October 1997

This report was prepared by the OJP Drug Court Clearinghouse and Technical Assistance Project which is supported by

Grant No. 95-DC-MX-K002 awarded by the Drug Courts Program Office, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of

Justice. Points of view or opinions in this document are those of the authors and do not ecessarily represent the official

position or policies of the United States Department of Justice.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Foreword

Agencies Responding to Drug Court Clearinghouse 1997 Drug Court Survey

I. Drug Court Program Developments and Activities: Major Observations

II. Who is the Drug Court Client?

III. Principal Findings

A. Volume One: Part I: Judicial Operations and Perspectives

1. Program Goals

2. Targeted Offenses

3. Number and Length of Phases

4. Locus of Program in Judicial Process

5. Assignment of Cases to Drug Court Judge(s)

6. Participant Eligibility Criteria

7. Changes Programs Have Made in Eligibility Criteria Since Beginning

8. Program Capacity, Enrollments, and Characteristics of Client Population

9. Program Procedures

10. Screening and Assessment Process

11. Screening, Assessment, Case Management and Treatment Services

12. Nature and Frequency of Contact between Drug Court and Participant

13. Nature and Frequency of Court Contact with Defendant and Applicable Sanctions/Sentence Prior to Implementing Drug

Court

14. Aftercare and Alumni Activities

15. Oversight/Advisory Committees

16. Program Costs and Funding

1 of 6 12/28/15 6:37 AM
17. Justice System Cost Savings

18. Responses to Participant Progress and Relapse

19. Unsuccessful Termination of Participants

20. Successful Drug Court Program Completion and Graduation

21. Information and Monitoring Systems

22. Program Evaluation and Assessment

23. Tasks Needed to Institutionalize the Drug Court in the Responding Jurisdictions

24. Modifications and Enhancements Planned for Next Year

25. Program Operational and Planning Issues and Advice to Colleagues

B. Volume Two: Part Two: Perspectives of Prosecutors

1. Criteria Being Used to Assess Drug Court Effectiveness

2. Impact of Drug Court on Office's Capability to Handle Office's Criminal Caseload and Functions

3. Benefits Prosecutors Have Derived from Drug Court Program

4. Relationship of Drug Court Program with Community Prosecution Activities

5. Drug Caseload Activity Trends Since Drug Court Began

6. Costs for Drug Court Program

7. Savings Achieved

8. Program Operational and Planning Issues and Advice to Colleagues

C. Volume Two: Part Three: Perspectives of Defense Counsel

1. Criteria Being Used to Assess Effectiveness of Drug Court

2. Impact of Drug Court on Public Defender's Office's Capability to Handle its Criminal Caseload and Functions

3. Benefits Derived from Program

4. Costs to Indigent Defense Office for Drug Court

5. Savings Achieved

6. Program Implementation and Operational Issues and Advice to Colleagues

D. Volume Two: Part Four: Perspectives of Police/Law Enforcement Agency Officials

1. Criteria Being Used to Assess Effectiveness of the Drug Court

2. Impact of Drug Court on Agency's Capability to Respond to Criminal Activity and/or Carry Out its Functions

3. Impact of Program on Other Aspects of Agency Operations

4. Changes in Drug-Related Arrests Since Drug Court Began

5. Costs Incurred for Drug Court Program

6. Savings Achieved

7. Program Implementation and Planning Issues and Advice to Colleagues

E. Volume Two: Part Five: Perspectives of Correctional Agency Officials

1. Criteria Being Used to Assess Effectiveness of Drug Court

2. Impact of Drug Court on Agency's Capability to Respond to Criminal Activity and/or to Carry Out its Functions

3. Costs for Drug Court

2 of 6 12/28/15 6:37 AM
4. Savings Achieved

5. Program Implementation and Planning Issues and Advice to Colleagues

F. Volume Three: Part Six: Treatment Provider Services and Perspectives

1. Program Phases

2. Providers of Drug Court Treatment and Related Services

3. Screening and Assessment and Case Management

4. Effect of Mental Disorders on Program Eligibility

5. Timeframe for Determining Eligibility for Treatment Following Determination of Drug Court Eligibility

6. Client Treatment Plans

7. Client Case Management

8. Drug Court Treatment and Rehabilitation Services

9. Addressing Mental Health Needs

10. Capability to Refer Participant to Inpatient Treatment

11. Medications Permitted

12. Use of Alcohol by Drug Court Participants

13. Adjuncts to Treatment Used

14. Child Care Services for Participants While Attending Treatment Sessions

15. Urine Testing

16. Costs for Drug Court Treatment Services

17. Total Program Capacity Annually

18. Nature and Frequency of Contacts with Drug Court Participants

19. Comparison of Drug Court Treatment Services With Treatment Services Provided to Typical Drug Court Participant Prior

to Instituting the Drug Court

20. Treatment Program Requirements And Experience To Date

21. Program Follow-up and Aftercare

22. Criteria Used to Assess Effectiveness of the Drug Court Program

23. Funding Sources for Treatment Services

24. Impact of Managed Care on Drug Court Treatment Services

25. Program Operational and Planning Issues and Advice to Colleagues

G. Part Seven: Participant Comments

1. Introduction

2. Background of Respondents

3. Participant Comments Regarding Drug Court Experience

4. Participants' Comments Regarding Drug Court Components

5. Participants' Perceptions Regarding Significance of Potential Changes in Principal Components of Drug Court Programson

their Retention

Appendices:

A. Drug Court Activity By State: October 1997

3 of 6 12/28/15 6:37 AM
B. Perspectives of Judicial System Officials

1. Most Serious Problems Encountered in Regard to Drug Court Implementation and Strategies Used to Resolve Them

2. Unanticipated Issues That Have Arisen and Strategies to Address Them

3. Advice to Colleagues in Other Jurisdictions Contemplating the Implementation of a Drug Court

C. Perspectives of Prosecutors

1. Most Serious Problems Encountered in Regard to Drug Court Implementation and Strategies Used to Resolve Them

2. Unanticipated Issues That Have Arisen and Strategies to Address Them

3. Advice to Colleagues in Other Jurisdictions Contemplating the Implementation of a Drug Court

D. Perspectives of Defense Counsel

1. Most Serious Problems Encountered in Regard to Drug Court Implementation and Strategies Used to Resolve Them

2. Unanticipated Issues That Have Arisen and Strategies to Address Them

3. Advice to Colleagues in Other Jurisdictions Contemplating the Implementation of a Drug Court

E. Perspectives of Law Enforcement Agency Officials

1. Most Serious Problems Encountered in Regard to Drug Court Implementation and Strategies Used to Resolve Them

2. Unanticipated Issues That Have Arisen and Strategies to Address Them

3. Advice to Colleagues

F. Perspectives of Correctional Agency Officials

1. Most Serious Problems Encountered in Regard to Drug Court Implementation and Strategies Used to Resolve Them

2. Unanticipated Issues That Have Arisen and Strategies to Address Them

3. Advice to Colleagues

G. Perspectives of Treatment Providers

1. Most Serious Problems Encountered in Regard to Drug Court Implementation and Strategies Used to Resolve Them

2. Unanticipated Issues That Have Arisen and Strategies to Address Them

3. Advice to Colleagues

Foreword

The 1997 Drug Court Survey Report provides a comparative profile of ninety-three operating drug court programs and revises our 1996

Drug Court Profile prepared for the State Justice Institute's 1995 National Symposium on the Implementation and Operation of Drug

Courts, which reflected the experiences of 45 responding drug courts then in operation. The 1997 Drug Court Survey Report, focusing on

critical operational elements and implementation issues that have emerged, is designed to be updated, periodically, to reflect the

continuing evolution of the drug court concept, as new programs emerge and existing programs refine their operations.

The information in the 1997 Drug Court Survey Report was derived from responses from ninety-seven drug courts in operation as of

January 1997 to a survey distributed by the Office of Justice Programs/U.S. Department of Justice's Drug Court Clearinghouse and

Technical Assistance Project at American University. The 1997 survey, an expansion of previous drug court surveys, consisted of six

sections to be completed by the principal agencies involved in the drug court operations in each of the jurisdictions surveyed: (1) general

program information to be completed by the court; and more specific information relating to (2) prosecution activities; (3) defense activities;

(4) law enforcement activities; (5) correctional agency activities; and (6) the treatment, rehabilitation and related services provided for the

program.

The 1997 Drug Court Survey Report is presented in four volumes: Volume One contains general program information provided primarily by

drug court judges and judicial staff. Volume Two provides information relating to the activities and perspectives of prosecutors, public

defenders, law enforcement officials and correctional agency administrators involved with drug courts in their local jurisdictions. Volume

Three focuses on the treatment and rehabilitation services provided for drug courts programs and reflects the comments of treatment

professionals providing services to drug courts in their respective jurisdictions. Volume Four provides the perspectives of 256 participants

in the final phases of 53 drug court programs in 23 different states plus the District of Columbia regarding critical aspects of drug court

4 of 6 12/28/15 6:37 AM
program operations.

This Executive Summary Report provides a synopsis of the major findings presented in the 1997 Drug Court Survey Report volumes.

The ninety-three drug courts reflected in the 1997 Drug Court Survey Report include ninety-one state courts, one tribal court and one

federal district court. The reporting programs operate in 31 different states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and one federal district,

and represent 72% of the 130 drug courts in operation at the time the survey was distributed. Between the time of the survey's distribution

and the publication of this report, an additional 74 drug courts have become operational, for a total of 371 programs now in operation or

being planned.

Special appreciation is extended to the following individuals who provided suggestions on issues to capture in the survey and/or reviewed

the draft survey instrument and offered valuable suggestions for its improvement:

Steven Belenko, National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse, Columbia University, New York, New York;

John Carver, former Director of the District of Columbia Pretrial Services Agency and now associate with Justice

Management Institute, Washington D.C. office;

John Goldkamp, Professor of Criminal Justice at Temple University and President of Crime and Justice Research Institute,

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania;

Gabriel Guerrieri, Executive Director of Genesis Counseling Center, Collingswood, New Jersey, which provides treatment

services to the Camden, New Jersey Drug Court;

Robin Kimbrough, Associate Director, Institute for Families in Society, University of South Carolina, Columbia, South

Carolina;

Barry Mahoney, President, Justice Management Institute, Denver, Colorado;

John Marr, Executive Director, Choices, Ltd., of Las Vegas, Nevada, which provides treatment services to the Las Vegas and

Reno, Nevada adult and juvenile drug courts;

Judge Tomar Mason, Presiding Judge of the San Francisco, California Municipal Court;

Valerie Moore, Executive Director of InAct, Inc., of Portland, Oregon, which provides treatment services to the Multnomah

County, Oregon Drug Court;

Judge John Parnham, Drug Court Judge for the adult and juvenile drug courts in Pensacola, Florida;

Dr. Roger Peters, Professor of Psychology at the University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida;

Marilyn Roberts and staff of the OJP Drug Courts Program Office, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington D.C.;

Dr. Michael Smith, Director of the Substance Abuse Clinic at Lincoln Hospital in New York, New York;

Judge Jeffrey Tauber and staff of the National Association of Drug Court Professionals, Alexandria, Virginia; and

Robin Wright, Drug Court Coordinator for the adult and juvenile drug courts, First Judicial Circuit, Pensacola, Florida.

Special thanks are extended to the staff of National TASC, who assisted in the development of the survey instrument focusing on treatment

issues (Volume III), and to the following student interns who painstakingly assisted in the entering of the data which has formed the

foundation for this report series: Ximena Marquez, Anne Marie O'Neill, Susan Puckhaber, and Melanie Vasquez. Joseph Trotter's ready

willingness to review draft findings and his invaluable insights regarding their interpretation contributed immeasurably to these documents.

It is impossible, however, to adequately thank Shanie Bartlett and Michelle Shaw for all they have done to prepare these documents for

final publication from substantive critique and editorial suggestions to data verification, textual formatting and document presentation. Their

patience, good humor, and enthusiasm through the many months of this survey development and reporting process were the critical

ingredients to making possible the completion of this project.

It goes without saying that the information contained in the 1997 Drug Court Survey Report was made possible by the special efforts of the

more than 400 drug court officials in the reporting jurisdictions who offered their time and insights to provide the responses upon which this

report is based. The names and addresses of many of these officials are listed in the Appendix which follows each section of the report.

We extend our deep appreciation to each person who contributed to the survey responses. We are grateful for the insights and experience

they have shared and for their considerable and enthusiastic assistance in advancing the "state of the art" and knowledge regarding drug

court operations. Through their efforts, we have been able to develop the "profile" information presented in these volumes and to

disseminate it to their colleagues in the field.

Caroline S. Cooper, Director

OJP Drug Court Clearinghouse and Technical Assistance Project

School of Public Affairs, American University, Washington D.C.

5 of 6 12/28/15 6:37 AM
Agencies Responding to Drug Court Clearinghouse 1997 Drug Court Survey

Name of Court St Part 1

(Court)

Part 2

(Prosecutor)

Part 3

(Defense)

Part 4

(Law Enf.)

Part 5

(Corrections)

Part 6

(Treatment)

Part 7

(Participant)

Mobile AL Y Y Y -- -- Y Y

Tuscaloosa AL Y -- -- -- -- -- --

Maricopa/

Phoenix

AZ Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Tucson AZ Y -- Y Y Y -- --

Little Rock AR Y -- -- -- -- -- --

Bakersfield CA Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

El Monte/Rio Hondo CA Y -- -- -- -- Y Y

Los Angeles Mun. CA Y Y Y Y Y -- Y

Oakland Mun. CA Y -- -- -- -- -- --

Oakland Sup. CA Y -- -- -- -- -- --

San Bernardino CA Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Laguna Nigel CA Y -- -- -- -- Y --

Pasadena CA Y -- -- -- -- Y Y

Roseville CA Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

San Francisco CA -- -- -- -- -- Y --

Salinas CA Y Y -- -- -- Y --

San Jose/

Santa Clara

CA Y Y Y -- Y Y Y

Santa Barbara CA Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Santa Maria CA Y -- -- -- -- -- --

Santa Monica CA Y -- -- -- -- Y Y

Santa Rosa/

Sonoma

CA Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Stockton CA Y Y Y -- -- Y Y

Woodland/

Yolo

CA Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Modesto CA Y -- -- -- Y Y Y

Richmond CA Y -- -- -- -- Y --

Santa Ana CA Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Denver CO Y

6 of 6 12/28/15 6:37 AM