What remains for drug courts is to determine how to make a difference in the next chapter of participants’ lives: the return to independent community living after graduation from drug court. After all, the ultimate test for drug courts is not whether their clients graduate, but whether they are able to live drug-free and become law-abiding members of society.
In little more than a decade, drug courts have become a standard feature of the judicial landscape in this country. Every state has at least one, and some, such as New York and California, have dozens. The rapid proliferation of drug courts has been driven by research that suggests that drug courts have succeeded in reducing drug use, improving recidivism rates, and generating significant cost savings. In the process, the judges and lawyers who have spearheaded the drug court movement have encouraged courts to change the way they do business, adopting a problem-solving approach to cases fueled by addiction and building unprecedented partnerships with government and non-profit treatment providers. These are not insignificant accomplishments, to be sure.
These achievements do not mean that the drug court story is finished, however. What remains for drug courts is to determine how to make a difference in the next chapter of participants’ lives: the return to independent community living after graduation from drug court. After all, the ultimate test for drug courts is not whether their clients graduate, but whether they are able to live drug-free and become law-abiding members of society.
The obstacles to accomplishing this goal are substantial. Drug court graduates often leave treatment without jobs, without education, and without prospects. At the same time, many must find housing, avoid old habits and acquaintances, and mend broken connections with loved ones. They need, in short, to build new lives for themselves.
This raises some difficult questions for drug courts. What responsibilities do drug courts have to participants after they leave the court? Is it possible to ease their reintegration into the community? What tools and resources would be most helpful to drug court graduates in managing the transition? What role should drug courts play in the process? If drug courts are to take on this challenge, do they need to change the way they are structured? And what are the boundaries? When should the job of a drug court end?
To explore these and other questions related to community reintegration, the U.S. Department of Justice’s Drug Courts Program Office, in collaboration with the Center for Court Innovation, convened a small group of drug court judges, treatment providers, policymakers, and academics for a day-long roundtable. The conversation, which was held in Washington, DC, in November 2000, was a wide-ranging one. Along the way, participants discussed the key elements of reintegration, the relationship between courts and communities, the limits of a court’s coercive authority, and the ethical and legal challenges posed by reintegration.
Needless to say, these are topics that do not lend themselves to silver bullets or simple answers. Consensus was hard to reach. The participants did, however, share a general enthusiasm for involving drug courts in the reintegration process. “I think the community wants courts to be in the business of reintegration,” said Judge John Schwartz of Rochester, NY. Participants pointed to a range of services that, based on experience, they had identified as particularly helpful to graduates, including employment, education, health, and housing.
The enthusiasm for drug courts taking on reintegration was, however, severely tested when several participants broached the idea of adding new requirements for drug court graduation or lengthening the period of court supervision. The most heated exchanges of the day were devoted to the use of coercion to facilitate reintegration. “Do you put someone in jail because he doesn’t get a GED? Do you require him to get a good job? … Where do you draw the line?” asked Valerie Raine, the former coordinator of the Brooklyn Treatment Court. “Parole and probation periods expire,” remarked John Marr, the director of Choices Group, Inc., a treatment program based in Nevada. “We can’t say, ‘Oh, I’m sorry. Because you have a disease that you’re going to deal with for the rest of your life, the court is going to continue to hold you for the rest of your life.’”
These concerns led many participants to nominate another role for drug courts in reintegration—relying on their symbolic authority to “provide leadership,” “marshal resources,” and “generate support” for program graduates. Drug courts could “use their leadership to empower external agencies to do a better job,” said Foster Cook, associate professor and director of substance abuse programs at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. “That includes identifying programs, bringing resources into the court, and strengthening the resources that are available when people go out.” Several participants asserted that drug courts could improve the accountability and effectiveness of treatment providers, requiring them to do better discharge planning and employment training as a standard component of drug treatment. According to Elizabeth Peyton, a consultant specializing in strategies for integrating substance abuse and criminal justice services, “Judges have had to be very demanding in terms of what they expect treatment providers to do.”
Not all participants were as eager to encourage drug courts to play a more active leadership role. Several pointed out that drug courts are designed to hear cases, not engage in community organizing. Participants also cautioned against “romanticizing what courts can do.” As Queens County, NY, Supreme Court Judge Leslie Leach said, “I think the task of trying to create better neighborhoods is too great for drug courts to take on.”
Nevertheless, after a day’s worth of discussion, a tentative consensus emerged: that while drug courts should be cautious about expanding their requirements, they should be creative in employing their symbolic authority to ease the transition of program graduates back into community life. “I think drug courts will sound and feel different as we move forward,” asserted Delaware Superior Court Judge Richard Gebelein. “The questions that the judge asks are going to be different. We won’t just be asking the defendant: ‘How many clean urines have you had?’ … We’ll be asking: ‘Where are you in getting some community help? Are you involved with any kind of organizations? What have you done to implement your discharge plan? Have you made the contacts the plan calls for? Do you have your sponsor?’ And we’ll be expecting the treatment providers to show what they are doing to help implement the discharge plan.”