Dee Mandiyan

Over the past several years, a broad consensus has emerged within the research community that adult drug courts indeed fulfill their promise of increased treatment retention rates and reduced recidivism. While it is difficult to generate exact national estimates, drug courts appear to retain from 60 to 65 percent of their participants for at least one year. This improves considerably on the 10 to 30 percent one-year retention rates that are typical of community-based treatment programs nationwide, where many participants enter voluntarily—without the pressure of a court mandate. Further, drug courts appear to average about a 15 percentage point reduction in the re-arrest rate when compared with conventional prosecution (although many drug courts have achieved considerably larger reductions). While most studies only track re-arrests over one or two years following program intake, several that track offenders over longer “post-program” periods—including studies of the Los Angeles Treatment Court, Baltimore City Treatment Court, and six New York State drug courts—have similarly found that drug courts reduce recidivism.   Drug court results vary considerably from site to site of course. As with many innovations showing early promise, results may decline as drug courts are institutionalized, early charismatic judges and other staff turn over, and funding resources grow more strained. Sustaining the model’s effectiveness may require a more surgical approach to research, focused less on “The bottom line”—do drug courts work?—and more on teasing out which specific components are truly essential. While to date research efforts in this area are limited, a few lessons have begun to emerge: Immediacy: Participants engaged early in the drug court process, often measured by whether they actually begin attending a community-based treatment program within the first thirty days after formally agreeing to enter a drug court, are more likely to be retained and have successful long-term outcomes. Legal Coercion: Part of the success of drug courts stems from the threat of jail for failure. However, legal coercion does not work magically on its own. Evidence indicates that drug courts elicit greater perceptions of coercion when staff conveys clearly, frequently, and specifically the exact consequences of graduating and failing (how much jail time will be served); and when participants perceive that noncompliance will be consistently and swiftly detected and enforced. Judicial Supervision: Biweekly judicial supervision before the drug court judge works especially well with “high-risk” participants (e.g., with those who have previous failed treatment or are diagnosed with anti-social personality disorder). Supervision that includes a great deal of positive feedback from the judge is particularly effective. Sanctions: Behavioral research is clear that sanctions are effective when applied consistently (in every case), fairly (everyone treated the same), rapidly (soon after the infraction), and with appropriate severity (severe enough to be undesirable but not so severe as to preclude graduating to a more severe sanction next time). The literature is limited with respect to which drug court sanctions are most effective, and under what circumstances, however. Rewards: The limited research that exists suggests that rewards appear to increase program retention when they are tangible and applied frequently throughout the participation process—not merely once every three or four months upon phase advancement. Treatment: In general, more time in treatment leads to more positive post-treatment outcomes on measures such as drug use, criminal activity, and employment. Ninety days in treatment is a critical minimum threshold, while on the other end of the spectrum, imposing excessive graduation requirements that keep participants in treatment far beyond one year may be counter-productive. While the evidence indicates that treatment can make a difference, little is known about which modalities (e.g., residential, outpatient, etc.) are most appropriate for different categories of participants. Graduation: Participants who reach drug court graduation are more likely to attain continued success thereafter. Can those who fail drug court nonetheless gain from the experience? Several studies suggest they cannot—that graduation is a pivotal milestone and that without it continued progress is unlikely. These findings highlight the importance for drug courts to maximize their graduation rate (again suggesting that graduation requirements should not be excessive). Equally important as how drug courts work is for whom—which categories of defendants are especially likely to benefit. While little is known to date, three categories of defendants have emerged as likely candidates for success: (a) “high risk” defendant (e.g., more serious criminal history and weaker community ties), (b) those facing greater legal consequences for failing (e.g., those charged with more serious offenses and thus facing more potential jail time), and (c) drug offenders (i.e., as opposed to those arrested for property or other crimes, who may be driven by criminal impulses or motivations besides addiction).

  During spring and summer 2004, focus groups were conducted among the participants and court staff in three New York State drug courts. The research was designed to provide feedback about drug court operations and to assist programs by examining the extent to which participants and staff hold comparable views about various aspects of the drug court experience. In other words, do drug court participants and court staff see eye-to-eye? At each court, participant sessions were followed by focus groups and interviews among court staff. Participants and staff discussed a variety of topics: why participants enter and remain in drug court, views about the drug court program and staff, which components of be the program are more and less effective, the courtroom experience, and suggestions to improve the program. Motivating the project was a recognition that drug courts are likely to be most effective when those operating programs are fully cognizant of the attitudes and experiences of program participants. Drug court staff and participants will, of course, have areas of agreement and disagreement. But it is crucial for staff to be aware of how their perceptions and attitudes might differ from participants’ so that they can most effectively manage those differences, deliver the drug court intervention, and identify areas for continuous improvement. To ensure the anonymity of research participants, the drug courts are not individually identified in the report, which can be read in its entirety here. The report focuses on common themes and findings that emerged across sites. Key Findings Drug court participants and court staff generally do see eye-to-eye. In all three courts, staff were remarkably cognizant about why participants enter drug court, what they do and do not like about it, and what motivates them to remain clean and in the program. The research also made clear that these courts, to varying degrees, regularly elicit feedback from program participants and take that feedback into account when shaping policies and procedures. Staff members’ knowledge of and concern for the participant perspective likely explains in part participants’ positive impressions of the staff. More detailed findings are below.   Participants enter drug court primarily to avoid prison, not to enter treatment and get off drugs. Although some said that their opportunity to enter drug court happened at the “right time” when they wanted to enter treatment, the overwhelming majority of participants acknowledged that they entered drug court mainly to avoid going to prison. Most also felt that, although the program is nominally voluntary, they had little choice but to enter drug court—prison is viewed as an unattractive alternative. Many participants did concede that their motivation changed after being in the program for some time, and they became more concerned about completing treatment, staying clean, and improving their lives. Many participants do not fully appreciate what they are agreeing to when they enter drug court. Most drug court participants reported that the rules and expectations of drug court were explained to them, but it was not until they spent some time in the program and began treatment that they fully understood what they had gotten into—intensive supervision and monitoring. Drug court staff members were aware of this, and reported that they make numerous attempts to make it clear to participants what they are agreeing to at program entry. They were also aware that participants are likely to be resistant early on and that it takes time for them to adjust to the program. Most participants believe the rules of drug court are fair. Most participants reported that the rules of drug court are fair and felt that they are treated fairly by the treatment court team. They spoke particularly favorably about how the judge and others take participants’ “personal situations” into account when making decisions such as sanctions and phase advancement. This knowledge about participants’ lives, and capacity to use it to craft personalized responses, appears to add to drug court participants’ perceptions of procedural justice. Defense attorneys were not perceived as important to drug court. Many participants complained about what they felt was their defense attorneys’ lack of involvement in their case. Once again, staff members appeared aware of these concerns. Some seemed to agree that, at least after the participant enters drug court, defense attorneys are not critical to the program. Others, however, pointed out that defense attorneys have a role but that it is largely behind the scenes—in team meetings rather than open court. Drug court participants, therefore, generally do not see the work their counsel does for them, according to this argument. The judge is a critical component of the drug court treatment model. Both participants and staff had largely positive views about the judge in their court. While appearing before the judge can be daunting, particularly for those called up on an infraction, most participants acknowledged that the judge was fair, sympathetic, and supportive, and that having to appear before the judge helped them stick to their treatment plan. Heightened monitoring, drug testing, and the threat of prison are key motivators to remain clean and in the program. The threat of going to prison for failing the drug court program has a clear and powerful effect on virtually all drug court participants. Participants clearly feared incarceration and would go to great lengths to avoid it. Just as most participants entered drug court to avoid prison, so too the prospect of incarceration is a powerful motivator to keep them in the program. Participants also cited heightened monitoring, especially frequent drug testing, as a critical component of drug court. They differentiated drug court from previous court experiences where there was little monitoring and, thus, their continued drug use went undiscovered. The courtroom experience is critical to drug court participants. Drug court participants clearly personalized the experience of appearing before and speaking to the judge in court; it appears to have a powerful effect. Participants spoke about being very nervous before court appearances, particularly when they anticipated sanction or reprimand and also about the sense of satisfaction when they received positive feedback from the judge. Sitting in court and seeing other cases also appears to be effective. Participants were surprisingly cognizant that this “audience effect” is intentional and most agreed that seeing others receive praise and sanctions (particularly the latter) sends the message that “it could be me” and helps to keep them clean. Treatment programs were the subject of frequent complaint. In all focus groups, criticism focused on a variety of complaints about treatment programs. Participants voiced concern about the length of treatment, classes they felt were inappropriate for them, scheduling issues, and required treatment fees. Staff discussed the lack of certified treatment providers in their communities, particularly those offering programs for specialized populations, as well as the drug court’s limited ability to hold providers accountable. Suggestions to Improve Drug Courts The focus groups also produced a number of thoughtful suggestions from participants and staff about ways to improve their drug court programs. Participants recommended expanding the court in different ways—e.g., having more treatment providers work with the court and providing flexible scheduling of classes; enhancing access to education, employment, job training, and other services; and reimbursing for travel so participants can more easily travel between court and treatment and home. Drug court staff echoed many of these concerns, and offered other suggestions not raised by participants, including the need for more treatment services for women, non-English speakers and the dually diagnosed; more training in addiction issues for judges, attorneys, and other legal staff who work with drug courts (as well as those in other court settings); and more widely available methadone treatment.

Should problem solving be encouraged in general courts? Some may object that elements of the problem solving court model are inconsistent with conventional court processes. There are also unresolved questions. What this research project makes clear, however, is that the potential exists for problem solving to be practiced both in specialized and conventional court settings. In recent years, an array of innovative courts has emerged throughout the country in an effort to address the underlying problems of defendants, victims and communities. Adult drug courts, which seek to break the cycle of addiction, crime, and repeat incarceration by mandating addicted defendants to treatment, were the first such innovation. The first drug court opened in Dade County, Florida in 1989; since then, more than a thousand others have opened. Analogous models have also arisen, including family and juvenile drug courts, domestic violence courts, community courts, and mental health courts. These “problem-solving” courts all attempt to use the authority of the judiciary in new ways and are characterized by a number of unique elements: a problem-solving focus; team approach to decision-making; referrals to treatment and other social services; ongoing judicial monitoring; direct interaction between litigants and judge; community outreach; and a proactive role for the judge inside and outside of the courtroom.As the first generation of drug courts has been proven effective and received public attention and support, several states have begun efforts to institutionalize—or take to scale—problem-solving innovation throughout their court systems. For example, under the leadership of Chief Judge Judith S. Kaye, New York State has implemented adult drug courts in every New York county and has plans for implementing an “integrated” criminal/family domestic violence court in all counties by 2007.In addition to replicating problem-solving courts, a growing number of policymakers have expressed an interest in the application of problem-solving court practices outside the specialized court setting. Among those interested are the Conference of Chief Justices and the Conference of State Court Administrators, who advocated, where appropriate, the broad integration over the next decade of the principles and methods of problem solving courts into the administration of justice to improve court processes and outcomes while preserving the rule of law, and meeting the needs and expectations of litigants, victims, and the community. In an effort to aid this process, the California Administrative Office of the Courts, in collaboration with the Center for Court Innovation in New York, recently conducted research to explore how court systems might integrate problem-solving court practices into conventional court operations. Focus groups were conducted with problem-solving court judges in California and New York, two states at the forefront of testing new problem-solving models. The discussions were wide-ranging but focused on which problem-solving court practices are most easily applied in conventional courts, barriers to the more widespread adoption of problem solving, and strategies to overcome these barriers. The participating judges were cautiously optimistic, identifying many opportunities to practice problem solving in mainstream courts, while raising numerous barriers as well. Which Problem Solving Practices Can Be Integrated throughout Conventional Courts?Focus group participants identified a number of practices they felt could be effectively applied in conventional courts, including: Problem-Solving Orientation. Participants felt that judges in a variety of criminal and civil court settings could be more proactive—asking more questions, reaching out to service providers, and generally seeking more information about each case. Using that information, they could craft more individualized and at times unconventional court orders. Interaction with Defendants/Litigants. Focus group participants considered direct engagement with defendants to be one of the easiest practices to apply in conventional courts, perhaps because it requires no additional resources. Concerns were raised that, in criminal cases, defense attorneys might prevent such interaction for fear that clients might incriminate themselves. But several judges reported that they routinely address defendants directly, with few objections from the defense bar. Treatment and Social Service Integration. Participants identified opportunities to integrate social service mandates (drug treatment, job training, anger management, etc.) into more areas of the conventional court process. At the same time, there was a recognition of the need for increased access to, and coordination of, services. Judicial Supervision. Requiring defendants to report back to court to discuss progress with court mandates was identified by participants as one of the most effective practices that could be applied in conventional criminal courts. While acknowledging the limited time available, many judges said that they have integrated ongoing supervision into their conventional court practice. Team-Based, Non-Adversarial Approach. There was less agreement about whether it is feasible or appropriate to lessen the adversarial nature of the conventional court process. But many judges felt that there were opportunities to craft resolutions agreeable to all parties, particularly in juvenile and family law settings, which already foster such an approach. Participants cautioned that a non-adversarial approach cannot be imposed by the judge alone but is contingent on the willingness of attorneys. They emphasized that defense attorneys in particular must come to trust that the judge will not allow such a team approach to compromise the defendant’s interests. What Are the Barriers and How Might They Be Overcome?Focus group participants identified two key categories of impediments to the practice of problem solving in conventional courts. The first and most significant is limited time and resources. Judges, particularly those in higher-volume jurisdictions, emphasized that they had little time for individualized attention to cases and for ongoing supervision, citing pressures to “move cases along.” Participants also noted that conventional courts lack the technology, case management staff, and other resources that help make specialized problem-solving courts effective.Could these resource-related barriers be overcome? Some participants were pessimistic, but several strategies did emerge from the discussion. For example, judges might adopt a “triage” approach, selecting only the most appropriate cases for increased attention and ongoing judicial supervision. Also discussed were longer-term, more systemic (and costly) solutions such as establishing court-wide screening, assessment and case management systems, sharing specialized problem-solving courts’ case management resources with other courts, and developing directories of community-based service providers to inform all judges about available programs.The second key barrier is conflicting philosophies. Many focus group participants felt that judges with a “traditional” role orientation (“deciding cases,” not “solving problems”) are unlikely to embrace problem solving. Others disagreed, arguing that problem solving is a “learned behavior” and that “exposure to the concept” is the key to changing attitudes. For this reason, many judges believed that educational efforts would be most effective with newer judges, who are less set in their philosophy and practices and more open to learning new skills. The judges conceded, however, that attitudes among longer tenured judges may be slow to change and, therefore, the widespread adoption of problem solving would inevitably be a long-term process. Participants also felt that there are many judges who would potentially be receptive to problem solving yet lack the necessary skills or are unaware of opportunities to practice it in conventional courts.Steps were suggested to better educate the bench, such as including relevant training courses in new judge orientation and judicial college curricula. Most judges felt that it would only make a difference if these courses were mandatory to avoid a “preaching to the choir” effect. Also recommended were less formal ways that judges could be exposed to problem solving—observing specialized problem-solving courts, holding brown bag lunches to discuss relevant issues, sharing success stories. A common theme was that judges should “hear it from other judges” rather than from administrators, attorneys or academics. Focus group participants also encouraged similar training for prosecutors and defenders.In California, there was discussion of the need for “encouragement” and “institutional validation” from presiding judges and other judicial leaders. They suggested that these leaders might encourage bench judges to practice problem solving when appropriate and to volunteer for specialized problem-solving court assignments. Focus group participants did not, however, favor mandatory assignment to these courts, fearing that an assigned judge might be hostile to the court’s goals or methods, or that too-frequent rotation might introduce discontinuity and reduce efficiency. One participant suggested that when making promotions that judicial leaders place less emphasis on traditional skills (e.g., scholarly publications or timely case flow management) and greater emphasis on solving problems. ConclusionShould problem solving be encouraged in general courts? Some may object that elements of the problem solving court model are inconsistent with conventional court processes. There are also unresolved questions. We do not yet know how effective problem solving might be when practiced in conventional courts, with their heavier caseloads, more adversarial process and untrained court personnel. Nor do we know what might be lost when judges and courts, rather than adopting the entire problem-solving court model, selectively apply just some of its practices and principles. What this research project makes clear, however, is that the potential exists for problem solving to be practiced both in specialized and conventional court settings.

Launched in January 2004, the Youth Justice Board brings together young people from throughout New York City to propose solutions to the public safety issues that affect them and their peers. Shocked to learn that 75% of all youth released from state custody are rearrested within three years, the sixteen Board members—drawn from high schools throughout the city—spent nine months researching the topic of juvenile reentry. They met with over two dozen city and state officials, youth workers, scholars, and even reentry youth and their family members, then spent months analyzing the data they collected, formulating policy recommendations and drafting a formal report. Based on their interviews and research, the Youth Justice Board identified three principles that should apply to the whole reentry process: Early PlanningMost juveniles who enter placement return to the same communities that they left. Placement is an opportunity to prepare the young person—and the family—to address the challenges he or she will face when released. Therefore, planning for the return home should start early—as soon as the decision is made to send the young person to placement. Individual TreatmentThe Youth Justice Board recommends that the key players involved with each young person meet early to create a plan that reflects his or her individual strengths and challenges. The team should include the young person, guardians, staff from the state agency responsible for placement and reentry (New York State Office of Children and Family Services, or OCFS), and a school representative. CoordinationYoung people in placement and aftercare come into contact with many agencies (e.g. OCFS, the New York City Department of Education, and community-based service providers), but the Board heard from several agencies that they are in the dark about what other agencies were doing. Regular meetings of all the agencies working with reentry youth would help improve communication, ensuring that youth do not fall between the cracks. Building on these principles, the Youth Justice Board recommends the following ideas to help prevent recidivism among reentry youth: 1. Motivate young people to succeedUltimately, reentry youth themselves are the only ones that can improve their lives. One of the reasons youth drop out of programs and get into trouble is that they are not involved in activities they enjoy. To help reentry youth stay motivated, the Board recommends linking youth to programs they can get excited about, offering job training and links to adult mentors, in particular. 2. Help young people get in school and stay in school Although everyone interviewed agreed that education is crucial, it is hard to get reentry youth back in school and it is hard to get them to stay in school. One Department of Education official said that the biggest barrier is “the human hurdle—no one wants them back.” The Board recommends that OCFS make a higher priority of helping young people catch up in basic reading and math skills while in placement and provide an orientation workshop once they return home to prepare students for the return to their local school. In addition, the Department of Education should match students to schools quickly, make sure credits earned in placement are transferred correctly, and create incentives for schools to accept reentry students. 3. Strengthen the relationships between family and youthOne OCFS official said that if a young person is not accepted by his or her family, he or she will hang out in the streets. He emphasized that it was important to make sure that the family is ready for the young person’s return and bring the youngster up to speed on what has occurred back home. To help address these problems, the Board recommends counseling for the family and youth together, as well as voluntary parent-to-parent support groups. In addition, to maintain communication while the young person is in custody, OCFS should make sure families have an easy way to visit placement facilities in upstate New York. 4. Improve the reentry processThe Board recommends four specific ways to improve the current reentry process: Share assessment information. OCFS collects a lot of information about the young person. Relevant information from these assessments should be available to the organizations that provide services to the young person. Track the early warning signs of recidivism. Usually there are warning signs before a young person is rearrested: he or she becomes truant, violates curfew or doesn’t attend programs. OCFS should institute a uniform system to track these warning signs and intervene before the next arrest occurs. Create Connection Centers. The Board recommends creating a transition facility just north of New York City that would focus on helping young people make the difficult transition from placement to home. Since it is closer to home, OCFS aftercare workers, Department of Education staff, and parents could all meet to make sure the details of the reentry plan (e.g. school placement) are in place. Create Welcome Centers. Once they are back home, reentry youth need a place where they can go to get reliable information about services and opportunities. Welcome Centers in their communities would have links to youth development programs, mental health and substance abuse services, job training and peer support groups.