EASE Home

EASE Home

EASE Home

EASE Home

EASE Home

EASE Home

The Drug Court Movement

The emergence of crack cocaine in the mid-1980ís had an unprecedented and dramatic impact on the Nationís criminal justice system. In an effort to stem the street drug dealing, and crime, and violence associated with illegal drug use, the arrest and prosecution of drug offenders was sharply escalated. At the same time, penalties for the possession and sale of drugs were toughened, so greater numbers
of drug offenders were charged with felonies that carried sentences of incarceration. As a result of the Nation's "War on Drugs," greater numbers of drug offenders were arrested, prosecuted, and convicted; however, drug offenders received few if any treatment services. The result was a revolving-door syndrome, in which drug offenders cycled in and out of the justice system.

The influx of drug offenders to the system severely strained the courts, forcing some to the brink
of collapse. In an effort to address growing caseloads, courts employed delay-reduction strategies, including establishing specialized court dockets to expedite drug case processing. These approaches, however, did little to stem the tide of drug offenders into the system, to habilitate drug offenders already in the system, or to reduce recidivism of released offenders.

In 1989, troubled by the devastating impact of drugs and drug-related crime on their criminal justice systems, a few communities began experimenting with an approach to low-level drug offenses that brought significant change to the way the court system does business. This new approach integrated substance abuse treatment sanctions, and incentives with case processing to place nonviolent drug-involved defendants in judicially supervised habilitation programs. The traditional system had rarely provided substance abuse treatment to defendants in any systematic way and, in many cases, provided little or no threat of sanctions to drug offenders.

The new approach, a significant departure from traditional court practice, was not always widely supported by members of the judiciary, prosecutors, and the defense bar. Gradually, however, judges, prosecutors, and other representatives of the justice system across the country who were struggling with similar issues involving drug offenders began to examine the drug court approach to assess whether replication (or adaptation) might offer them a better response to drug cases.

Since 1989, more than 650 courts have implemented or are planning to implement drug courts to address the problem of substance abuse and crime. Local coalitions of judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, treatment professionals, law enforcement officials, and others are using the coercive power of the court to force abstinence and to alter behavior with a combination of escalating sanctions, mandatory drug testing, treatment, and strong aftercare programs to teach responsibility and to help offenders reenter the community. Drug courts are among a few recent criminal justice initiatives that have started at the grassroots level and spread across the Nation.

Congress joined local communities in acknowledging the promise of drug courts in habilitating offenders, holding offenders accountable for their actions, and reducing victimization by intervening soon after arrest by enacting the Crime Act of 1994 (Title I, Subchapter XII-J of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 3796ii et seq.). Congress authorized the Attorney General to make grants to States, State courts, local courts, units of local government, and Indian tribal governments to establish drug courts. The authority has been delegated to the Assistant Attorney General, Office of Justice Programs (OJP). The Drug Courts Program Office (DCPO) was established by OJP to administer the Drug Court Grant Program and to provide training, financial and technical assistance, and related programmatic guidance and leadership to communities interested in drug courts.


Important Partnership with Treatment
For drug courts to be most effective, judges must rely on treatment providers and treatment coordinators to assist in developing treatment, habilitation, and supervision plans for each defendant. Treatment is most effective when offenders are correctly matched to the appropriate level of care, as identified through the assessment or diagnostic process. The treatment needs of individuals eligible for the drug court program are assessed, as are any related medical, psychological, and other problems that t he treatment program will have to address. Length of stay in treatment and in aftercare are factors associated with positive outcomes and, in particular, with the cessation of drug use, reduction in recidivism rates, and improvement in educational and employment status and family relationships.

In coordination with the drug court judge and other court personnel, treatment and other case management personnel, such as those involved with Treatment Alternatives to Street Crime (TASC) programs, assess clientsí treatment needs, track their progress in treatment programs, and determine appropriate levels of treatment services. Supportive social services provide drug court staff with links to employment, educational and vocational placement, family counseling, and housing placement assistance for drug court participants. 1

Drug court practitioners understand that drug addiction is a complex, chronic, relapsing disease and that a comprehensive, sustained continuum of therapeutic interventions and services can increase clientsí periods of abstinence and reduce the rate of relapse, rearrest, and incarceration. Therapeutic interventions and services include, but are not limited to, prompt intake and assessment; detoxification, if indicated; and substance abuse treatment, ranging from outpatient to residential services and including a strong focus on therapeutic relapse prevention methodologies.2


Key Components of a Drug Court
In January 1997, DOJ released ìDefining Drug Courts: The Key Components,î which is based on
the experience of the drug court field. The report describes the 10 key components of a drug court
and provides performance benchmarks for each component. It was developed through a cooperative agreement between OJP, DCPO, and the National Association of Drug Court Professionals, which convened the Drug Court Standards Committee. The committee comprised drug court practitioners throughout the Nation (judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, treatment providers, pretrial service officers, and probation officers). The Conference of Chief Justices, the Conference of State Court Administrators, and several states have adopted the key components. More than 14,000 copies of the key components document have been distributed. The document has been used at more than 60 Federal, State, or locally sponsored drug court training conferences. The report is available through the National Criminal Justice Reference Service Clearinghouse, at 1ñ800ñ851ñ3420, and on the DCPO home page (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/dcpo).

As identified by the committee, the 10 key components of a drug court are:

1. Drug courts integrate alcohol and other drug treatment services with justice system case processing.

2. Using a nonadversarial approach, prosecution and defense counsel promote public safety while protecting participantsí due process rights.

3. Eligible participants are identified early and promptly placed in the drug court program.

4. Drug courts provide access to a continuum of alcohol, drug, and related treatment and habilitation services.

5. Abstinence is monitored by frequent alcohol and other drug testing.

6. A coordinated strategy governs drug court responses to participantsí compliance.

7. Ongoing judicial interaction with each drug court participant is essential.

8. Monitoring and evaluation measure the achievement of program goals and gauge effectiveness.

9. Continuing interdisciplinary education promotes effective drug court planning, implementation, and operations.

10. Forging partnerships among drug courts, public agencies, and community-based organizations generates local support and enhances drug court program effectiveness.