Drug Court Effectiveness: A Review of California Evaluation

Over the past two decades, drug courts have emerged as a viable alternative for addressing drug cases within the criminal justice system. In California, the Drug Court Partnership Program (DCPP) was created in 1998 and has supported and funded the development of drug courts throughout the State. This article reports on a review of California drug court evaluations through January 2000 conducted as part of an evaluation of the California DCPP. A total of 23 evaluations were collected. Seventeen were reviewed in detail, and six were excluded because they were internal reports rather than evaluations. A standardized review process was initiated which led to a scored rating of the evaluation reports. Results of this review support previous findings that drug court participants may experience reduced rearrest rates by 11% to 14% compared to nonparticipants. The largest reduction in rearrest rates appears among graduates. The graduation rates were between 19% and 54%. Costs and savings associated with drug courts were discussed but no conclusions were possible based on the findings from these evaluations. The evaluation of the effectiveness of drug courts presents unique challenges. This review concludes with a discussion of evaluation methods (e.g. standardizing rate calculations, term definitions) that would strengthen drug court research. Keywords—drug courts, criminal justice, judicial process, substance abuse, drug policy, drug abuse This work was supported by the California Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs, and by the National Institute on Drug Abuse San Francisco Treatment Research Center (Grant P50 DA09253). The work was conducted under the auspices of the California Collaborative Center for Substance Abuse Policy Research (CCCSAPR). The authors thank Dr. Jean Oggins for her assistance during the development and early implementation phases of this study. *Associate Adjunct Professor, Institute for Health Policy Studies, University of California, San Francisco **Postdoctoral Fellow, Department of Psychiatry, University of California, San Francisco ***Senior Public Administrative Analyst, Institute for Health Policy Studies, University of California, San Francisco ****Assistant Adjunct Professor, Center for AIDS Prevention Studies, University of California, San Francisco Please address correspondence and reprint requests to Joseph Guydish, Ph.D., Institute for Health Policy Studies, 3333 California Street, Suite 265, San Francisco, California 94118. Email: [email protected]. In the past two decades, the jail and prison systems of the United States have experienced unparalleled growth, with much of this growth attributable to drug-related crime. From 1980 to 1997 the number of persons incarcerated in state prisons for violent offenses doubled, the number incarcerated for nonviolent offenses tripled, and the number incarcerated for drug offenses increased eleven-fold (1040% increase) (Beatty, Holman & Shiraldi 2000). Early efforts to address drug issues in court systems occurred between the 1950s and 1970s, when a few courts dedicated themselves to addressing drug cases. Specialized to meet the growing heroin problem of the time and in response to harsher penalties for drug-related offenses, these courts met with limited success. The crack cocaine epidemic of the 1980s, and the legislative and judicial response to this epidemic, resulted in changing demographics of the drugoffender population to include more minorities and women. Incarceration alternatives such as diversion programs and Guydish et al. Drug Court Effectiveness Journal of Psychoactive Drugs 370 Volume 33 (4), October – DeGuydish et al. Drug Court Effectiveness Journal of Psychoactive Drugs 371 Volume 33 (4), October – Detreatment as a condition of probation were designed to meet the needs of this growing and more diverse offender population. However, these programs had limited supervision, varied in approach and structure, and did not seem to stem the growth in jail and prison populations (Drug Courts Program Office 1999; Belenko 1990). The first structured drug court began in Dade County, Florida, in 1989 (Goldkamp & Weiland 1993). Subsequent drug courts emerged as a result of a nationwide grassroots effort that evolved from prior attempts at integrating substance abuse treatment and criminal justice systems, and out of the frustrations of judicial leaders who saw “revolving door” court strategies as ineffective. Several early drug courts were developed in the wake of the Miami Drug Court, and the experiences of these early courts were distilled in a guide entitled “Defining Drug Courts: The Key Components” (Drug Court Program Office 1997). The 10 key components of drug courts include such elements as immediate sanctions, a nonadversarial approach, frequent drug testing, immediate access to a continuum of substance abuse treatment services, and a partnership between drug courts, public agencies and community-based organizations. Since 1989, in addition to the practice standards reflected in the key components, the drug court movement has been supported and assisted in its development by a federal Drug Court Programs Office, a dedicated professional association (National Association of Drug Court Professionals), and a training institute (National Drug Court Institute). There are currently over 700 drug courts nationwide, and an additional 400 drug courts in planning stages (National Drug Court Institute 2001). Drug courts vary in terms of whether they are preor post-plea programs, and whether they are sentencebased or diversion model courts. Recently, other specialized courts such as juvenile, family, domestic violence, mental health, driving under the influence, and prostitution courts have developed from the original drug court model. THE CALIFORNIA DRUG COURT PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM (DCPP) In California there are over 128 drug courts, with 49 out of the 58 counties operating at least one (California Administrative Office of the Courts 2001). About 30 counties have more than one drug court, with Los Angeles County having 11 adult drug courts. The California Drug Court Partnership Act of 1998 (Health and Safety Code 11970), allocated $4 million to support the development of drug courts statewide. The initial funding, available in May 1999, was supplemented by an additional $4 million in July 1999. Under this initiative, 34 counties received funding to implement or expand (post-plea) drug courts. The legislation provided that the Department of Alcohol and Drug programs and the California Judicial Council would conduct an evaluation of the DCPP. One component of the statewide DCPP evaluation involved the collection and review of existing California-based drug court evaluation reports. This article reports on a review of all California drug court evaluations available through January 2000. Each evaluation was reviewed and abstracted to produce a descriptive summary, and was then rated for its scientific strength using a 25-point scale. In this article, findings from the 11 highestrated outcome studies are summarized to offer conclusions about the effectiveness of California drug courts. Drawing from the experience of conducting this review, the authors discuss considerations for designing and reporting future drug court evaluations.