of Justice 

Larry Meachum

Director

Corrections Program Office

U.S. Department of Justice

2 Sentencing & Corrections

Directors’ Message

CONTINUED ...
Sentencing & Corrections 3

■ ■ ■

The drug-crime link and 

the efficacy of treatment 

Drug cases began to escalate dramatically

in the 1980s. Petty drug offenders were

recycling through the justice system at 

an alarming rate. Delaware’s situation was

typical. Overwhelmed with drug cases, the

State’s courts sought ways to manage case 

flow and solve the “revolving door” problem.

Courts everywhere also sought sentencing

alternatives for addicted offenders.

The situation brought to the fore questions

about the link of substance abuse to crime.

About this time, research was shedding better

light on the issue. A study conducted in 1987

revealed that a large proportion of arrestees

in several major urban areas tested positive

for illegal substances.4 When the Delaware

drug court was in the design stage, a study 

of the State’s prisoners revealed that 80 percent needed substance abuse treatment.5

Researchers were also finding that when

addicted offenders used drugs, they were

among the most active perpetrators of 

other crimes.6

At the same time, it was becoming established

that if treatment reduced drug use by criminally involved addicts, it would also reduce

their tendency to commit crime.7 Research

was also proving that compelled treatment was

as effective as voluntary treatment.8 Delaware

would find, and other research would confirm, that in-prison treatment based on the

therapeutic community (TC) model dramatically affects drug use and recidivism.9

■ ■ ■

The “movement” and 

why it grew 

All these factors converged to create a

climate conducive to the growth of drug

courts. When the National Association of Drug

Court Professionals (NADCP) was established

in 1994, the drug court judges who founded

it numbered fewer than 15. Only 5 years 

later, the NADCP’s annual training meeting

drew 3,000 participants. About 10 years after

Miami created what was arguably the first

drug court, there were drug courts in almost

every State and the District of Columbia. 

The expansion to more than 400 by the end 

of 1999 is evidence of the movement’s 

popularity.10

The movement gained wide acceptance for

many of the reasons rehabilitation did in the

1950s. It offered hope of solving a grave

problem. It is innovative, leveraging the

court’s power to compel drug-involved 

offenders to use a method that works—

treatment. Its advantage over “plain old”

rehabilitation is the focus on one problem

(addiction) that is causally related to crime

committed by one group of offenders (addicts). Treatment is reinforced with a healthy

dose of specific deterrence as a motivation to

achieve a specific result—abstinence. Federal

legislation provided an added impetus, as the

1994 Crime Act provided funding to establish

or expand drug courts. 

■ ■ ■

Key characteristics

The nature, structure, and jurisdiction of

drug courts vary widely. Given the many

variations, it became important to achieve

consensus on what is a “true” drug court.

The NADCP and the U.S. Department of

Justice identified the following key elements:11

■ Integration of substance abuse treatment

with justice system case processing.

■ Use of a nonadversarial approach, in which

prosecution and defense promote public

safety while protecting the right of the accused to due process. 

■ Early identification and prompt placement

of eligible participants.

■ Access to a continuum of treatment, 

rehabilitation, and related services.

■ Frequent testing for alcohol and illicit

drugs.

■ A coordinated strategy among judge, prosecution, defense, and treatment providers to

govern offender compliance.

■ Ongoing judicial interaction with each

participant. 

■ Monitoring and evaluation to measure

achievement of program goals and gauge

effectiveness.

■ Continuing interdisciplinary education to

promote effective planning, implementation,

and operation.

■ Partnerships with public agencies and

community-based organizations to generate

local support and enhance drug court 

effectiveness.

Most drug courts attempt to integrate these

components. One reason is that Federal funding is contingent on a plan that incorporates

them all.

■ ■ ■

Process and structure

I

n general, the offender enters the program

through a plea, conditional plea, contract

with the court, or similar mechanism. The

offender is assigned to a treatment program

and told when to report to court. Court appearances can be as frequent as several times

a week or can be once a month or less often.

Urinalysis is frequent and usually on a random

basis. Urinalysis positives or missed treatments

or court appointments result in immediate

sanctions. In Delaware’s diversionary court,

requirements include 4 months of total abstinence in addition to holding a steady job,

successfully completing treatment, earning a

general equivalency diploma if applicable,

participating in 12-step meetings, developing 

a support network, and maintaining a stable

residence.

Sentencing & Corrections 3
The first drug courts dealt primarily with

minor drug offenses, with offenders placed 

on a diversionary or quasi-diversionary track.

Newer designs include postadjudicative drug

courts (those in which the offender is sentenced to drug court after conviction), juvenile drug courts, and family drug courts. In

the model most commonly used today, the

population of substance-abusing offenders is

wider and more varied than that of the first

drug courts. Drug courts funded by the 1994

Crime Act may process only nonviolent offenders, but many drug courts that are wholly

State funded or locally funded accept some

violent offenders.

■ ■ ■

The Delaware drug courts 

Delaware’s drug courts in many respects

typify drug courts in general. They began

with an effort to solve the problem of drugs

and crime. The State’s Drug Involved Offender

Coordination Committee, organized in 1991

to weigh proposed solutions, discovered flaws

in the State’s approach to offender substance

abuse. Many court orders referring defendants

to treatment were ignored by corrections

officials. Related problems came to light.

Offenders were more likely than non-courtreferred participants to be discharged from

treatment programs. Jail- or prison-based

treatment was limited; there was no coordination between treatment in jail and the community; and treatment was inefficiently

delivered and inadequate in relation to 

the need.12

A treatment continuum did not exist. To create one, the Treatment Access Committee

(TAC) was established and charged with ensuring that substance-abusing offenders did

not “fall through the cracks.”

The diversion model

Delaware’s potential treatment population was

so large that only two groups could be targeted. Younger offenders, who are less criminally

involved and who can possibly be diverted

from a life of crime, were selected as one

group.

The diversion track calls for a modest “investment” of 6 months to a year in drug court,

with outpatient treatment and frequent urine

tests. These offenders are not under sentence,

so they are not supervised by probation. This

saves resources, which can be used to supervise more serious offenders. However, offenders on this track are more accountable than

those on regular probation. If the offender

cannot stay drug free or otherwise fails, diversion is terminated, a trial is held, and, if it results 

in conviction, the usual sentence is probation

with compelled treatment. If all conditions

are met, the offender graduates and the

charge is dismissed.

The probation revocation model 

Offenders in jail or prison because of violating probation were another group identified

as needing substantial investment of treatment

resources.13 TAC felt that a drug court model

could work with them, although outpatient

treatment without probation supervision was

unlikely to work with many. This group of

more serious offenders consists largely of

people convicted of 6 to 10 felonies and

addicted for 12 to 20 years. 

The probation revocation model is for offenders charged with a new crime. The prosecutor offers to resolve the new offense and the

probation violation simultaneously, through a

plea and an “addiction sentence”14 that always

includes drug court-supervised treatment. If

the defendant accepts the offer, he or she is

immediately sentenced on both counts. If the

defendant is sentenced to jail or prison, he or

she enters a treatment program in the correctional facility. Successful completion means

the remaining prison time is suspended and

replaced with supervision and treatment in

the community. The addiction sentence allows

the court to require this treatment continuum

through the in-prison “Key” program, followed

by work release and continued treatment in

the “Crest” program and aftercare in the

community.15 In effect, the model provides for

indeterminate sentencing—tailored to the

offender, with the goal of rehabilitation—in a

truth-in-sentencing State.16

All addiction sentences require frequent 

court appearances, and the assignment of a

Treatment Alternatives to Street Crime (TASC)

case manager,17 to ensure continuum of treatment in the transition from jail to halfway

house to community. Failure in this track

usually results in a prison sentence with an

order to participate in a long-term therapeutic

community while incarcerated, followed again

by treatment in the community, with reentry

monitored by the drug court.

Preliminary results

Scientifically based evaluations of Delaware’s

drug courts are not completed, but initial

studies are encouraging.18 The figures on

numbers of diversion track graduates are a

rough estimate: By the end of 1999, charges

were dismissed for 2,670 people—about half

of those who entered the program. Case studies demonstrate that the lives of people once

considered total criminal justice failures have

been saved. The widespread belief among

judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, and

others that the Delaware drug courts are

working and turning lives around cannot

easily be discounted. 

Treatment providers indicated 18 months into

the program that their drug court clients are

more likely to complete treatment than are

their other clients, and that they stay in treatment longer.19 Preliminary evaluation results

suggest that Delaware drug court graduates

reoffend less often than other sentenced

offenders and, when they do, their crimes are

on average far less serious.20 Studies of drug

courts in other jurisdictions offer similarly

encouraging findings.21 The past 3 years’

experience in Delaware indicates that 

offenders adjudicated through the probation

4 Sentencing & Corrections 4 Sentencing & Corrections
Sentencing & Corrections 5

revocation track spend less time in prison

than do other offenders sentenced for similar

crimes.22 This is because drug court offenders

can earn early release by completing 

treatment.

■ ■ ■

The promise of drug courts

Drug courts will not solve the drug problem or eliminate crime in Delaware or

anywhere else. But if they offer a comprehensive treatment continuum, solid case management, and meaningful immediate sanctions,

they can have a major effect on public safety.

They are a powerful tool for addressing the

criminal behavior of people who commit

disproportionately large numbers of crimes.

Simple math suggests their crime-reduction

potential. An individual who has an out-ofcontrol addiction commits about 63 crimes 

a year.23 Assuming this could be reduced to 

10 for someone who is in or has completed

treatment, and multiplying it by the 200 

offenders in Delaware’s probation revocation

track who comply with all requirements, a

single drug court may prevent more than

10,000 crimes each year. 

Even offenders who do not succeed in drug

court appear to be less criminally active than

they were previously. This may be due to the

benefits of treatment or the supervision, sanctions, intensive surveillance, and specific

deterrence of the drug court. 

The results of drug courts are partially tallied

outside the criminal justice column, beyond

reduced recidivism and drug use. For example, in the Delaware revocation track’s first 2

years, 11 drug-free babies were born to former crack-addicted women who had been

brought before the court. Drug court graduates become gainfully employed, tax-paying

members of the community, at least for a

time. Drug courts save lives—a function that

appeals to all political philosophies and goes

far to refute the notion that “nothing works.” 

■ ■ ■

The perils of drug courts

The drug court movement is currently

riding a wave of success. Initial evaluations

are favorable. New courts are being established

everywhere. The movement is supported by

both major political parties and the news

media. Even more important, it has captured

the imagination of the public. Ironically, success is perhaps the biggest peril drug courts

face. 

Success

Success with a narrowly defined offender

population does not translate into a universal

solution to drug crime. 

As the results of more sophisticated evaluations become available, preliminary success

rates will not be sustained. As less tractable

groups participate, rates of compliance and

graduation will decline and recidivism will

rise. Support may fade as success appears to

diminish. The movement cannot afford to

claim too much and so must define success

realistically. 

Client and treatment differences 

Differences in treatment options and in

groups that participate will affect outcomes.

Some drug courts, such as Delaware’s probation revocation track, include a full spectrum

of treatment options. Others, such as

Delaware’s diversion track, rely primarily 

on outpatient treatment, drug education, 

and urine tests. Success is likely to vary 

with the treatment available. 

In Delaware’s probation revocation track,

the participants are far more involved with

drugs and other crime than those on the

diversion track, who are younger, are less 

severely addicted, and have less extensive

criminal histories. Different success rates

can be expected from the different 

populations.

In identifying target populations, drug courts

need to be sensitive to class and race bias,

real or apparent. Unless care is taken, diversion courts may tend disproportionately to

work with white and middle-class substance

abusers. In Delaware, the client demographics

of the diversion and probation revocation

tracks were at first virtual opposites. Participants in the latter were disproportionately

minority group members from disadvantaged

backgrounds; those in the former were more

likely to be white and middle class. Delaware

has aggressively addressed this imbalance. 

Differences in populations and treatments can

lead to the same problems that came to light

in research on boot camps. Initially, boot

camps were highly popular (perhaps for all

the wrong reasons). They proliferated quickly,

and claims of success abounded. However,

evaluations generally revealed that boot

camps do little to reduce recidivism. As a

result, funding eroded, fewer resources were

allocated, and support all but evaporated. The

same fate could befall drug courts if evaluations of individual courts that offer incomplete treatment or no real treatment at all

reveal low success rates.

Availability of resources

Generally, as the type and number of offenders treated increases, appropriate treatment

becomes less available. For serious, violent

offenders, weekly or twice-weekly outpatient

treatment is not viable. They need more supervision and structure, but many localities

cannot offer this. 

As the number of clients grows, the tendency

is to make do with the same amount of resources as offered for fewer clients. The usual

result is deterioration of treatment quality as

programs are shortened and more people are

crowded into each group. This can only

decrease effectiveness. 

Sentencing & Corrections 5
Structural impediments

The structure of health care provision in this

country may threaten program success. The

premise of managed care, increasingly the

norm, is that the least treatment required

should be provided. This is at odds with

research on substance abuse treatment,

which has shown that the longer a person

remains in treatment, the more successful

treatment will be. Furthermore, managed 

care assumes the patient will aggressively

pursue the treatment he or she deems necessary. Because most drug court clients initially

prefer not to be treated, they are likely to

welcome a ruling by the health care provider

or the managed care insurer that treatment

is not needed. Finally, drug court clients

frequently encounter delays in obtaining

treatment funding or must cobble together

bits and pieces of various programs because

the “exhaustion” rules of health care plans

limit treatment. 

The judge is an integral part of the drug court

structure. Many judges are already experiencing burnout, a situation not uncommon

among treatment professionals. When a drug

court judge steps down, it is not always possible to find a sufficiently motivated replacement. Without a highly motivated judge, the

drug court approach simply does not work

well.

Unrealistic expectations 

Americans want quick, decisive solutions.

This is evident in the very terminology used

for this national propensity: We wage a “War

on Drugs.” Yet as General Barry McCaffrey,

head of the Office of National Drug Control

Policy, has noted, the problem cannot be

solved this way. War requires concentrated

maximum force at a critical point. For the

drug problem, there is no silver bullet, nor is

there a single program, model, or method

that will eliminate either addiction or crime.

Because drug courts are effective in helping

address one correlate of crime, they may also

serve as a model to help address others.

Research may reveal whether this expectation

is realistic by demonstrating why drug courts

work and whether similar principles are likely

to work for groups other than drug-involved

offenders. Delaware’s proposed reentry court

for nonaddicted offenders is an example of the

extension of the model. 

Judges tend to deal more often with failure

than success. Many drug court judges, enthusiastic about their perceived successes, may yield

to the temptation to claim they have the key to

winning the war on drugs and criminal behavior. That claim will surely fail to be sustained.

Instances of failure of the drug court method

will become more widely reported. The movement’s claims will be tested against results. If

the claims of judges and others are unreasonably optimistic and not based in reality, backlash is inevitable.

■ ■ ■

The future

The drug court movement focused initially

on adult drug offenders who had histories

of nonviolent offenses. Depending on the site,

the movement now encompasses offenders

convicted of several felonies, many of whom

have criminal histories that qualify them for

habitual offender status. The movement also

extends to specialty courts dedicated to juvenile offending, domestic violence, and family

issues and has fostered establishment of

treatment courts for DUI cases.

There are other areas where the drug court

approach may be useful. An example is “therapeutic jurisprudence,” a new, problemsolving orientation adopted by some judges,

courts, and court systems.24 Participants in the

drug court movement believe that success is

due in large part to direct judicial involvement with offenders, provided on a regular

basis. It is likely that judges who have been

successful with the approach will want to

apply it to other areas. 

In expanding the drug court model to clients

other than drug users, care must be taken

until more is known about why the process

works and with what types of offenders it

might be effective. That means first designing

pilot programs, implementing them, and

evaluating them. Drug courts hold great promise as a tool to prevent crime in the long term.

For that to become reality, every effort must 

be taken to avoid the many perils that could

make the movement just another failed criminal justice fad.

Notes

1. Silverman, Ira J., and Manuel Vega, Corrections:

A Comprehensive View, St. Paul, MN: West

Publishing Company, 1996.

2. In the 1950s, the American Correctional

Association called for using individualized treatment to the greatest extent possible to rehabilitate

the offender. American Correctional Association,

Manual of Correctional Standards, College Park,

MD: American Correctional Association, Committee

for the Revision of the 1954 Manual, 1959. 

3. Rehabilitation was also being revived as a

sentencing goal through restorative and community justice, new approaches to sentencing. 

4. National Institute of Justice, Attorney General

Announces NIJ Drug Use Forecasting System,

Research in Action, Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice,

1988, NCJ 109957. 

5. Delaware Sentencing Accountability Commission,

Coordinated Approach to Managing the Drug

Involved Offender, Wilmington, DE: Delaware

Sentencing Accountability Commission, Treatment

Access Committee, 1994.

6. See, for example, Wish, E.D., and B.D. Johnson,

“Impact of Substance Abuse on Criminal Careers,”

in Criminal Careers and “Career Criminals,”

vol. II, ed. Alfred Blumstein et al., Washington, DC:

National Academy Press, 1986: 52–88.

7. One study revealed that, on average, offenders

ordered to treatment had committed more than 

63 predatory criminal acts in the year before

sentencing; once in treatment, there was a 

decrease to an average of 6 per year. See

Hubbard, Robert L., et al., “Criminal Justice 

Client in Drug Abuse Treatment,” in Compulsory

Treatment of Drug Abuse: Research and Clinical

6 Sentencing & Corrections 6 Sentencing & Corrections
Practice (NIDA Research Monograph 86), ed.

C.G. Leukefeld and F.M. Tims, Washington, DC:

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,

National Institute on Drug Abuse, 1988: 66. With

funding from the 1994 Crime Act, several States

created substance abuse treatment programs 

in correctional facilities. Evaluations of these

Residential Substance Abuse Treatment programs,

sponsored by the Justice Department’s Corrections

Program Office and the National Institute of Justice,

are now under way. 

8. See Farabee, D., M. Prendergast, and M.D.

Anglin, “Effectiveness of Coerced Treatment of

Drug-Abusing Offenders,” Federal Probation 62

(1) (June 1998): 3–10.

9. For a history of Delaware’s experience with the

Key and Crest TC programs, and evaluation results,

see Martin, Steven S., Clifford A. Butzin, Christine

A. Saum, and James A. Inciardi, “Three-Year

Outcomes of Therapeutic Community Treatment

for Drug-Involved Offenders in Delaware: From

Prison to Work Release to Aftercare,” Prison

Journal 79 (3) (September 1999): 294–320.

10. According to the Drug Courts Program Office

of the U.S. Department of Justice, there were 425

drug courts at the end of 1999.

11. National Association of Drug Court Professionals,

Defining Drug Courts: The Key Components,

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Drug

Courts Program Office, 1997, NCJ 165478.

12. Drug Involved Offender Coordination

Committee, Effective Management of Drug

Involved Offenders—A Report to Governor

Michael Castle, Wilmington, DE: Drug Involved

Offender Coordination Committee, 1992.

13. About 70 percent of offenders in Delaware

who violated probation, compared with 50 percent of all prisoners in the State, were found 

to need residential treatment (Coordinated

Approach to Managing the Drug Involved

Offender).

14. An “addiction sentence” is one conditioned on

treatment results.

15. Delaware’s Key-Crest is a three-stage treatment

program for drug-involved offenders. Based on the

TC model, it offers a self-contained, 24-hour-a-day,

structured treatment environment in a setting

apart from the rest of the prison population. The

“Key,” the primary stage, consists of prison-based

treatment for men in a 12-month, intensive program. In the “Crest” transitional stage, a workrelease program for women as well as men,

offenders enter 6 months of treatment and job

training. In the aftercare stage, released inmates,

receive outpatient counseling and the opportunity

to return to the transitional therapeutic setting. 

16. The legality of this process has not been

challenged in Delaware, and its effect on Federal

funding that is contingent on offenders serving 85

percent of their sentence in prison is unclear.

17. The Treatment Alternatives to Street Crime

(TASC) program offers diversion from prison for

drug-involved offenders who do not pose a serious

risk to the community. Offenders are assessed and

referred to community treatment services as an

alternative or supplement to justice system sanctions and procedures. For a description, see

Inciardi, James A., and D.C. McBride, “Reviewing

the ‘TASC’ (Treatment Alternatives to Street Crime)

Experience,” Journal of Crime and Justice 15

(1) (1992): 45–62; and Inciardi, James A., D.C.

McBride, and J.E. Rivers, Drug Control and the

Courts, Drugs, Health, and Social Policy Series,

vol. 3, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications,

1996: 35–60. In Delaware, the TASC case manager

who works with the drug court is based in the

Department of Health and Social Services. 

18. Statistical Analysis Center and Anova Associates,

The Delaware Drug Court: A Baseline Evaluation,

Wilmington, DE: Delaware Statistical Analysis

Center and Anova Associates, 1998; Statistical

Analysis Center, Evaluation of the Juvenile Drug

Court Diversion Program, Wilmington, DE:

Delaware Statistical Analysis Center, 1998; and

Reed, Emily, Drug Court Diversion Program

Annual Report, Wilmington, DE: SODAT-Delaware,

Inc., 1995. 

19. Delaware Sentencing Accountability Commission,

SENTAC Annual Report, Wilmington, DE: Delaware

Sentencing Accountability Commission, 1997.

20. Statistical Analysis Center and Anova Associates,

The Delaware Drug Court: A Baseline Evaluation.

21. Belenko, Steven, “Research on Drug Courts: 

A Critical Review,” National Drug Court Institute

Review 1 (1) (Summer 1998): 1–42; and Harrell,

Adele, “Understanding the Impact of Drug Courts,”

unpublished draft report, Washington, DC: The

Urban Institute, 1999.

22. Delaware Statistical Analysis Center, Addiction

Sentences, draft report, Wilmington, DE: Delaware

Statistical Analysis Center, 1999.

23. Hubbard et al., “Criminal Justice Client in

Drug Abuse Treatment.”

24. It is beginning to attract attention in academic

circles. See, for example, Rottman, David, and

Pamela Casey, “Therapeutic Jurisprudence and

the Emergence of Problem-Solving Courts,”

National Institute of Justice Journal 240 (July

1999): 12–19.

Sentencing & Corrections 7

Richard S. Gebelein is a judge in the Superior

Court of Delaware. He founded Delaware’s

statewide Drug Court, where he serves as a judge,

responsible for postadjudicated offenders.

This study was supported by cooperative agreement

97–MUMU–K006 between the National Institute of

Justice and the University of Minnesota.

Findings and conclusions of the research reported

here are those of the authors and do not necessarily

reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice. 

The National Institute of Justice is a component

of the Office of Justice Programs, which also

includes the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the

Bureau of Justice Statistics, the Office of Juvenile

Justice and Delinquency Prevention, and the

Office for Victims of Crime.

This and other NIJ publications can be found 

at and downloaded from the NIJ Web site

(http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij).

NCJ 181412
8 Sentencing & Corrections 8 Sentencing & Corrections

PRESORTED STANDARD

POSTAGE & FEES PAID

DOJ/NIJ

Permit No. G–91

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

National Institute of Justice

Washington, DC 20531

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Neal Bryant

Senator

Oregon State Senate

Harold Clarke

Director

Department of Correctional Services

State of Nevada

Cheryl Crawford

Deputy Director, Office of 

Development and Communications

National Institute of Justice

U.S. Department of Justice

Barbara Damchik-Dykes

Project Coordinator

Executive Sessions on Sentencing 

and Corrections

Walter Dickey

Evjue-Bascom Professor of Law

University of Wisconsin 

Ronald Earle

District Attorney

Austin, Texas

Tony Fabelo

Director

Texas Criminal Justice Policy Council

Richard S. Gebelein

Superior Court Judge

Wilmington, Delaware

John Gorczyk

Commissioner

Department of Corrections

State of Vermont

Kathleen Hawk Sawyer

Director

Federal Bureau of Prisons

U.S. Department of Justice

Sally T. Hillsman

Deputy Director

National Institute of Justice

U.S. Department of Justice

Martin Horn

Secretary

Department of Corrections

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

Susan M. Hunter

Chief, Prisons Division

National Institute of Corrections

U.S. Department of Justice 

Leena Kurki

Research Associate 

Law School

University of Minnesota

Project Associate

Executive Sessions on Sentencing 

and Corrections 

John J. Larivee

Chief Executive Officer

Community Resources for Justice

Joe Lehman

Secretary

Department of Corrections

State of Washington

Dennis Maloney

Director

Deschutes County (Oregon) 

Department of Community Justice

Larry Meachum

Director

Corrections Program Office

Office of Justice Programs

U.S. Department of Justice

Mark H. Moore

Guggenheim Professor of Criminal

Justice Policy and Management

John F. Kennedy School of Government

Harvard University

Norval Morris

Emeritus Professor of Law and

Criminology

University of Chicago

Joan Petersilia

Professor of Criminology, 

Law and Society

School of Social Ecology

University of California, Irvine

Kay Pranis

Restorative Justice Planner

Department of Corrections

State of Minnesota

Michael Quinlan

Former Director

Federal Bureau of Prisons 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Chase Riveland

Principal

Riveland Associates

Thomas W. Ross

Superior Court Judge, 

18th Judicial District

Chair, North Carolina Sentencing 

and Policy Advisory Commission

Dora Schriro

Director

Department of Corrections

State of Missouri

Michael Smith

Professor of Law

University of Wisconsin 

Morris Thigpen

Director

National Institute of Corrections

U.S. Department of Justice

Michael Tonry

Director

Institute of Criminology

University of Cambridge

Sonosky Professor of 

Law and Public Policy

University of Minnesota 

Project Director

Executive Sessions on Sentencing 

and Corrections

Jeremy Travis

Senior Fellow

The Urban Institute

Former Director

National Institute of Justice

U.S. Department of Justice

Reginald A. Wilkinson

Director

Department of Rehabilitation 

and Correction

State of Ohio

The Executive Sessions on Sentencing and Corrections 

Convened the following distinguished panel of leaders in the fields: