Citation
Drug courts and the effects on recidivism

Material Information

Title:
Drug courts and the effects on recidivism a look at Boulder County District Court
Publication Date:
Physical Description:
ix, 94 leaves : ; 28 cm.

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Drug courts -- Colorado -- Boulder County ( lcsh )
Recidivism -- Colorado -- Boulder County ( lcsh )
Drug abuse -- Treatment -- Law and legislation -- Colorado -- Boulder County ( lcsh )

Notes

Thesis:
Thesis (M.S.)--University of Colorado Denver, 2011. Political science
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references (leaves 90-94).
General Note:
Department of Political Science
Statement of Responsibility:
by Leann Stover.

Record Information

Source Institution:
|University of Colorado Denver
Holding Location:
|Auraria Library
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
781462517 ( OCLC )
ocn781462517

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text
I
DRUG COURTS AND THE EFFECTS ON RECIDIVISM: A LOOK AT
BOULDER COUNTY DISTRICT COURT
By
Leann Stover
B.A., Washburn University, 2007
A thesis submitted to the
University of Colorado Denver
in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Political Science
Liberal Arts and Sciences
2011


This thesis for the Master of Political Science
degree by
Leann Stover
has been approved
by
Date


Stover, Leann (Master of Arts, Political Science, Liberal Arts and Sciences,
University of Colorado Denver)
Drug Courts and the Effects on Recidivism: A Look at Boulder County District
Court
Thesis directed by Professor Tony Robinson
ABSTRACT
Historically, the United States has struggled with how to deal with drug
problems. Increasingly, the criminal justice system is not equipped to handle the
mounting pressures of war on drugs policies and jail overcrowding. Offering a
partial solution to such challenges, research shows that drug courts reduce
recidivism rates.
This case study of a Drug Court in Boulder County concludes that 18% of
drug court graduates from the Boulder County drug court were re-arrested after
one year, and 39% of drug court graduates did not experience a new arrest after
two years. This data compares to non-drug court offenders, who were re-arrested
at a rate of 44% after the first year and 51% after the second year. National
studies revealed similar results; only 16% of drug court graduates were re-arrested
(charged) after year one and 27% after year two.
Finally, the criminal justice system profits from drug courts in many ways.
Jails, courts, and probation departments are able to operate more efficiently as the
numbers of drug offenders processed in the system go down. In addition, drug
courts provide an economic benefit by reducing the need to build more jails.
This abstract accurately represents the content of the candidates thesis. I
recommend its publication.
Signed
Tony Robinson


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Cary Heck, Ph.D., director of research for The National Drug Court Institute
(NDCI) is recognized for providing a standard framework for process evaluation
and performance measurement. The standard for research she provided has
assisted in the development of this report. Furthermore, it has contributed to the
systematic methods used for gathering information.


TABLE OF CONTENTS
Tables....................................................VII
Figures...................................................VIII
CHAPTER
1. INTRODUCTION..............................................1
Defining Drug Courts..................................4
Understanding Why Change in the Criminal System is
Necessary............................................13
Prison Overcrowding............................18
Limitations with Probation.....................21
Drug Addiction.................................23
History of Drug Courts In America....................25
2. DO DRUG COURTS WORK?.....................................31
Recidivism...........................................32
Cost Savings.........................................39
Impact of Drug Courts on Individuals/Communities and the Criminal
Justice System.....................................43
3. DRUG COURT METHODS USED IN BOULDER COUNTY................45
AITC Program Rules...................................49
Entry Process........................................51
AITC Court Hearings..................................53
V


Sanctions and Incentives
54
Termination Criteria.....................................55
Program Phases...........................................57
Phase 1-Orientation...............................57
Phase 2-Stability.................................60
Phase 3-Sober Living Skills.......................60
Phase 4-Relapse Prevention........................61
Phase 5-Maintenance Phase.........................61
Graduation Criteria......................................63
Probation Supervision....................................64
Regular Probation.................................66
Adult Intensive Supervision Program...............67
4. METHODOLOGY..................................................70
Site Selection....................................70
AITC Sample.......................................70
Non-AITC Sample...................................71
Data Collection...................................71
Results of the Case Study................................72
Demographics......................................72
VI


Gender
74
Age.........................................76
Substance Use...............................79
Recidivism Results..........................82
Further Analysis-Biases and Shortcomings..........84
5. CONCLUSION...........................................88
BIBLIOGRAPHY............................................90
VII


LIST OF TABLES
TABLE
1 Operational drug courts by year..............................26-27
2 Nationwide comparison of re-arrest rates........................34
3 Five institutional studies......................................37
4 Differences in reconviction rates between drug court program participants
and comparison group members.......................................38
5 Cost benefit comparisons........................................41
6 Minority representation in drug courts..........................74
7 Comparison of gender in drug courts.............................75
8 Recidivism rates among gender...................................76
9 Primary drug choice of drug court participants..................78
10. Estimated recidivism rates.....................................83
VIII


LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
1. The number of drug courts in all 50 states......................28
2. Re-arrest rate after year one and year two......................36
3. Age of participants in drug court...............................77
4. Primary substance use in Boulder County.........................80
5. Primary substance use of comparison groups......................81
IX


CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this paper is to answer the following questions: What are
drug courts and do they work? More precisely, do drug courts help reduce crime
and alleviate issues in the criminal justice system? Historically, the United States
has struggled with how to deal with growing drug problems. The criminal justice
system is not equipped to handle the mounting pressures of war on drugs
policies and jail overcrowding. Drug courts however, have many beneficial
impacts on the criminal justice system. Research shows that alternative
sentencing institutions like drug courts are mechanisms for reducing crime and
saving money by reducing drug use and recidivism rates, through a combination
of drug abuse treatment and the coercive power of the court. According to the
National Association of Drug Court Professionals (NADCP), 75% of Drug Court
graduates remain arrest-free at least two years after exiting the program.
In order to answer the above questions, an analysis of drug courts is
necessary to explore how they operate, and to document the measurable benefits
(if any), of the courts, including a reduction in crime. In this thesis, data from
several nationwide drug courts are compared to 2008 data from a Boulder County,
CO adult drug court, including data concerning recidivism rates.


Boulder County Drug Court, a medium sized court, was selected as a case
study because of its uniqueness in placing an emphasis on positive reinforcement.
Not only are sanctions used as in other Drug Courts, but incentives such as gift
cards, are used to reward participants for positive progress. To measure the
recidivism rates for drug court graduates, a total of 38 graduates were studied.
This includes all graduates in 2008, allowing enough time for the program to
resolve any issues. In addition, the study considers recidivism results of each
participant one and two years post graduation in order to compare the results to
nationwide results. Although selecting graduates from 2009 would have given a
larger sample size; because 2011 is not complete, it would not have given an
accurate comparison of recidivism rates after two years. The data was collected
through a name search in the Colorado statewide index.
The study also assessed the recidivism rates of drug court offenders who
did not go through drug court. The sample of 48 offenders was randomly selected
out of a pool of over eighteen hundred offenders in Boulder County. In order to
be consistent the compared group exited the court system (sentence complete) at
roughly the same time as the drug court graduates. In addition, the non-drug court
offenders chosen were charged with similar offenses (felonies) to the drug court
graduates. Results from the comparison of drug court and non-drug court
graduates were then compared to nationwide studies.
2


The remainder of this report is broken into five chapters. Chapter one,
section one, defines drug courts, focusing on the purpose, how they operate, and
who is involved. The second section describes why a change in the criminal
justice system is necessary. In this section, there are three sub-sections discussing
prison overcrowding, limitations with probation, and the argument that addiction
should be defined as a disease, not a choice. The third section explains the history
of drug courts in America.
Chapter two gives a comprehensive look at nationwide studies and
provides insight into whether drug courts work in terms of recidivism and cost.
Additionally, this chapter illustrates the impact of drug courts on society and the
criminal justice system as a whole. The third chapter details how the drug court
in Boulder County operates.
Chapter four is broken into three sections. The first section discusses the
methodology used for the case study of the Boulder County court, outlining the
site selection, sample selection of both drug court graduates and non-drug court
offenders, and how data was collected. The second section is a comparative
analysis of national results with the case study conducted in Boulder County.
Incorporated in this section are results regarding demographics, gender, age, types
of substance addiction, and finally recidivism. Finally, potential biases and areas
for further research are the focus of the third section.
3


Lastly, chapter five provides a summary of the findings on drug courts and the
overall impact.
Defining Drug Courts
Drug Courts are an alternative to conventional criminal justice prosecution
for drug-related offenses (California Courts, 3/11/11). Eligible drug offenders
may be sent to drug court in place of the traditional justice system. These
alternative courts seek to reduce drug use, reduce crime, save money and restore
lives. This is done through utilizing the coercive power of the courts to force drug
offenders into treatment, as opposed to simply using the coercive power of the
courts to incarcerate offenders. The drug court movement also seeks to reduce
drug related crimes more generally. Research shows a significant number of
crimes are directly or indirectly related to the use of drugs (Anglin and Maugh,
1992). But people involved in the criminal justice system are realizing that
standard options in sentencing for drug-related crimesjail, probation, and
dismissalare not a viable long-term solution.
Most drug court participants have a history of drug addiction of at least 15
years or more (Drug Court Clearinghouse, 8/22/11). The Drug Court response
holds that without confronting the root of the issue of addiction, society will be
unable to resolve the problem of growing drug-related crimes and associated
social skills. The drug abuser will continue to cycle in and out of the justice
4


system, similar to a revolving door. The core principle of drug courts, therefore,
is addressing the problem of addiction. Berman and Feinblatt point out, The
goal is to change behavior moving [individuals] from addiction to sobriety and
from a life of crime to law-abiding behavior (2005).
Drug courts offer hope of overcoming such addiction with a new team
approach that combines punishment with treatment. In terms of treatment, drug
courts serve as a means to address addiction through an integrated set of social
and legal services instead of exclusively relying upon sanctions through
incarceration or probation (King and Pasquarella, 2009). Additionally, they
provide closer and more comprehensive supervision than any other community-
based supervision programs, according to National Association of Drug Court
Professionals (NADCP, 1997).
Drug courts ensure compliance of offenders and as a result are six times
more likely to keep offenders in treatment than traditional sentencing
mechanisms, long enough for them to become drug free. The fact is that, without
regular supervision from the court, 60 to 80% of drug offenders drop out of
treatment prematurely (NADCP, 1997). In addition to addiction, drug offenders
also often have poor social skills, lack job training, and are dependent on others
(Anglin and Maugh, 1992). Drug courts provide a combination of services
5


addressing these supplementary problems, to aid in drug offenders successful
recovery.
There are two types of drug courts: deferred prosecution programs and
post-adjudication programs (King and Pasquarella, 2009). Twelve percent of all
drug courts are pre-plea or deferred prosecution courts, while fifty-eight percent
are post-plea or post-adjudication courts (Huddleston and Marlowe, 2011). The
remaining courts are some sort of combination of the two.
Deferred prosecution or diversion programs consist of defendants eligible
for drug court prior to pleading (guilty) to a charge. Defendants who successfully
complete the drug court program are not prosecuted further. In the post-
adjudication or post-plea program, defendants must plead guilty to a charge, but
the sentence is suspended while they participate in the drug court program.
Furthermore, successful completion of the program results in a waived sentence
and sometimes an expungement of the offense (King and Pasquarella, 2009).
Failure to successfully complete the drug court program (such as by continuing
habitual drug use), means that defendants will be returned to court to face
sentencing on the guilty plea (King and Pasquarella, 2009).
One of the essential functions of drug court is the use of coercive
authority. It provides drug offenders with the oversight, structure and support in
becoming drug and crime free. Drug courts strive in helping individuals addicted
6


to drugs through aggressive judicial monitoring (Berman and Feinblatt, 2005).
Drug offenders are rigorously supervised by the drug court, instead of being
diverted into programs without supervision, incarcerated without services, or even
given a get-out-of-jail free card (Berman and Feinblatt, 2005). Individuals
eligible for the program are typically addicted, non-violent, and must agree to a
formal plan of treatment and consequences for failure. Those who qualify are
generally severe, non-violent addicts who get caught feeding their habit. The
National Association of Drug Court Professionals point out that eligibility for
Drug Court varies among state and local guidelines. Both drug and drug driven
offenses (i.e. theft to pay for drugs) are usually considered (NADCP, 1997).
Although eligibility guidelines vary, most Drug Courts do not consider violent
offenders.
To achieve the goal of drug offenders becoming drug free, the drug court
program uses a variety of tools such as: drug treatment, mental health counseling,
job training, and community-restitution projects. In order to monitor progress the
drug court judge requires frequent court appearances where offenders report on
advancement in the program. Success is acknowledged with appraisal from the
judge and applause from everyone in the courtroom. On the other hand,
individuals in noncompliance are given some sort of sanction, typically
community-service. Berman and Feinblatt contend that this sort of carrot-and-
7


stick approach has led individuals to a safe and drug free life (2005).
Additionally, Everyone is a winner: the drug offender because the cycle of
drugs-crime-jail is broken, the court because it no longer has to spend resources
on the offender, and the general public because the streets are safer (Berman and
Feinblatt, 2005).
Drug courts integrate judge, prosecuting attorney and defense attorney in a
less adversarial setting than traditional courts. Furthermore, treatment
professionals and the integrated treatment court (ITC) coordinator work closely
with the fore mentioned legal professionals to achieve the same goals: helping
drug addicts become drug and crime free and improving the lives of drug
offenders, victims, and communities (NADCP, 1997).
The program coordinator has one of the most important roles on the drug
court team, as they are responsible for the day-to-day operation of drug court
(Mackinem and Higgins, 2008). They are responsible for organizing treatment,
relaying information from treatment professionals to the judge and prosecuting
and defense attorneys, tracking progress of drug offenders, and act as a primary
contact for drug offenders.
Treatment professionals conduct an initial assessment to determine a drug
offenders eligibility. Once admitted, the treatment professionals provide
guidance and monitor progress in individual and group therapy sessions. The job
8


of the ITC team is to select individuals who need help and have the potential for
doing well in the drug court program.
Defense attorneys make frequent referrals of defendants to the ITC
program (Mackinem and Higgins, 2008). They see it as an opportunity to bargain
with the prosecuting attorney to give their client the opportunity to enter into the
ITC program under a deferred sentence. In many cases the client may have their
record ultimately wiped clean with successful completion. Family members,
probation officers, and prosecutors may also advocate for drug offenders to be
placed in drug court. When making recommendations for potential individuals
into the ITC program, prosecuting attorneys consider the seriousness of offense
and future risk.
When considering entry into the program, the ITC team typically
considers four categories: need, motivation, risk and capability (Mackinem and
Higgins, 2008). If applicants are deemed unworthy in any one of the four
categories, they are not considered for the program. Applicants must have a
serious drug use problem and need help. Upon admitting to a drug addiction, the
offenders confession translates to having a need.
The second factor examined when considering applicants is motivation.
The ITC team looks at the applicants motivation and willingness to succeed in
9


the program: Are they willing to take advice from staff? Comply with the rules?
Motivation may result from internal or external factors.
When considering internal factors, Mackinem and Higgins point out there
are three components: problem recognition; desire for help, and treatment
readiness (2008). Problem recognition occurs when drug offenders understand
that their addiction is having a negative impact on their life. Once recognizing
they have a problem, applicants must have the desire to get help. Treatment
readiness differs from the desire for help in that applicants must be willing to
receive specific treatment from a specific provider (Mackinem and Higgins,
2008). External factors may be motivational, including domestic partner
ultimatums, legal threats, and health problems. Determining ones level of
motivation is clearly difficult when selecting applicants for the program, but an
accurate determination is critical to ensuring the future success of drug court
participants.
The next category, the ITC team considers is the risk or likelihood that the
applicant will commit new offenses (Mackinem and Higgins, 2008). When
considering the level of risk, the ITC team commonly wants to know if the drug
addict commits crimes, not violent in nature. Or, are the offenders criminals in
nature, which incidentally use drugs, or are they drug-users whose criminal
behaviors stem from their drug use (Mackinem and Higgins, 2008)? The team
10


asks themselves if applicants are likely to commit new, violent criminal offenses
or behave in a way that will undermine the program. Alternatively, those who
may be first-time offenders with mild drug habits (recreational use) do not need
drug court.
Finally, the ITC team considers whether applicants are capable of
participating and succeeding in drug court. For example, Mackinem and Higgins
point out that applicants may have a mental health or medical condition that
would prevent them from succeeding in the program (2008). Furthermore, such
factors as lack of transportation, inability to get out of work, or inability to find
childcare may lead the team to dismiss an applicant. However, most drug courts
do not find a lack of transportation to be excusable. Their argument is that if drug
offenders can find drugs then they can find their way to treatment (Mackinem and
Higgins, 2008). The drug court judge takes all opinions into consideration, but
has the final say on whether an applicant shall be admitted to the drug court
program.
In most drug courts, offenders are kept in the program for a minimum of
one year, long enough for treatment to work (Marlowe, 8/22/11). Drug offenders
are closely supervised, while being provided with intensive treatment and other
services required in becoming clean and sober. Drug offenders are held
accountable by the drug court judge for meeting requirements and obligations to
11


the court, society, themselves and their families (Marlow, 8/22/11). Requirements
include regular and random drug testing and frequently required court
appearances. Participants may be rewarded for doing well or sanctioned when
they are not in compliance with set requirements. Participants are defendants or
drug offenders who are eligible for the integrated treatment court opposed to
traditional court.
The ITC team provides services and monitors participants progress in the
program (Mackinem and Higgins, 2008). They decide what actions to take, such
as sanctioning or promoting participants based on their progress. For example, if
a participant violates the treatment plan with a hot or positive drug test, they
may be sanctioned to community service or a weekend in jail. Alternatively, if a
participant is doing well, they may be promoted within the program moving on to
the next phase and ultimately graduating.
A participants treatment plan may include attending group and individual
counseling sessions, self-help meetings, submitting to frequent drug tests, and
paying fees (Mackinem and Higgins, 2008). In addition, participants are typically
required to attend court review appearances every two weeks. Prior to these in
court appearances, the ITC team convenes in staffing meetings to discuss the
progress of participants and make recommendations to the judge of whether they
should be rewarded or sanctioned. At these review hearings, participants report
12


their progress and are given the opportunity to respond to accusations that they
violated their treatment plan.
Discharge from the program occurs in three situations: participants
disappears, is terminated by the ITC team, or graduates successfully from the
program. When they disappear, for whatever reason, they often go on the run-
even moving out-of-state. Offenders are terminated by the ITC team, with the
approval of the judge for failing to make a concerted effort to become drug free.
They may also be terminated when being arrested on new charges. Graduation,
on the other hand, is the ultimate goal and a joyous occasion. The court
appearance becomes a sort of celebration with speeches, certificates, and even
receptions with cake. With drug courts defined, we must look at why drug courts
are necessary.
Understanding why Change in the Criminal Justice
System is Necessary
America has struggled with how to deal with drug abusers since the Civil
War. Steven Belenko contends there has been constant tension between the
medical approach and the punitive enforcement approach (2000). In other
words, there has been a constant tension between helping the sick drug abuser and
punishing the drug-abusing criminal (Mackinem and Higgins, 2008).
13


Prior to the 1900s, people were able to easily access a variety of drugs
including opium, cocaine, and marijuana with no consequences (Mackinem and
Higgins, 2008). During the Civil War the number of people addicted to opium
alone had grown to an estimated 250,000. Opium users, feeble-minded were
either considered to be a hapless victim of the drug or a sinister threat depending
on the users racial and cultural identity (Mackinem and Higgins, 2008). For
instance, The war veteran who treated his wounds with morphine or the
housewife who used a tonic to treat menstrual discomfort were pitied and
helped (2008). On the other hand, lower class people were ordered to
institutions. Chinese immigrants addicted to opium were considered threats to
Americas way of life.
By the end of the century, drug use escalated from a family, doctor, and
community matter to a national crisis. Newspaper articles on the evil of drug use
and the threat of Chinese immigrants increased public fear of drugs. Mackinem
and Higgins illustrate in 1909 that Congress passed the Opium Exclusion Act and
in 1910 the Foster Anti-Narcotic Bill (Mackinem and Higgins, 2008). Then in
1914, Congress passed one of the most important laws governing drugs, the
Harrison Narcotic Act, making it illegal for doctors or pharmacists to prescribe
drugs for non-medical purposes (Mackinem and Higgins, 2008).
14


Meanwhile, Doctor Charles Terry, a strong voice for the medical treatment
of addiction and opposing criminalization. He believed that addiction was a
medical, not legal, issue. Doctor Terry established the first opiate maintenance
clinic in 1919 in Jacksonville, Florida (Mackinem and Higgins, 2008). Mackinem
and Higgins explain, It was founded out of the communitys concern over the
plight of poorer addicts (2008). More than 100 clinics were established, but in
1923 the last clinic closed due to federal inspection and harassment.
As a result of the Harrison Narcotic Act, many new offenders were
arrested and incarcerated, as they were addicted to drugs. In 1935, Alcoholics
Anonymous (AA) was started in Ohio when two struggling alcoholics met for
mutual support (Mackinem and Higgins, 2008). In the 1950s, Narcotics
Anonymous (NA) was developed in order to treat those addicted. An active AA
member who felt the need for drug users to gather in mutual support developed
NA.
With the Harrison Narcotic Act having little impact on resolving the
widespread drug issue, President Richard Nixon declared a war on drugs in 1973
(Mackinem and Higgins, 2008). Heroin had resurged since the 1920s, marijuana
became commonly available, and a new drug, LSD moved to the forefront of use.
Congress responded to the increasing drug issue with emphasis on treatment. For
example, congress passed the Narcotic Addict Rehabilitation Act of 1966, the
15


Alcoholic and Narcotic Addict Rehabilitation Act of 1968, and the Drug Abuse
Office and Treatment Act of 1972 (Mackinem and Higgins, 2008). Drug
treatment became more readily available to drug addicts.
There are four major treatment modalities that have emerged to treat drug
addicts including outpatient methadone maintenance, detoxification, therapeutic
communities, and outpatient drug-free programs. In 1987, correctional drug-
treatment programs were instituted based on a therapeutic-community approach
(Anglin and Hser, 1990). However, there are many obstacles that have reduced
effectiveness in the treatment system. For example, there are no widespread
outreach efforts to attract drug abusers to go to treatment voluntarily; qualified
treatment staff are in short supply; and after completing treatment, drug addicts do
not have the necessary support in place for them to remain drug free.
The tolerance and treatment of drug offenders led to the precursor of drug
courts. For example, in the 1970s, The Treatment Alternatives to Street Crime
(TASC) was developed to coerce identified drug abusing criminals into treatment
(Mackinem and Higgins, 2008). In the 1980s as drugs became less stigmatized,
insurance companies offered drug treatment coverage in their policies, according
to Mackinem and Higgins, which also matched the national mood regarding
treatment (2008). Additionally, Luxury treatment programs quickly grew with
the availability of insurance... (2008). Private treatment programs located in
16


large beautiful facilities became common, but by the 1990s, such places soon
disappeared as national restrictions for the insurance industries increased
(Mackinem and Higgins, 2008).
Meanwhile, AIDS made a devastating appearance as intravenous drug use,
specifically heroin, became more popular. In 1988, there was an estimated 1.1 to
1.3 million IV drug users in the United States (Schuster, 1988). As drug users
lived desperate and impoverished lives, they spread the virus in locations such as
alleyways and abandoned buildings (Mackinem and Higgins, 2008). The focus of
attention in AIDS prevention led to a renewed interest in drug treatment.
Mackinem and Higgins explain, Private and nonprofit agencies tried many
public health efforts to reduce the use of heroin, including needle exchange and
methadone maintenance, far from the luxury treatment offered to the insured
(2008). In addition, The National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) instituted
broad-based AIDS prevention research programs specifically targeting drug
prevention (Schuster, 1988). With the AIDS scare on the rise, Americas
toleration of drugs came to an end (2008).
Once again Congress attempted to solve the drug problem by passing the
Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986. The adverse social consequences have led to
substantial public resources being thrown at the problem (Anglin and Hser, 1990).
For instance, resulting from the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, four billion dollars
17


was spent on both drug banning and treatment efforts (Mackinem and Higgins,
2008). Meanwhile, drug users have flooded the streets, jails, treatment centers,
and courts.
Prison Overcrowding
Today, West Huddleston and Douglas B. Marlowe point out, Prisons are
overcrowded with nonviolent offenders charged with drug related offenses
(2011). The motto in criminal justice over the past several decades has been to
get tough. Such measures as three strikes and youre out, and minimum
mandatory sentencing laws have caused an influx in the inmate population from
500,000 in 1980 to 2 million in 2001 (Berman and Feinblatt 2005). In addition, in
2002, over 600,000 inmates left state and federal prisons, four times as many as
were released in 1975 (Visher and Travis, 2003). As a result, the increase in
incarceration has caused an enormous burden to Americas prison system with a
spending increase from $7 billion to $45 billion (Berman and Feinblatt, 2005).
Jail overcrowding continues to be a national problem (Bureau of Justice
Assistance, 2000). For example, a local example of Colorado shows
overcrowding in Denvers two jails. Chrstopher N. Osher writes in a Denver Post
article that, The jails average up to 2,500 inmates on a given day, but they were
built for 1,711 (2007). Justice system agencies are under growing pressure to
resolve the issue of crowded jail conditions (Bureau of Justice, 2000). The
18


Bureau of Justice describes, In a crisis atmosphere, concerns are often simply
translated into a need for building larger jails (2000). As a consequence, the
expenditures for local jails in the United States more than tripled from $2.7 billion
spent in 1983 to $9.6 billion in mid-1993 (Bureau of Justice, 2000).
Construction and operation of jails and prisons are extremely expensive,
according to the Bureau of Justice Assistance (2000). The Boulder County jail
alone cost $14.95 million to acquire the land and an additional $11 million in
overall construction costs (Boulder County Website, 9/2/11). Even if a
jurisdiction is able to afford the cost of new construction, the operating costs may
present difficulty for local governments. For instance, one of the largest jails in
the nation, the 4,100-bed, Twin Towers in Los Angeles County, California
costing $373 million and was left vacant for 16 months due to a lack of operating
funds (Bureau of Justice, 2000).
History proves that the problem of jail crowding is not resolved through
simply building more cells. District Judge M.J. Menendez, contends that drug
offenders are not hopeless, We cant keep putting people in prison (Schrader,
2008, 9/23/11). Construction of jails has increased, yet the increase in cells is
making little headway in eliminating the issue.
Though, It is difficult to know the size of the national annual jail
population, it has been estimated that approximately 3500 jails receive 7 million
19


persons every year, according to Anne Bolduc (1985). District Court Judge
Cohill of Pennsylvania, points out that jails are dangerously overcrowded,
providing for an extremely dangerous environment with potential fires and
prisoner unrest (Bolduc, 1985). According to the NADCP, 1 in 100 U.S. citizens
is now confined in jail or prison. The NADCPs research shows, The U.S.
incarcerates more people per capita than 26 of the largest European nations
(NADCP, 1997).
Several factors have added to the need for a second look at jail over-
crowding. Foremost, The National Institute of Justice points out The problem of
jail crowding has not abated since the 1985 publication of the first monograph
studying this problem. Furthermore, judges, public defenders, probation/parole
officers, and others often find that jail crowding acts as a severe constraint in
dealing with individual cases in which jailing appears necessary, but space is
unavailable (2002). For example, a public defenders job is impaired by the
inability to access inmates in a timely manner, which is caused by overcrowded
facilities and overworked jail staff. Court processing also suffers from a delay in
the ability to move inmates to and from scheduled court appearances (National
Institute of Justice, 2008).
There are several reasons that have contributed to the overcrowding,
including the war on drugs, mandatory arrest policies for domestic violence
20


offenses and drunk driving, deinstitutionalization of the mentally ill, and three-
strikes-and-youre-out laws. As a result of such policies, the number of cases
entering the court system each year in America is astounding. According to the
National Center for State Courts, the criminal case filings increased by 50 percent
from 1984 to 1998 (Berman and Feinblatt, 2005). With get tough policies put
into place and jails full, however, defendants are released after only short periods
of time, often on probation.
Limitations with Probation
Probation is often used in an attempt to solve the problem of jail crowding.
Although the issues with prison over-crowding is popularly recognized, the
majority of criminal offenders are sanctioned to probation. Berman and Feinblatt
contend that probation departments (traditional supervising units) are, The
bastard stepchildren of the local community justice system as they are largely
under funded and often ignored (2005). Consequently, the probation systems in
many parts of the country are near collapse. The caseload in some jurisdictions
rises to as many as 1,000 clients, per probation officer (Berman and Feinblatt,
2005). Astonishingly, Berman and Feinblatt point out, Half of all probationers
fail to fulfill the terms of their probation sentences, and in any given year,
hundreds of thousands of probationers fail to even report in (2005). Furthermore
Kim et al. argue that probation has little deterrent value (1993).
21


As Associate Chief Judge Herbert Klein of Floridas Eleventh Judicial
Circuit put it:
Putting more and more offenders on probation just perpetuates the
problem. The same people are picked up again and again until
they end up in the state penitentiary and take up space that should
be used for violent offenders (Lessenger & Roper, 2007).
Even more disturbing is that thousands of criminals each year do not
receive any punishment at all. For defendants the sentence is disguised as
unconditional discharge or time served, but it is the same as a get out of
trouble free card (Berman and Feinblatt, 2005). Judge Robert G.M. Keating in
New York protests that he has two options in low-level criminal cases: Band-
Aids or brain surgery (Berman and Feinblatt, 2005). This meant that he could let
the criminal off with basically no sanction or send them to jail. Berman and
Feinblatt argue that neither option really satisfies the four traditional goals of
sentencing: Specific deterrence (discouraging the offender from re-offending),
general deterrence (discouraging others from following suit), helping the offender
changes his behavior or retribution (ensuring the offender gets his just deserts)
(2005).
Today, many of the cases traditionally processed in the criminal justice
system are yielding unsatisfying results. Offenders are adjudicated and released
22


back onto the streets only to re-offend again. It is as though the justice system is
simply spinning its wheels. By not making a dent on the underlying problem, the
parties involved, the community and the courts continue to suffer the
consequences. Some argue that the answer is simply more judges to process the
increased volume of cases. However, the resources are seriously nominal in
comparison to the demand at large. The overall problem in the criminal justice
system will not dissipate without getting to the root of the problemaddiction.
Drug Addiction
One promising strategy to alleviate the overcrowding problem is to
address the problem of drug-related crimes. Eighty-three percent of all inmates in
federal, state, and local prisons are seriously addicted to alcohol and drugs
(Roman et al., 2003). Additionally, there are over 600,000 prisoners released
from prison every year (Lessenger & Roper, 2007). Seven in ten prisoners will
have been rearrested after release from prison (Visher and Travis, 2003). Of
those released from prison, fifty percent are clinically addicted and sixty to eighty
percent of all drug offenders commit a new crime, typically a drug-driven crime
(NADCP, 1997). With such a high number of criminals entering and exiting the
criminal justice system addicted to drugs, logic suggests that reducing drug use
will reduce crimes committed.
23


Addiction was once characterized as a choice or a persons lifestyle.
Authors James Lessenger and Glade Roper point out, Addiction is now
understood to be a disease of neuro-chemical pathways in the brain that render
sobriety intolerable. Furthermore, drug use is not simply that of volition, rather
it is part of a disease process containing the effects of compulsion (2007).
Without proper treatment, hope for recovery is bleak as sanction alone is
not sufficient. Research shows that treatment is effective especially the longer an
individual remains in treatment (Anglin and Maugh, 1992). John R. Hepburn
argues that exposure to treatment reduces subsequent drug use and criminal
behavior (2005). Treatment for the disease of addiction should include: limiting
exposure to environmental influences, effectively treating withdrawal symptoms,
treating mental illness concurrently with addiction and providing increased
support around periods of life stress that activate the craving process (Lessenger
and Roper, 2007).
Unfortunately, there are many obstacles preventing individuals from
receiving services. For instance, the limited availability of safe and affordable
housing, detoxification services, and mental health services present a strain on an
addicts recovery (Lessenger and Roper, 2007). This is especially burdensome
for drug addicts who are in the criminal justice system and are expected to be
drug and crime free. Gene Kassebaum and Duane Okamoto suggest, Punitive
24


Sentences are simply not effective in changing the behavior of chemically
dependent and socially marginalized defendants (2001). Drug courts offer hope
to drug addicts by providing services while implementing motivation through
rewards and sanctions. Meanwhile, they present a possible resolution to a
nationwide drug and crime problem. In the next section, I will discuss a broad
history of alternative sentencing and the rise of drug courts.
History of Drug Courts in America
Alternative sentencing mechanisms are increasingly used to alleviate jail
crowding. Boulder County, for example, uses a variety of alternative sentencing
processes to help alleviate jail crowding. One of these alternatives is day
reporting, where inmates reside at home as long as they meet the Day Reporting
Center (DRC) requirements including, monitoring, treatment, employment, and
daily contact. A second option is a work crew program, in which inmates serve
their sentences by working under the supervision of jail personnel (roadside trash
pickup) on weekends or days off from employment. Finally, home detention
gives offenders the ability to remain at home with an electronic bracelet ensuring
compliance. Under this circumstance, offenders are to remain confined to their
home and may only leave to attend employment, therapy and medical treatment
(Boulder County Website, 9/2/11). Many jurisdictions are in search of alternative
25


sentencing methods in order to help alleviate jail-crowding issues. For instance,
treatment courts have been increasing exponentially to help deal with non-violent
drug offenders.
Today, there are 2,459 reported treatment courts in all 50 states, serving
over 120,000 people per year (Huddleston and Marlowe, 2011). There are
various types of treatment courts serving people including: Adult Drug Court,
Veterans Treatment Court, DWI Court, Family Dependency Treatment Court,
Federal District Drug Court, Juvenile Drug Court, Reentry Drug Court, Tribal
Healing to Wellness Court and Back on TRAC: Treatment, Responsibility,
Accountability on Campus. Adult drug court has been the most researched and
publicized of all the treatment courts. Table 1 illustrates the number of drug
courts opened in the United States by year.
Table 1. Operational drug courts by year
Year To Date
1989 1
1990 1
1991 5
1992 10
1993 19
1994 44
1995 75
26


Table 1. (Cont.)
Year To Date
1996 139
1997 230
1998 347
1999 472
2000 665
2001 847
2002 1,048
2003 1,183
2004 1,621
2005 1,756
2006 1,926
2007 2,147
2008 2,326
2009 2,459
Source: Huddleston, West and Douglas B. Marlowe. Painting the Current
Picture: A National Report on Drug Courts and Other Problem-Solving
Court Programs in the United States National Drug Court Institute, (July
2011), p 6.
http://www.ndcrc.ore/sites/default/files/pcp report final and official.pdf
(accessed August 21, 2011).
The first drug court began in 1989 in Miami in an attempt to resolve the
overwhelming increase of drug-related arrests. A group of justice professionals
decided that the criminal justice system as it existed was broken and needed
changed. Authors Mackinem and Higgins, point out, In the 1980s, cocaine
27


rained from the sky (2008). Drug traffickers from South America dumped
cocaine from small prop planes. Often officers would see the same offenders they
had arrested earlier in the day for possession of crack cocaine, back on the streets,
because the justice system was not equipped to deal with such an influx of arrests
(Mackinem and Higgins, 2008). Since their initial development in Florida, drug
courts have since flourished, across the nation. Figure 1 demonstrates the number
of drug courts by state.
Figure 1. The number of drug courts in all 50 states
28


Source: Huddleston, West and Douglas B. Marlowe. Painting the Current
Picture: A National Report on Drug Courts and Other Problem-Solving Court
Programs in the United States National Drug Court Institute, (July 2011), p.21.
http://www.ndcrc.ore/sites/default/fdes/pcp report final and official.pdf
(accessed August 21, 2011).
Prior to the first drug court, jurisdictions, encouraged and supported by the
Federal Government, developed an Expedited Drug Case Management system.
This system simply sped up drug case processing, thus existing resources were
used more efficiently, and drug trafficking cases were processed more quickly.
The Expedited Drug Case Management system expedited drug cases, but did little
to address the problems of habitual drug use. It was merely a mechanism to speed
up the revolving door from court to jails and back again.
Following the failed attempt of Expedited Drug Case Management, justice
professionals realized that treatment was a key component in reforming the justice
system. The National Association of Drug Court Professionals (NADCP), a
national non-profit corporation has been instrumental in the development of drug
courts across the nation. The NADCP was founded in 1994 by pioneers from the
first twelve drug courts in the nation (NADCP, 11/8/11). Comprised of judges,
prosecutors, defense attorneys, and clinical professionals, the NADCP created a
common-sense approach to improving the justice system through a combination
of judicial monitoring and effective treatment.
29


As the leading national resource for drug court practitioners, the NADCP
established the National Drug Court Institute (NDCI), a specialized institute, in
December 1997 (NADCP, 11/8/11). The NDCI provides comprehensive training
and technical assistance to the entire drug court field. Since its beginning, the
institute has trained 36,641 drug court professionals in all 50 states.
One of NADCPs earliest victories was the passage of the Violent Crime
Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. According to the U.S. Department
of Justice, the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act represents a
bipartisan product after six years of hard work (NADCP, 1997). As a result of
this bill, drug courts were given $29 million in 1995 and $971 million in 1996-
2000. According to the NADCP, that single piece of legislation is responsible for
the incredible growth of drug courts nationwide (11/8/11).
In 2006, the NADCP began a massive campaign to put a drug court within
the reach of every American in need. The NADCP has received a renewed
commitment for drug courts among Congress and the general public. The
NADCPs campaign has resulted in increased federal funding. With drug courts
and federal funding increasing, it raises the question of whether drug courts are
successful in reducing recidivism.
30


CHAPTER 2
DO DRUG COURTS WORK?
In looking at whether drug courts are successful we must ask the simple
question of whether they provide benefits to the criminal justice system. Since
the first drug court was implemented in Florida in 1989, Drug Courts have been
under a microscope and the results show that Drug Courts do in fact work (Carey
et al., 2008). Drug courts are found to be more successful than jail or probation
and treatment alone. Researchers illustrate the benefits of drug courts through
reduced recidivism rates and increased cost effectiveness. These benefits can be
illustrated in the case of Patty McParlan, from Boulder, CO McParlan was
homeless and addicted to drugs for 30 years. She was found eligible for Boulder
drug court and went through the process. She is now sober and in transitional
housing (Fender, 2011, 4/23/11). Additionally, when asked about drug court,
McParland explained:
You get praise. It boosts morale. It helps a lot with that. A lot of
times, even on regular probation, youre doing a great job and the
only thing you hear from those people is what youre doing
wrong. (Fender, 2011, 4/23/11).
McParlands story is not unique. Across the nation, drug courts have been found
to reduce recidivism rates and save court and jail costs.
31


Recidivism
One of the most common ways to measure drug courts success is reduced
recidivism. Recidivism can be generally defined as the tendency to fall back into
undesirable behavior. The Federal Sentencing Guidelines define recidivism as
(a) re-conviction for a new offense; (b) a re-arrest with no conviction disposition
information available on the post-release criminal history record; or (c) a
supervision revocation (Maxfield, 2005). For the purposes of this paper,
recidivism will be defined as a re-arrest (charge) for any offense other than a
minor traffic offense.
Recidivism is affected by post prison factors such as family, peers, and
environment (Visher and Travis, 2003). Criminals, especially if on drugs or
addicted do not act rationally. Rather, they behave impulsively and irrationally.
Drug courts provide a support system in order to alleviate negative influences and
help criminals come back to a rational ability to weigh benefits and consequences.
The NADCP reports that, Drug Courts are the most effective justice
intervention for treating drug addicted people (NADCP, 1997). Research
indicates that most effective drug courts reduced crime as much as 45 percent
over other dispositions (Huddleston and Marlowe, 2011). A nationally
representative sample of drug court graduates conducted by Roman et al, revealed
an average of only 16.4% of drug court graduates that were re-arrested (charged)
32


after year one and only 27.5% after year two (Figure 2). Although the results
from each drug court varied based on the diversity of characteristics of
participants (i.e. severity of their addiction, types of drugs used, and criminal
history), the drug courts with the highest recidivism rates are serving the most
difficult to reach populations while the drug courts with the lowest recidivism
rates are serving those with mild drug problems (Roman et al., 2003).
Drug courts have a lasting effect, reducing recidivism among participants
even years after leaving the program. Researchers have found that 75% of Drug
Court graduates remain arrest free at least two years after leaving the program,
nationwide (NADCP, 1997). Moreover, studies examining long-term outcomes
show that reductions in criminal behavior last at least 3 years and can endure for
over 14 years (NADCP, 1997). For example, one study conducted on six drug
courts in New York showed that recidivism among drug court graduates after 3
years was reduced by 29-56 percent, shown in Table 2 (Marlowe, 8/22/11).
Meanwhile for the drug court graduates the recidivism rate is a staggering 70
percent less than offenders who are processed through conventional courts
(Marlowe, 8/22/11).
33


Table 2. Nationwide comparison of re-arrest rates
Location(s) No. of Drug Courts Drug Court Re- arrest Rate Comparison Group Re- arrest Rate
Nationally representative sample 95 16% after 1 year 27% after 2 years 46% new offense 60% probation violation
California statewide study 9 29% after 4 years 41% after 4 years
New York Statewide study 6 29% to 56% by county after 3 years 41% to 65% by county after 3 years
Baltimore, MD 1 32% after 1 year 66% after 2 years 57% after 1 year 81% after 2 years
Suffolk County, MA 4 46% 52%
Dade County, FL 1 33% after 18 months 48% after 18 months
Los Angeles, CA 1 24% after 1 year 37% after 1 year
Source: Marlowe, Doug B. Recent Studies of Drug Courts and DWI Courts:
Crime Reduction and Cost Savings National Association of Drug Court
Professionals. http://www. isc. idaho. sov/dcourt/DC Research Update408. vdf
(accessed August 22, 2011).
A national study encompassing 95 drug courts showed a re-arrest rate
difference of 30% after 1 year and 33% after 2 years. Another recent study of
34


participants in a Baltimore drug court discovered that high-risk offenders-those
with an average of 12 prior arrests, were 19% less likely to be re-arrested than
comparable offenders three years after their original arrest (Berman and Feinblatt,
2005). A study in California of 9 drug courts, results showed a 29% re-arrest rate
among drug court participants compared to 41 % of the comparison group, after 4
years (CA Courts, 3/11/11). Los Angeles, CA, alone saw a considerable
difference of 13%, see Table 2.
Overwhelmingly, drug courts have been proven effective in reducing
criminal behavior (Bermann and Feinblatt, 2005). A sample of 2,000 graduates
from 95 different drug courts nationwide, revealed that the average re-arrest rate
was only 16% in the first year after leaving the program and 27% after the second
year, illustrated in Figure 2 (Roman et al., 2003). The results are highly favorable
when compared to recidivism rates of offenders supervised by conventional
probation. Of those on probation, 46% of drug offenders commit a new offense
and over 60% commit a probation violation (NADCP, 1997). Furthermore, a
literature review conducted by Wilson, et al. of 41 drug court evaluations from
across the country, revealed that 35 drug courts have achieved lower recidivism
rates with the average being 14 percent (2002).
Table 3 represents results documented by institutions across the country
and Canada. There were as few as 22 drug courts studied in these five reports,
35


and as many as 76. Results of the five studies indicate an average reduction in
crime of 13 percent.
Source: Roman, John, and Wendy Townsend and Avinash Singh Bhati.
Recidivism Rates for Drug Court Graduates: Nationally Based
Estimates, Final Report , Urban Institute and Caliber Associates (July,
2003), p 3. https ://www. ncirs. eov/pdffiles1/201229. pdf (accessed August
22, 2011).
Figure 2. Re-arrest rate after year one and year two
36


Table 3. Five institutional studies
Institution No. of Drug Courts Drug court reduced crime by average an % of
Campbell Collaborative 55 26%
Canada Dept of Justice 66 14%
University of Nevada 76 9%
University of Cincinnati 22 8%
Washington State Institute for Public Policy 57 8%
Source: Marlowe, Doug B. Recent Studies of Drug Courts and DWI Courts:
Crime Reduction and Cost Savings National Association of Drug Court
Professionals. http://www. isc. idaho. sov/dcourt/DC Research Update408.
pdf (accessed August 22, 2011).
An analysis conducted by the United States Government Accountability
Office (GAO) revealed similar results one year after drug court entry with an
average crime reduction of 13.75% as shown in Table 4 (GAO, 2005). The GAO
used two distinct control groups to compare to drug court program participants.
The historical comparison group is comprised of individuals who received
conventional case processing shortly before the drug court program was
implemented. The contemporaneous comparison group includes defendants (1)
who were eligible for drug court but received conventional case processing during
the same time as the drug court participants, (2) who were from a district within a
courts jurisdiction from which arrestees were not eligible to participate in the
37


drug court program, or (3) who had similar charges and were matched on
characteristics (GAO, 2005).
Table 4. Differences in reconviction rates between drug court program
participants and comparison group members
Percentage point difference Time frame covered
Drug Court Program Comparison group used in program evaluation Up to 1 year after entry 2 to 3 years after entry
Bronx Treatment Court Historical-eligible arrestees -9% -15% (3 yrs)
Brooklyn Treatment Court Contemporaneous-eligible arrestees -10% -14 (3yr)
Douglas County Drug Court Contemporaneous- traditionally adjudicated offenders -8%
Kentucky Drug Court Programs Contemporaneous- assessed offenders, combined felony and misdemeanor charge or conviction -15% -5%
Queens Treatment Court Historical-eligible arrestees -21% -13% (3 yrs)
Rochester Drug Treatment Court Contemporaneous-eligible arrestees who were not arraigned before a judge supportive of the program -10% -10% (3 yrs)
Suffolk County Drug Treatment Court Historical-eligible arrestees -21% -25% (3 yrs)
Syracuse Community Treatment Court Historical-eligible arrestees -16% -14% (2 yrs)
38


Source: United States Accountability Office, Adult Drug Courts: Evidence
Indicates Recidivism Reductions and Mixed Results for Other Outcomes (2005).
http://www.mo.sov/new.itemsZd052l9.pdf (accessed August 22, 2011).
Note: The negative percentage points indicate reduced reconvictions in drug court
program participants compared to comparison groups.
Of the results from the eight drug court programs listed in Table 4, the
differences in reconviction rates between drug court participants and comparison
group members ranged from 8% to 21% within 1 year after entry into the drug
court program (GOA, 2005). The rates 2 years or more after entry ranged
between 5% and 25%. It must be noted that the results from these drug court
programs are for reconviction, not re-arrest (charged). Perhaps, if the re-arrest
rates were also taken into count the percentage differences may be higher (or
lower). Additionally, the statistics include those who merely enter into drug
court, rather than only examining graduates. It may then be possible that the
percentages differences would be higher when contrasting the comparison group
to drug court graduates only.
Cost Savings
In addition to reducing the recidivism rate, drug courts have also been
proven to be cost effective. In 2001, the Office of National Drug Control Policy
estimated that in 1998 illegal drug use cost Americans $31.1 billion in criminal
justice expenses, $30.1 billion in lost productivity and $2.9 billion in costs related
39


to property damage and victimization (Steven Belenko, 2005). Drug courts offer
a good way to reduce these costs because, according to the Department of
Corrections, the annual institutional cost per inmate is approximately $38,900,
and the highest annual cost per drug court participant is $25,813.
A cost-saving analysis of drug courts conducted by The Urban Institute
revealed an average of $2.21 in direct benefits for every $1 investeda 221%
return on investment (Huddleston and Marlowe, 2011). The savings is reflective
of direct and measurable cost-savings resulting from reduced re-arrests, law
enforcement contacts, court hearings and the use of jail or prison beds.
Huddleston and Marlowe convey that When indirect cost-offsets were also taken
into account, such as savings from reduced foster care placements and healthcare
service utilization, studies have reported economic benefits of drug courts ranging
from approximately $2 to $27 for every $1 invested (Huddleston and Marlowe,
2011).
Drug courts also have proven to have substantial economic benefits
ranging from $3,000 to $12,000 per person each year. Depending on the size of a
specified drug court program, the total cost savings exceeded $7 to $9 million per
year (Huddleston and Marlowe, 2011). Moreover, Huddleston and Marlow point
out, These cost savings, reflect reduced prison costs, reduced re-arrests, trials,
and reduced victimization (Huddleston and Marlowe, 2011). An economic
40


analysis done in California revealed an average cost savings of $8,000 per client
each year (NADCP, 1997). King and Pasquarella point out, A 1997 national
survey of court administrators in 97 drug courts reported savings of as much as
$400,000 per year accumulated from the reduction in pre-trial stays and jail beds
alone (2009).
Table 5. Cost benefit comparison
Location(s) No. of Drug Courts Avg. benefit for every $ 1 invested Average cost savings per participant Total projected cost savings
National data 57 N/A $4,767 N/A
Washington State study 5 $1.74 $2,888 N/A
St. Louis Felony Drug Court 1 $2.80 after 2 years $6.32 after 4 years $2,615 after 2 years $7,707 after 4 years $298,399 after 4 years
California statewide study 9 $3.50 $11,000 $9 million per year
Multnomah County, OR Drug Court 1 $2.63 $6,744 in CJ costs $12,218 including victimization $7.9 million per year
Source: Marlowe, Doug B. Recent Studies of Drug Courts and DWI Courts:
Crime Reduction and Cost Savings National Association of Drug Court
Professionals.
41


http://www. isc. idaho. sov/dcourt/DC Research Update408. pdf (accessed
August 22, 2011).
Table 5 above, illustrates cost savings in five different studies. A national
study of 57 drug courts showed an average cost savings of $4,767 per participant,
while a study conducted in California yielded a cost savings of $11,000 per
participant. An analysis done in Washington State concluded an average cost
savings of $2,888 and in St, Louis, there was a net savings of $2,615 after 2 years
and $7,707 after 4 years (Marlowe, 8/22/11).
Another study completed in Multnomah County, Oregon found that for
every $1 dollar spent on drug court, $2.63 is saved by avoided conventional
adjudication (Bermann and Feinblatt, 2005). The estimated costs do not include
costs associated with victimization, public assistance, and medical claims. With
these costs figured in, the total savings is approximately $10 for every $1 spent
(Bermann and Feinblatt, 2005).
Additional cost savings include those for babies bom drug free. Of female
drug court participants, there have been over 500 drug-free babies bom every year
(Marlowe, 8/22/11). This demonstrates a substantial medical and social service
cost savings of roughly $250,000 per baby, in care for drug-addicted infants
(Marlowe, 8/22/11).
42


Impact of Drug Courts on Individuals/Society and the
Criminal Justice System
Other benefits resulting from drug court include benefits for families and
children and the criminal justice system as a whole. According to a report
prepared by the Drug Court Clearinghouse and Technical Assistance Project,
Approximately two thirds of the drug court participants are parents of minor
children. Many of these parents have lost custody or are in danger of losing
custody of their children because of their drug use (Marlow, 8/22/11).
As an example, Jessica Fender, reporter for the Denver Post, describes the
situation of David Neal, a Boulder County Drug Court participant. Neal faces the
reality of, Recently losing custody of his children because of a 22-year addiction
to heroin (Fender, 2011, 4/23/11). Another participant of El Paso County,
Colorado, Deanna Simmons was a meth addict. Her son was taken from her
custody due to her addiction, but she has since been able to take him home,
according to Barbara Cotter of the Gazette.com (Cotter, 2010, 9/14/11). Jefferson
County Commissioner Jim Congrove was quoted in Ann Schraders article of the
Denver Post, commenting on drug courts caring aspects, stating, It will help
them get off drugs and will keep families together. (Schrader, 2008, 9/23/11).
Drug courts also allow the criminal justice system as a whole to operate
more efficiently. With fewer drug addicts stifling court dockets and jail beds,
43


resources can be allocated to more appropriately deal with violent offenders
those posing a greater risk to society. Court dockets of non-drug court judges
have been freed to allow more time for other criminal matters and civil cases,
which have been given second priority (Marlow, 8/22/11). Moreover, police are
able to focus on more violent criminals with drug courts improving the revolving
door syndrome that allows drug offenders back onto the streets and back to using
drugs (Marlow, 8/22/11). Defense attorneys also see benefits from drug courts.
As drug courts reduce recidivism rates and overall prison crowding, they are able
to spend more time with clients rather than waiting on overworked jail staff to
locate their client.
44


CHAPTER 3
DRUG COURT METHODS USED IN BOULDER COUNTY
To add to the existing literature surrounding the efficacy of drug courts,
this thesis will now examine the adult drug court in Boulder County, CO. As of
2009, Colorado had 50 problem-solving courts (Painting the Picture, Huddleston,
Marlow 2009). Boulder County, containing one of the fifty, began its adult drug
court in November 2006. Since the beginning of the Adult Integrated Treatment
Court (AITC), the mission has been, To combine judicial oversight, intensive
probation supervision and substance abuse and mental health treatment in order to
increase public safety, reduce crime, and promote offender responsibility. By
helping participants achieve long-term sobriety, the program seeks to improve the
lives of participants and their families, thereby benefiting the community (AITC
Policy/Procedures, 2011).
Setting it apart from all other Colorado Drug Courts, Boulder emphasizes
on positive reinforcement. In addition to praise at court review hearings, drug
court participants may receive gifts such as certificates, grocery cards, and movie
tickets. Chief Judge Roxanne Bailin states that:
One of the critical parts of a successful drug court program is the
immediacy of sanctions and the immediacy of rewards. Tangible
rewards maximize success. It relates to the fact that people who
45


are addicted to drugs are really people for whom immediate
gratification is important. Thats what drug use is. (quoted in
Fender, 2011,4/23/11).
Though Boulder is the first court in Colorado to place a greater emphasis
on positive reinforcement, in general, than sanctions; Boulders drug court
adheres to the basic goals of drug courts across the nation. There are seven goals,
which the Boulder AITC court wishes to achieve:
1. To enroll all eligible defendants who wish to enter the AITC program
2. To provide early screening, assessment, and court intervention
3. To provide effective court supervision
4. To provide an integrated program of substance abuse treatment
5. To provide an integrated program of rehabilitation services
6. To promote public safety by reducing recidivism
7. To demonstrate cost-effectiveness to the taxpayer
Source: AITC Policy and Procedures (2011)
(http://www. courts, state, co. us/Courts/County/Local Resources, cfm ? County_ID=
62).
The AITC court in Boulder County is a post-plea, probation violation
court, meaning defendants have already been convicted and are struggling to
serve out their probation sentence. Resulting from a probation complaint and
46


revocation, AITC serves as part of their new sentence. Individuals targeted for
the AITC program are those with significant histories of drug and/or alcohol
abuse and who are at high risk for engaging in criminal behavior.
The criterion for the AITC program mirrors that of other drug courts.
When considering potential participants, the AITC team looks at their need,
motivation, risk and capability. Specific similarities include: participants
admitted are addicted, non-violent, and agree to a formal treatment plan. There
are a total of eleven conditions listed in the AITC policies and procedures,
illustrated below.
1. Defendant voluntarily agrees to participate in the AITC.
2. Defendant is a resident of Boulder County. Defendants residing
outside of Boulder County may be considered if they have the means
to pay for their own treatment and there is sufficient program capacity.
3. Defendant has open case in a CR file jacket, meaning that it is a felony
criminal case.
4. Defendant meets Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, Fourth Edition,
Text Revision (DSM-IV-TR) diagnostic criteria for substance abuse or
dependence.
5. There is a probation violation or violation of deferred sentence
pending in any Criminal (CR) or Misdemeanor (M) file.
6. Conviction or deferred sentence for current offense is not for one of
the following (unless the disqualification is waived by the district
attorney):
47


a. Criminal enterprise drug sales
b. Vehicular assault or homicide or other crime
involving serious bodily injury or death.
c. Sex offense under C.R.S. 18-1.3-1003(5)(a).
d. Contributing to the delinquency of a minor involving
a sexual factual basis
e. Crime involving use of a firearm
f. Residential burglary when entry is into the main
living space of the occupant and defendant is not a
member of the family of the occupant
g. 1st or 2nd degree arson
7. Pending felony charges may cause suspension or termination at the
discretion of the Court. Each case will be considered on its own
merits.
8. If public funds will be used, defendant must be eligible for substance
abuse and/or mental health services.
9. Defendant is not subject to a C.R.S. 27-10 mental health hold
10. Defendant is not subject to an Immigration and Customs Enforcement
(ICE) Hold.
11. Defendant does not possess an active medical marijuana certificate.
Source: Policy and Procedures (2011).
(http://\\Mw.courts.state.co. us/Courts/Countv/Local Resources.cfm?Countv 1D=
62).
48


AITC Program Rules
Once admitted, participants must follow the terms and conditions of
probation in addition to the following seven AITC program rules:
1. Abstain from the use of illegal drugs and alcohol.
2. Submit to all drug screens as ordered by your probation officer,
treatment provider, or the Court.
3. Inform your health care providers of your substance abuse history
so that they can make informed decisions regarding the use of
prescription medications.
4. Attend court dates, treatment sessions, and probation meetings as
scheduled.
5. Refrain from association with those using or possessing illegal
substances.
6. Inform your probation officer and treatment provider of any
changes in your address or phone number immediately.
7. Comply with any other conditions as outlined in the terms and
conditions of probation as well as those outlined in the AITC
contact.
Source: Policy and Procedures (2011).
(http://www. courts, state. co.us/Courts/County/LocalResources, cfm? County_1D=
62).
49


Similar to other drug courts, the Boulder County AITC program includes a
team of professionals that collectively work with drug offenders. The team
includes: the AITC Judge, District Attorney, Public Defender (defense attorney),
AITC Coordinator, probation officer and treatment providers. The AITC Policy
and Procedures illustrate each role the members of the team play. For instance,
the AITC Judge uses input from other team members to make all final decisions
about participation and progress in the program (Boulder Policy and Procedures,
2011). The members of the team meet ahead of the court review hearings in
staffmgs to discuss each participants progress in the program.
The district attorney represents the people and the public defender or
defense counsel represents the participant in the program. The AITC coordinator
boasts a significant role in the program. As the main contact for the AITC
program, coordinators work closely with the AITC team and other community
agencies (such as medical providers and housing programs) to ensure participants
have the necessary resources to be successful in the program (Policy/Procedures
2011). Probation officers are the primary contact for participants and act as the
primary source of information to the AITC team regarding the participants status
in the program (Policy/Procedures 2011).
The AITC team encompasses treatment providers with Boulder Public
Health being the most commonly used. Once participants have been admitted
50


into the program, Boulder Public Health conducts a Diagnostic and Statistical
Manual, Fourth Edition, Text Revision (DSM-IV-TR) assessment for substance
abuse and mental disorders (Policy/Procedures, 2011). If participants are
determined to suffer from a mental disorder in addition to their dependence, they
are referred to the Mental Health Center. Participants may also seek service from
private providers.
Entry Process
Entry into the AITC program occurs once several steps have been
completed. First, the probation officer identifies that a defendant is struggling on
probation due to addiction and is subject to violation of probation. The probation
officer then conducts an initial screen to determine if the defendant meets
minimum requirements for the AITC Program. Second, the AITC Probation
Officer screens the defendant for eligibility into the AITC program based on all
available information provided in the defendants case file, a pre-sentence
investigative report (PSI), and any assessments or evaluations. Third, the
probation officer files a complaint with the court (indicating violation of
probations terms and conditions as specified by the court). In the complaint, the
probation officer makes a referral for the drug offender to be accepted by the
court into the AITC program. This process varies from other drug courts as the
51


defense counsel, family members, or AITC coordinator typically makes the
recommendations for participation in drug court.
Next, the defendant appears in court on the probation violation complaint.
Prior to the court appearance, the Public Defender (or private counsel) meets with
the defendant giving them general information about the AITC program and
requirements. The defendant is also given the AITC Participant Handbook
(Boulder, 2011). If the defendant is not ready to agree to participation in the
program, the court may continue the case in order to give the defendant more
time. Once the defendant agrees to participate in the AITC program, the Public
Defender (or private counsel) and District Attorney discuss an agreement
(Boulder, 2011).
The agreement is then presented to the court and the AITC Judge provides
an additional explanation about the AITC program. The AITC Judge then
determines if defendants appropriate for the program based on their history of
substance abuse, motivation, desire to change, and other criteria listed above
(Boulder, 2011). If the AITC judge finds the defendant appropriate for the
program, the agreement is approved. The defendant is then set on the courts
docket for an AITC Status Review hearing two weeks from entrance into the
program. The defendant is set to appear every two weeks for 15-18 months.
52


Finally, following the probation violation hearing, the AITC probation
officer, and AITC coordinator meet with the defendant for intake. Defendants
sign the Release/Authorization to share information and the AITC Participant
Contract. According to the Twentieth Judicial District AITC Policies and
Procedures Manual, defendants initial appointment with their probation officer as
well as their substance abuse evaluation at Boulder County Public Health is
scheduled (Boulder, 2011). Additionally, AITC participants are given a calendar
with all appointments with probation and treatment providers and upcoming
AITC court dates (Boulder, 2011).
AITC Court Hearings
Similar to other drug courts, upon entry, participants are required to attend
a court review hearing every other week. Occasionally, when individuals are
struggling, they may temporarily be required to attend weekly court sessions
(Adult Integrated Handbook, 2011). As participants move forward through
phases, they are likely to have fewer court review hearings. Importantly,
participants must attend all court review hearings (Handbook, Boulder 2011).
Failing to appear to a court review hearing, results in a warrant for arrest. There
may be pre-approved circumstances where a participant is excused from the court
review hearing, for instance if they are unable to get out of work.
53


Sanctions & Incentives
Comparable to other drug courts, sanctions and incentives are collectively
used as a mechanism in response to a participants behavior. For instance,
incentives are given to participants in recognition of compliance and positive
progress in treatment (Handbook, 2011). Boulder County differs from other drug
courts, emphasizing incentives over sanctions, such as, gift cards or coupons,
toys, gifts, activity passes, bus passes, applause/recognition from the court,
reduced fines and costs, reduced treatment costs, or the reduction of a previous
sanction, and promotion to the next phase (Handbook, 2011).
Sanctions are imposed when participants are in noncompliance or
violation of program requirements and may include community service, day
reporting, work crew or work release, electronic home monitoring (EHM), or
straight jail time (Handbook, 2011). Positive, missed, altered or refused drug
screens will result in sanction. Participants are warned that the use of prescription
drugs, over-the-counter medications, herbal remedies, and dietary or energy
supplements may affect test results.
Participants are expected to notify their health care providers of their
addiction issues (Handbook, 2011). When the treating physician deems
prescription medications necessary, participants are urged to try to obtain a non-
narcotic alternative, if one is available (Handbook, 2011). The Handbook
54


illustrates, Participants will be expected to notify their probation officer within
24 hours of being placed on a prescription medication, or if any changes are made
to existing prescriptions (Handbook, 2011). Failure to do so results in a
sanction. Participants with dependence on prescription drugs are restricted to one
prescribing physician and must agree to work with the physician to discontinue
use of habit-forming prescriptions (Policy/Procedure, 2011).
Termination Criteria
Typically, the AITC team is in agreement regarding the dismissal of a
participant, yet the AITC judge is ultimately the decision maker. Once
terminated, participants will return to the regular criminal court. The AITC
Handbook outlines the following reasons participants may be terminated from the
program:
1. Participant requests termination from AITC.
2. Participant fails to complete assessment and evaluation prior to
second AITC status conference.
3. Participant disappears from Probation supervision and fails to
contact Probation and request participation in AITC within one
month of last contact.
4. Participant moves away from the area in which Public Health or
other necessary provider can provide treatment. This criterion
does not apply if participant is served by a private provider
unaffected by residence of participant.
55


5. Participant is arrested for an offense that disqualifies him or her
from participation whether the conduct occurred before or after
participation in the AITC began. An arrest for non-disqualifying
offenses will not suspend AITC participation unless the participant
is incarcerated in another jurisdiction. AITC participation could
terminate if the sentence for the new offense renders the participant
unavailable for an unreasonable period of time.
6. Participant is determined to have a condition that would prevent
the participant from participating in or achieving benefits from the
AITCs clinical programs.
7. Participant fails to move through each of the Phases of Treatment
within a reasonable period of time.
8. Participant is absent from court appearances other than those truly
beyond his or her control after seeking assistance from the AITC
Coordinator before his or her status review.
9. Participant makes threats or engages in acts of violence toward
treatment providers while in the program.
Source: AITC Handbook 2/19/10
(http://www. courts, state. co.us/Courts/County/Local Resources, cfm? County_ID=
62).
Participants may also be suspended pending release from Immigration and
Customs Enforcement (ICE) or mental health holds or incarceration in another
jurisdiction (Handbook, 2011). Participants may be allowed back into the
program at the discretion of the AITC team.
56


Program Phases
The objective is for each participant to complete the AITC program in 15 -
18 months (Boulder, 2011). The program does, however, allow for exceptions for
those with unique circumstances that require special consideration regarding the
individuals expectations. Moreover, the manual specifies, Such situations will
be considered on a case-by-case basis (Boulder, 2011). Any variation to a
phases or treatment must be approved by the AITC judge and/or the AITC team
(Handbook, Boulder, 2011).
Five phases complete the AITC program in Boulder County. As stated in
the Policies and Procedures Manual, Each phase must be successfully completed
before advancing to the next phase (Boulder, 2011). In order to move on from
each phase participants are responsible for all financial obligations to the court as
well as to treatment providers. The cost of treatment is minimal for the first 90
days and increases on a sliding scale (Handbook, 2011). Participants may be
denied treatment if refusing or failing to make acceptable arrangements to meet
financial obligations.
Phase 1: Orientation Phase:
The first phase is the orientation phase and lasts for a minimum of 2
weeks. During this phase the AITC participant meets with their probation officer
and treatment provider for the first time. The AITC Handbook explains that
57


participants are required to attend all scheduled court appearances and probation
meetings, submit to drug screens as instructed, attend drug/alcohol evaluation and
intake appointment(s) and attend community support groups on days that no other
treatment appointments are scheduled (Boulder, 2011). The AITC Handbook
specifies at the bi-weekly court status reviews; participants are expected to be on
time and provide the Judge with an honest update on how things are going
(Boulder, 2011).
The probation officer provides the participant with the terms and
conditions of probation and requirements of the AITC program (Handbook,
Boulder 2011). Probation officers are very important to the success of the
participant in the program. They are more involved and have more interaction
with participants than regular probation officers. They serve as the AITC
participants main contact person. As stated in the AITC Handbook, participants
will meet regularly with their probation officer to discuss employment status,
home situation, etc. Participants are to also expect periodic home visits from their
probation officer (Handbook, Boulder 2011).
Participants Are required to submit to any testing ordered by the
probation officer or the Court (Handbook, 2011). Substance abuse monitoring is
typically done through urine, breath or saliva tests. Probation will not terminate
58


during Phase 1 due to positive test results. However, continued or new use will
result in sanctions, according to the participant handbook. (Boulder, 2011).
All participants are subject to a treatment intake immediately following
acceptance in the AITC program. Once intake has been completed, participants
are given instructions as to what types of treatment and support groups to attend
(Handbook, Boulder 2011). In Phase 1, participants are required to attend
treatment or support groups every day.
On days that participants do not have an individual or group treatment
session, they are required to attend a support group or activity (Handbook, 2011).
For each session, it is required of all participants to have a support group
verification form documented and signed. Support groups are instrumental in
recovery and encompass AA/NA 12-Step Fellowship meetings, Transitional
Outpatient Program (TOPA), church groups, Phoenix Multisport, and meetings
with a sponsor (Handbook, 2011).
In this phase, participants are also required to obtain safe and sober
housing. The AITC team will aid in finding a suitable living arrangement.
Finding employment, education, or training is a key requirement. The AITC team
explains that having an established schedule is very beneficial in the success of
participants especially in the early stages of recovery (Handbook, 2011).
59


Phase 2: Stability Phase:
Participants spend a minimum of 12 weeks in Phase 2 or Stability Phase.
In this phase they are required to attend all court appearances, probation meetings,
submit drug screens as directed and attend all weekly treatment appointments
noted in the treatment plan (Handbook, 2011). The plan may include:
Two groups per week (Recovery Skills, Readiness Group, or
Relapse Prevention)
Community support groups (at least four per week)
Individual therapy
Source: AITC Handbook 2/19/10
(http://www. courts, state, co. us/Courts/County/Local Resources, cfm? County_ID
62).
Participants must attend at least four support group sessions per week. In
addition, they are expected to maintain a safe and sober living environment.
Employment or education/training must be maintained (Handbook, 2011). The
AITC Handbook explains that in order to be eligible to move forward to Phase 3,
participants must be sober for 30 straight days and making progress in their
recovery (Handbook, 2011).
Phase 3: Sober Living Skills Phase:
Phase 3, a 24 week minimum, is considered the sober living skills phase.
60


It focuses on providing participants with the necessary skills in maintaining
sobriety. Similar to Phase 2, during this phase participants are required to attend
all court appearances, probation meetings, treatment appointments and submit
drug screens as directed (Procedures/Policy, 2011). Contrary to Phase 2, where
participants are required to attend four hours of community support groups, they
are directed to attend a minimum of three hours per week in Phase 3.
Phase 4: Relapse Prevention:
During the Relapse Prevention Phase, or Phase 4, participants are required
to continue all the requirements in Phase 3. A 12-week phase includes an
additional weekly relapse prevention group session from the previous phase. In
the first three phases, the AITC team is focused on revealing factors for substance
use (social or mental health) and providing treatment. In Phase 4, the team is
focused on providing the necessary tools to maintain sobriety. Support groups are
one of the tools and are key in participants success. In order to move to the fifth
and final phase of the program, participants must demonstrate a substantial pattern
of sobriety subject to the treatment teams approval (Handbook, 2011).
Phase 5: Maintenance Phase:
Phase 5 marks the near end of the AITC program. It is typically a
minimum of 12 weeks. Participants are required to attend all court appearances,
probation meetings, drug screens as directed, and treatment appointments
61


(Handbook, 2011). At this point in the program each participants case plan may
vary in terms of the number of appointments and screens required, due to their
own performance and needs.
Other participants will look to those in this phase for leadership and
support (Handbook, 2011). Participants who have done well in the program may
be selected to act as mentors to participants in earlier phases (Handbook, 2011).
Mentorship is voluntary. Participants selected to mentor may participate in
speaking to groups, meeting with participants who are struggling, and helping
others connect with their support groups (Handbook, 2011). The AITC
Handbook outlines the following graduation eligibility criteria:
A substantial pattern of sobriety
Actively engaged in treatment and committed to recovery
In Phase 4 or 5
Demonstrating stability in other areas of their lives, such as
housing, employment, etc.
Consistent involvement in a 12 Step program or other
community-based support program
Making regular payments on any balances owed, such as treatment
costs, restitution, etc.
62


Source: AITC Handbook 2/19/10
(http://www. courts, state. co.us/Courts/County/Local_Resources.cftn?County_ID=
62).
After completion of Phase 5, participants are eligible for graduation.
Eligibility requirements for graduation include demonstration of sobriety
determined by the treatment team (Handbook, 2011). According to the AITC
Coordinator, Harry McCrystal, the team looks at the big picture of how
participants progress throughout the entire program. If a participant relapses in
the final phase, they may still be eligible for graduation.
Graduation Criteria
Graduating from the AITC program is a major accomplishment for
participants. At their last court review hearing, there is a celebration with cake.
The AITC team, AITC judge, and all participants in the program, commend the
individuals on a job well done. The road to graduation is long yet rewarding. In
order to achieve success in completion of the program, participants must
accomplish three main objectives. They must participate in and complete
treatment and court monitoring phases (Handbook, 2011). They must complete
all terms and conditions of probation. Lastly, the AITC Team must be content
with participants transformation. To receive approval, the following must be
met:
63


1. Participants have received necessary medical and dental care;
2. Have a legal means of support and a plan for long-term self
sufficiency;
3. Has sober and secure housing;
4. Has sufficient support available in the community to remain
sober and stable;
5. Has completed all terms and conditions of probation that have
not been waived or eliminated.
6. Has developed a long-term sobriety plan;
7. Participant has made good faith efforts to pay all fees and costs
not waived by the court.
8. Completed all treatment and court monitoring phases.
Source: AITC Handbook 2/19/10
(http://www. courts, state, co. us/Courts/County/LocalResources. cfm ? County_ID-
62).
Probation Supervision
Participants accepted into the AITC program may be clients on regular
probation supervision or intensive supervision (ISP). Probation provides
supervision to individuals placed on regular probation by the court. Probation
officers do an assessment of each individual to gauge risk and supervision needs.
Individuals or probationers are supervised accordingly. Probation officers refer
64


probationers to outside resources as needed, such as substance abuse treatment
and employment assistance.
Probationers are often subject to what is termed intensive supervision
(ISP). Those on ISP endure more severe and hands-on supervision from the
probation officer, including daily contact, increased levels of drug testing,
curfews, electronic monitoring, home visits, required employment or education
efforts and treatment as necessary.
The law in Colorado specifies how offenders shall be supervised while
under intensive supervision.
Pursuant to Section 18-1.3-208, C.R.S.. the judicial department
shall require that offenders in the program receive at least the
highest level of supervision that is provided to probationers. Such
supervision consists of restriction of activities, daily contact with
the probation officer, monitored curfew, home visitation,
employment visitation and monitoring, drug and alcohol
screening, treatment referrals and monitoring, and restitution and
community service, and shall minimize any risk to the public.
Source: Policy and Procedures (8/22/11).
http://www. michie. com/colorado/lpext. dll?f=templates&fn=main-h. htm&cp=.
The frequency of contacts participants have with their probation officer is
dependent upon their probation status (Policy/Procedure, 2011). The AITC
policies and procedure manual illustrates the below types of contact and
frequency for those on regular and ISP probation:
65


Regular Probation
PHASE 1 Orientation (Minimum of 2 Weeks)
Contact Type Frequency
Office or Field Visits Home Visits AITC Status Reviews Drug Screens Treatment Monitoring Arrest Checks Once per week One within first 30 days Bi-weekly 3 per week Weekly Daily
PHASE 2 Stability (Minimum of 12 Weeks)
Contact Type Frequency
Office or Field Visits Home Visits AITC Status Reviews Drug Screens Treatment Monitoring Arrest Checks Six per month One within first 30 days, then every 60 days Bi-weekly 4-7 per month Weekly Daily
PHASE 3 Sober Living Skills (Minimum of 24 Weeks)
Contact Type Frequency
Office or Field Visits Home Visits AITC Status Reviews Drug Screens Treatment Monitoring Arrest Checks Four per month Every 60 days Biweekly or monthly (per case plan) 3-5 per month Weekly Daily
PHASE 4 Relapse Prevention (Minimum of 12 Weeks)
66


Contact Type Frequency
Office or Field Visits Home Visits AITC Status Reviews Drug Screens Treatment Monitoring Arrest Checks Per LSI & case plan Every 60 days Monthly 2-3 per month Weekly Daily
PHASE 5 Maintenance (Minimum of 12 Weeks)
Contact Type Frequency
Office or Field Visits Home Visits AITC Status Reviews Drug Screens Treatment Monitoring Arrest Checks Per LSI & case plan Every 60 days Monthly 0-3 per month Bi-weekly Daily
Adult Intensive Supervision Program (AISP)
PHASE 1 Orientation (Minimum of 2 Weeks)
Contact Type Frequency
Office or Field Visits Home Visits AITC Status Reviews Drug Screens Treatment Monitoring Arrest Checks Twice per week One within first 30 days Bi-weekly 3 per week Weekly Daily
PHASE 2 Stability (Minimum of 12 Weeks)
Contact Type Frequency
67


Office or Field Visits
Home Visits
AITC Status Reviews
Drug Screens
Treatment Monitoring
Arrest Checks
Seven per month
Within first 30 days, then monthly
Bi-weekly
6-8 per month
Weekly
Daily
PHASE 3 Sober Living Skills (Minimum of 24 Weeks)
Contact Type
Frequency
Office or Field Visits
Home Visits
AITC Status Reviews
Drug Screens
Treatment Monitoring
Arrest Checks
Seven per month
Monthly (after curfew)
Biweekly or monthly (per case plan)
4-7 per month
Weekly
Daily
PHASE 4 Relapse Prevention (Minimum of 12 Weeks)
Contact Type
Office or Field Visits
Home Visits
AITC Status Reviews
Drug Screens
Treatment Monitoring
Arrest Checks
Frequency
3 per month
Monthly (after curfew)
Monthly
3-5 per month
Weekly
Daily
PHASE 5 Maintenance (Minimum of 12 Weeks)
Contact Type Frequency
Office or Field Visits 3 per month
Home Visits Monthly (after curfew)
68


AITC Status Reviews
Drug Screens
Treatment Monitoring
Arrest Checks
Monthly
1 -5 per month
Bi-Weekly
Daily
Source: Boulder County AITC Handbook (2011)
(http://www, courts, state, co. us/Courts/County/Local Resources, cfm ?County ID-
62).
Boulders drug court is structured similarly to other drug courts around the
nation. The goal of the drug court to decrease the recidivism rates among drug
addicts mirrors that of nationwide goals. Boulders drug court hopes to have
significant positive results in meeting this goal. In the following chapter, the
methodology used in the study as well as results of the Boulder drug court will be
revealed.
The results of the case study were developed through a four-step process:
Site Selection. The location of the study is the District Court of Boulder
County, CO. Boulder Countys Adult Drug Court was developed in
November 2006. Given the unique aspect of emphasis on positive
CHAPTER 4
Methodology
69


reinforcement in this court, this study will examine whether the results
obtained by Boulders drug court are similar to others in the United States.
AITC Sample. This study examines general results from the total number
of AITC participants (327), but with respect to recidivism results, the
sample only reflects participants that successfully graduated in 2008.
There were a total of 38 participants who graduated in that year. The
sample is a mix between those supervised under regular probation and
adult intensive supervision. Since the Adult Drug Court program in
Boulder County is only a post-plea probation violation court, the concern
for bias between differing courts (pre-plea verse us post-plea) is
eliminated.
Non-AITC Sample. The sample selection for the compared group was
conducted in a systematic manner. The compared group includes three
criteria. (1) Their initial case tracked was resolved around the same time
the drug court participants graduated from AITC, giving both groups a
similar time frame. (2) Although, the compared group was not eligible to
participate in the drug court program, they contained similar types of
charges (felony-drugs, burglary, theft, trespassing, etc...) and criminal
histories. (3) Finally, the compared group of 48, who met the first two
criteria, were randomly selected from a pool of over eighteen hundred
70


individuals charged with a felony in Boulder County and exited the
criminal justice system the same year as the drug court graduates. It
should be noted that the compared group served a combination of
probation and jail sentences.
Data Collection. The sample list of drug court graduates was obtained
from the AITC Coordinator. The list consisted of drug court participants
in Boulder County who graduated successfully in 2008 (38 total). Next, a
list of a relatively similar sample size contained of non-AITC participants
who exited the Boulder County court system (case resolved) in the same
time frame was randomly sorted. Lastly, a statewide name search with
individuals from each list was completed. The results of each name search
gave information about whether the offender had been arrested and
charged with a new offense. The time period of 1 and 2 years in which the
new offense was committed was also documented.
RESULTS OF THE CASE STUDY
Over 22,584 participants have successfully graduated from drug courts
nationwide in 2008. The national average graduation rate in 2008 was 57%
(Huddleston and Marlowe, 2011). Since the development of the Boulder County
AITC program in November of 2006, there have been 327 participants.
According to research results by Boulder County, Chief Judge Roxanne Bailin,
71


and Jim Tanner, 32.11% have graduated with 20.80% actively participating
(Bailin and Tanner, 2011). Meanwhile, 41.59% were unsuccessfully terminated
and the rest voluntarily withdrew or have been suspended (Bailin and Tanner,
2011).
Demographics
Table 6 is a comparison of the demographics of participants in drug courts
nationwide, Boulder County AITC, and other drug court populations. The
minority representation for drug court participants was roughly the same as the
population in traditional probation and parole settings. Of all drug court
participants recorded of over 2,000 participants, 62% were Caucasian, 21% were
African-American, and 10% were of Spanish or Hispanic descent (Marlowe,
8/22/11). Marlowe explains that the results varied among all drug courts
(8/22/11). In some jurisdictions the number of Caucasians was high while in
others the number was low. Comparatively speaking, in some drug courts
African-Americans made up nearly all participants, while in other drug courts
African-Americans were virtually absent (Marlowe, 8/22/11).
Of the drug court participants in Boulder County, 73.5% were Caucasian,
11.5% higher than the drug court population nationwide. In addition, 20.02%
were Hispanic, twice that of the national average. The African-American
population of 2.5% is dramatically lower than the average drug court population
72


and is disproportionately represented compared to other populations. This can be
explained by the overall population of Boulder County, according to the U.S.
Census Bureau, Caucasians make up 87.2%, African-Americans make up only
0.9%, and 13.3% are Hispanic, see Figure 3.
73


Table 6. Minority representation in drug courts compared to other
populations
Population Caucasian Black/African- American Spanish/Hisp anic/Latino
Drug Courts1 62% 21% 10%
Boulder County A1TC2 73.5% 2.5% 20.02%
Residents in Boulder County 87.2% 0.9% 13.3%
General Population1 80% 14% 15%
Prison Inmates1 34% 44% 20%
Jail Inmates1 43% 39% 16%
Probationers & Parolees1 56% 28% 13%
1Source: Huddleston, West and Douglas B. Marlowe. Painting the Current
Picture: A National Report on Drug Courts and Other Problem-Solving
Court Programs in the United States National Drug Court Institute, (July
2011),pp. 1-58.
http://www.ndcrc.ors/sites/default/files/pcp report final and official.pdf
(accessed August 21, 2011).
2 Source: Bailin, Roxanne and Jim Tanner. The Integrated Treatment Court
2011 Outcome Report, PowerPoint of Research (September 2011).
Note: N/A = Not available or reported.
Gender
A comparative study of over 2000 drug court participants revealed 68.6%
are male while less than half are female. The results of all participants in Boulder
County show a larger differentiation of 46.8%, shown in Table 7. Based on these
results, it can be assumed that the male population is more than twice as likely to
74


have a drug addiction and commit crimes when compared to the number of
females. This hypothesis seems to be true for AITC Graduates. The results
conclude males are re-arrested 15.7% and females only 2.6% after the first year.
After the second year, the recidivism rate for males is 26.3%, while the rate for
females is 7.6%, see Table 8.
Table 7. Comparison of gender in drug courts
Gender % of all AITC Participants in Boulder County n=327* % of Boulder County AITC Study n=38 % of all drug court participants n=20172
Male 73.4% 78.95% 68.6%
Female 26.6% 21.05% 31.4%
1 Source: Source: Bailin, Roxanne and Jim Tanner. The Integrated Treatment
Court
2011 Outcome Report", Powerpoint of Research (September 2011).
2Source: Source: Roman, John, and Wendy Townsend and Avinash Singh Bhati.
Recidivism Rates for Drug Court Graduates: Nationally Based
Estimates, Final
Report", Urban Institute and Caliber Associates (July, 2003), p 3.
https ://www. ncirs. sov/pdffdes1/201229. pdf (accessed August 22, 2011).
75


The comparison group of non-AITC participants however, disclosed
similar results, shown in Table 8. Males were more likely to be re-arrested after
year one than females, with percentages of 35.9% to 27.7%. The percentage
difference in year two was higher, with the recidivism rate for males at 48.7% and
the rate for females at 34.4%. The re-arrest rate for both males and females
increased between year one and year two.
Table 8. Recidivism rates among gender
Fema e Male
1st Year 2nd Year 1st Year 2nd Year
AITC Graduates 2.6% 7.6% 15.7% 26.3%
Non-AITC Offenders 27.7% 34.4% 35.9% 48.7%
Age
Almost half of drug court participants in Boulder County are between the ages of
twenty and twenty-nine. Of all other drug court participants nationwide the
average age is 33.3 years. The comparison is illustrated in Figure 4. The variation
may be a result in different population demographics depending on region or
76


county studied. For instance, there may be more people between the ages of 20-
29 residing in Boulder County, especially since it is considered a
college town.
Age of Participants In Boulder County Age of Participants in Comparison
Groups2
Age Percent
Under 20 0.6%
20-24 23.5%
25-29 24.1%
30-34 16.4%
35-39 12.7%
40-44 8.3%
45-49 6.5%
50-54 4.9%
55-59 2.8%
Age Percent
Under 24 21.6%
24-30 18.8%
30-36 19.8%
36-42 17.3%
Over 42 22.6%
Figure 3. Age of participants in drug court
1 Source: Source: Bailin, Roxanne and Jim Tanner. The Integrated Treatment Court
2011
Outcome Report, Powerpoint of Research (September 2011).
2Source: Source: Roman, John, and Wendy Townsend and Avinash Singh Bhati.
Recidivism Rates for Drug Court Graduates: Nationally Based
Estimates, Final Report , Urban Institute and Caliber Associates (July,
2003), p 3. https ://www. ncirs. sov/pdffdes1/201229. pdf (accessed August
22, 2011).
77


Table 9. Primary drug choice of drug court participants
Primary Drug Choice of Drug Court /Boulder County N=327 Comparison Group Among Urban Drug Court Participants
Alcohol 36% 27%
Amph/Methamphetamine 23.28% 16%
Cocaine 16.60% 27%
Marijuana 13.20% 22%
Opiates 4.90% N/A
Heroin 4.30% 7%
Ecstasy 0.30% N/A
Hallucinogens 0.30% N/A
Benzos 0.30% 2%
Source: Source: Bailin, Roxanne and Jim Tanner. "The Integrated Treatment
Court
2011 Outcome Report, Powerpoint of Research (September 2011).)
Source: Source: Huddleston, West and Douglas B. Marlowe. Painting the
Current
Picture: A National Report on Drug Courts and Other Problem-Solving
Court Programs in the United States National Drug Court Institute, (July
2011), pp. 1-58.
http://www.ndcrc.ors/sites/default/files/pcp report final and official.pdf
(accessed August 21, 2011).
Note: N/A=Data Not Available or Collected
78


Substance Use
The number of all AITC participants in Boulder County with an alcohol
addiction is 36%, almost ten percent more than that of other drug court
participants. Additionally, the use of methamphetamines is nearly twice that of
compared drug courts. Conversely, the use of cocaine, marijuana, and heroin is
almost half that of other drug court participants. Table 9 shows a side-by-side
comparison of primary drug use among all drug court participants in Boulder
County and participants in urban, nationwide, studies. Figures 4 and 5, shows
only results for Boulder County drug court participants and the comparison from
other urban drug court studies.
79


Substance Use in Boulder County
H Alcohol
Methamphetamine
Cocaine
Marijuana
Heroin
Ecstasy
Hallucinogengs
Prescription Drugs
Source: Source: Bailin, Roxanne and Jim Tanner. The Integrated Treatment
Court 2011 Outcome Report , Power Point of Research (September
2011).
Figure 4. Primary substance use in Boulder County
80


Comparison Groups
Alcohol
Methamphetamine
Cocaine
Marijuana
Heroin
Prescription Drugs
Source: Source: Huddleston, West and Douglas B. Marlowe. Painting the
Current Picture: A National Report on Drug Courts and Other Problem-
Solving Court Programs in the United States National Drug Court
Institute, (July 2011), pp. 1-58.
http://www.ndcrc.ore/sites/default/files/pcp report final and official.pdf
(accessed August 21, 2011).
Figure 5. Primary substance use of comparison groups
81


Recidivism Results
The results of the study when comparing AITC participants to non-AITC
participants revealed similar percentages to that of nationwide studies, shown in
Table 10. For instance, the recidivism rate for AITC graduates after one year is
18% compared to an average 16%, in a nationally representative study including
95 drug courts. The rate after two years is higher at 39%, than the nationwide
study of 27%. This may be indicative of the type of participants targeted in
AITC. They tend to be high-risk offenders who commit some of the most severe
of crimes, including: burglary, robbery, possession of a weapon, and menacing.
Important to note is that such differences can be caused by the small sample size
of 38 people in a single year. There can be a lot of variation from larger national
studies in such a small number study.
Another study conducted in Baltimore, MD showed a 32% re-arrest
(charge) rate after one year and 66% after two years. The results in Boulder
illustrated a re-arrest (charge) rate 14% lower than Baltimore after the first year
and 27% less after the second year. Furthermore, when compared to results in
Los Angeles, Boulder County results were 6% lower after 1 year. Overall, the
results are similar to those of national studies with the recidivism rate of AITC
participants increasing after year two.
82


Table 10. Estimated recidivism rates
(AITC-n=38) (Non-AITC-n=48)
One Year AITC Participants 18%
Comparison Group 44%

Two Years
AITC Participants 39%
Comparison Group 51%
A comparison of Boulder County AITC participants and non-drug court
offenders, revealed a recidivism difference of 26% after 1 year and 12% after 2
years. The recidivism rates of AITC participants and comparison group are
demonstrated in Table 10. After the first year, non-AITC offenders are more than
twice as likely to be re-arrested as their counterparts (39% to 18%). Over fifty
percent of non-AITC participants were charged with committing a new offense in
year two. Boulder Countys re-arrest rate difference of 26% is slightly higher
after one year. Yet, the difference of 12% after year two is within the average
range (5-25%) of other studies.
Additionally, studies of five different institutions (Figure 3) found that drug
courts reduced crime by an average of 13%. Although, Boulder Countys drug
courts recidivism rate reduction is half of the five institutions average after the
83


first year, it is roughly the same after year two. The results of the five
institutional studies did not indicate the time frame for results.
The cost of Boulders drug court is roughly $500,000 per year. It is
significantly less than the $9,105,192 appropriated for personnel and $1,594,977
of operations for the Boulder County jail. When calculating the cost per bed, of
the total 536 beds, $19,963.04 is estimated in costs per year. In comparison,
Boulders drug court averages 112 participants at any given time and the
calculation of the costs for each participant, per year is $4,464.29. It should be
noted that these numbers are based on the amount of funding received from the
County Commission. The Boulder drug court may also receive state and grant
funding. The information was not available during this study.
Further Analysis-Biases and Shortcomings
The purpose of this paper was to answer the questions of what drug courts
are and do they work, with a specific focus on Boulder, Colorado? The first
question was relatively easy to address, while the second required collection of
data from a sample group (38) of Boulder County drug court graduates and
comparing them to a sample group (48) of non-drug court participants. Because
the results are based on a small sample from each group, a larger sample may
produce different results.
84


This study was limited to recidivism rates and an estimated cost savings
given the time frame of the study and available information. An analysis of the
economic benefits would propose a more complete answer to the question of
whether drug courts work.
The process for collecting data contains some noteworthy flaws. For
instance, results were based on a statewide name search. If a subject from either
sample group moved outside of Colorado, any new arrests outside of the state
were not recorded. Furthermore, offenders with aliases and no date of birth listed
may not be accurately tracked.
Recidivism rates are measured by re-arrests (charge). This provides for
two potential biases. Without considering convictions, the actual recidivism rate
may be lower. Some cases are dismissed for lack of evidence. Interestingly, the
rates for re-arrest and re-conviction among nationwide results indicated little
variation. Alternatively, such factors as crimes not reported may cause the actual
recidivism rate to be elevated, though one can conjecture that the crimes not
reported rate is similar for both drug court graduates and non drug court
arrestees.
The recidivism rates are an average of the sample drug court graduates in
a post-plea court. One should not assume that pre-plea drug courts would yield
the same results. Drug courts designed for pre-plea diversion contain varying
85


influences on participants. For example, in the pre-plea scenario, drug offenders
have more at stake. Nor, shall it be assumed that these results are true for all drug
court participants. Therefore, it is important that these results be applied in the
appropriate context: they simply measure recidivism among drug court graduates
of a post-plea court.
Other factors may affect the results of recidivism, such as structural and
socio-economic environments, criminal history, and primary substance abuse. A
more comprehensive study should consider selecting sample groups of similar
backgrounds and economic status. Moreover, subjects selected for each group
were charged with felonies and considered to be high-risk offenders. Selecting
offenders with identical criminal history (number of arrests) may produce more
accurate results.
Researchers suggest that some substance addictions are more difficult to
overcome. The purpose of this study was to look at general recidivism rates with
all types of substance abuse, thus specific results about varying substances cannot
be concluded. Such an analysis is beyond the scope of the data collect for this
study.
Additional reasons that may alter the results include age and race. A
question about the affects of these factors should include: Does age play a role in
recidivism results? There are certainly more AITC participants in Boulder County
86


between the ages of 20-29 than national averages, are they more or less likely to
be re-arrested? One might assume that it is not too late for younger groups to
change, while it could be argued that older offenders may be at their lowest point
in their lives and are determined to be drug free. Additionally, young people are
known to take greater risks and abuse drugs at higher rates than older adults.
Aside from age, does race play a role in recidivism rates? Because the
population in this study contained a majority of Caucasian and a small
representative group of African-Americans, a more thorough study would include
a more proportionate sample group. A study analyzing the impacts of these
characteristics on recidivism would be useful.
Some might argue that drug court participants are more successful than
non drug court offenders, because of their handpicked nature. In other words
only those with the chance to succeed are chosen, thus they are more prone than
non drug court participants to become drug and crime free. However, nationwide
studies examining non drug court participants also eligible for the program, but do
not participate, indicate that the selection process is not a factor for success.
Selection of non drug court participants eligible for the Boulder drug court, but
did not participate in the program would have helped prove this point.
87


CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSION
This study was conducted for the purpose of exploring what drug courts
mean to the criminal justice system. With growing support for drug courts, this
study was designed to critically investigate whether drug courts work. Results
from nationwide studies and from the Boulder County case study affirm that drug
courts reduce recidivism rates and save money.
The case study concluded that eighty-two percent of drug court graduates
from the Boulder County drug court were not re-arrested after year one. Sixty-
one percent of drug court graduates did not receive a new arrest after two years.
The compared non-drug court offenders were re-arrested at a rate of 44% after the
first year and 51% after the second year. National studies revealed similar results;
only 16% of drug court graduates were re-arrested (charged) after year one and
27% after year two.
Other benefits inferred from reduced recidivism rates include: benefits for
the drug offender families, communities, and the criminal justice system as a
whole. Drug offenders are given an encompassing opportunity to be drug and
crime free and live a productive life. Families also see the benefitsloved ones
get back on their feet. Children in danger of or placed in foster care are able to
88


return to a stable home with their parents. Communities are safer with decreased
recidivism rates as a result of drug courts.
Finally, the criminal justice system profits in many ways. Jails, courts,
and probation departments are able to operate more efficiently as the number of
drug offenders processed in the system decrease. As a result, defense attorneys
are assumedly able to better serve their clients. Furthermore, drug courts provide
an economic benefit reducing the need to build more jails, thus saving taxpayers
and local governments money.
89


BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adult Integrated Handbook, (2011). 22 Aug. 2011
tv ID-62>
Anglin, Douglas M. and Thomas H. Haugh II. Ensuring Success in Interventions
with Drug-Using Offenders, Annals of the American Academy of
Political and Social Science, Vol. 521, (May, 1992): 66-90. 21, Mar. 2011

Anglin, Doulas M., and Yih-Ing Hser. Treatment of Drug Abuse, Crime and
Justice. Vol. 13 (1990): 393-460, 21 Mar. 2011

Bailin, Roxanne and Jim Tanner. The Integrated Treatment Court 2011 Outcome
Report, Powerpoint of Research, September 2011.
Belenko, S. R. Drugs and Drug Policy in America, A documentary of history.
Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2000.
Bembry, Larry L. Drug Courts, New Jersey Office of the Public Defender,
(2007). 22 Aug. 2011
Berman, Greg and John Feinblatt. The Case For Problem-Solving Justice: Good
Courts. New York, NY: The New Press New, 2005.
Bolduc, Anne. Jail Crowding Annals of the American Academy of Political and
Social Science, Vol. 478, (March, 1985): 47-57, 27 March 2011

Boulder County Website. (2011). 2 Sep 2011

Bureau of Justice, A Second Look at Alleviating Jail Crowding: A Systems
Perspective U.S. Department of Justice, (2000). 14 Mar. 2011

90


California Courts: Programs: Collaborative Justice: Drug Courts, (March 11,
2011). 14 Mar 2011

Carey, Shannon M., and Kimberly Pukstas, Mark S. Waller, Richard J. Macklin,
Michael W. Finigan Drug Courts and State Mandated Drug Treatment
Programs: Outcomes, Costs and Consequences, NPC Research, Portland,
OR, March 2008. 14 Jul. 2011

Cotter, Barbara. Second Chances: Drug Court Helps People Turn Lives
Around, Gazette.com. (2010) 2 Sep. 2011.

Drug Court Clearinghouse and Technical Assistance Project. Looking at a
Decade of Drug Courts, U.S. Department of Justice. 22 Aug. 2011

Fender, Jessica. Boulder Courts Caring Touch and Rewards Help Drug
Rehabilitation Stick, Denver Post (January 16, 2011). 23 Apr. 2011

Hepburn, John, R. Recidivism Among Drug Offenders Following Exposure to
Treatment Criminal Justice Policy Review. (2005): 237-259, 21 Mar.
2011
Huddleston, West and Douglas B. Marlowe. Painting the Current Picture: A
National Report on Drug Courts and Other Problem-Solving Court
Programs in the United States National Drug Court Institute, (July 2011):
1-58,21 Aug. 2011
f>
Kassebaum, Gene and Duane K. Okamoto. The Drug Court as a Sentencing
Model, Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, Vol. 17 (2001): 89-
104, 21 Mar. 2011
Kim, II-Joong, Bruce L. Benson, David W. Rasmussen, Thomas W. Zuehlke. An
91


Full Text

PAGE 1

DRUG COURTS AND THE EFFECTS ON RECIDIVISM: A LOOK AT BOULDER COUNTY DISTRICT COURT By Leann Stover B.A. Washburn University 2007 A thesis submitted to the University of Colorado Denver in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Political Science Liberal Arts and Sciences 2011

PAGE 2

This thesis for the Master of Political Science degree by Leann Stover has been approved by \{ ( "2-1 ,, { Date

PAGE 3

Stover, Leann (Master of Arts, Political Science, Liberal Arts and Sciences, University of Colorado Denver) Drug Courts and the Effects on Recidivism: A Look at Boulder County District Court Thesis directed by Professor Tony Robinson ABSTRACT Historically, the United States has struggled with how to deal with drug problems. Increasingly, the criminal justice system is not equipped to handle the mounting pressures of "war on drugs" policies and jail overcrowding Offering a partial solution to such challenges, research shows that drug courts reduce recidivism rates. This case study of a Drug Court in Boulder County concludes that 18% of drug court graduates from the Boulder County drug court were re-arrested after one year and 39% of drug court graduates did not experience a new arrest after two years. This data compares to non-drug court offenders, who were re-arrested at a rate of 44% after the first year and 51% after the second year. National studies revealed similar results; only 16% of drug court graduates were re-arrested (charged) after year one and 27% after year two. Finally, the criminal justice system profits from drug courts in many ways. Jails, courts, and probation departments are able to operate more efficiently as the numbers of drug offenders processed in the system go down. In addition, drug courts provide an economic benefit by reducing the need to build more jails. This abstract accurately represents the content of the candidate's thesis I recommend its publication

PAGE 4

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Cary Heck Ph.D., director of research for The National Drug Court Institute (NDCI) is recognized for providing a standard framework for process evaluation and performance measurement. The standard for research she provided has assisted in the development of this report Furthermore it has contributed to the systematic methods used for gathering information.

PAGE 5

TABL E OF CONT E NTS Tables ...... ...... . .... . . ........ .... ....... ........... .... . . . . ..... . . ........... .... . .... . VII Figures ...... .... ... . . . . . .... . . . .............. . . . . . . . . . . . ... . .................... .... . VIII CHAPTER 1. INTROD U CTION .. ....... . .......... ... . . .... . . . ... . . . . .... . .... . .... ...... . . . Defining Drug Courts . . .... . . . . ....... ......... .......... ...... . .... . . . . . . . 4 Understanding Why Change in the Criminal System is Necessary . ........ . . . . ..... .............. .............. . . ... . ......... .... . ....... 13 Prison O v ercrowding .... ........... . ..... . . . .... ....... .... . . ...... 18 Limitations with Probation ....... . . . . . . . . . .... .... .... . ... . 21 Drug Addiction .... . ..... ......... . . . ..... . . . . . . .... . .... . .... . . 23 History of Drug Courts In America . . . . ..... . . . . . ..... . . . . . . . . 25 2. DO DRUG CO U RTS WORK ? . ..... .... .............. .... ..... . .... . ......... ....... 31 Recidivism . . ...... . . . .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... . ... .... . . .... . . . 32 Cost Savings ....... . . ....... ........ .......................... . . ... ... ...... ..... .... 39 Impact of Drug Courts on Individuals / Communities and the Criminal Justice System ............ ....... .... ... ...... ..... . .......... . . ...... ...... .... . ... 43 3. DRUG COURT METHODS US E D IN BOULDER COUNTY .... . .... .45 AI T C Program Rules ........ . ..... . ............. . . .... ... . . . . . . . ...... . . .49 Entry Process ... . ..... . . . . . . ............... ....... ..... ...... .............. . . . ... 51 AITC Court Hearings ..... . . .... . . ..... ..... ...... .... . . . ...... ... ... . . ... .... 53 v

PAGE 6

Sanctions and Incentives .............. ............... ....... ........ . .... ............ 54 Termination Criteria .... . ..... ................. ............. . . .... . .... . .... . .... 55 Program Phases . . . . . . . . . ................... .............. ................ . . .... 51 Phase !-Orientation ... ........... ..... ...... .... . .... .... . .... .......... 57 Phase 2-Stability ........ . . . ..... . . . . . ... .. ..... . .... .... .... . . ... 60 Phase 3-Sober Living Skills ... ... . . . . ...... . .... . .... .... ..... 60 Phase 4-Relapse Prevention ........ ......... . .... ................... . 61 Phase 5-Maintenance Phase ..... . . . . ....... .... . .... . ........... . 61 Graduation Criteria .......... ..... ......... ....... ..... ..... . ...... ...... .... .......... 63 Probation Supervision .......... . . . ..... . . . . . . ... ...... ...... . ........... . 64 Regular Probation . ................. . ....... ..... ...... ...... ...... ....... 66 Adult Intensive Supervision Program ...... . .... . .... .... . ..... 67 4. METHODOLOGY ........ .......... . . . . . . ....... . . . . ...... . . .... . ........... ... 70 Site Selection ...... ... . . . . . . .... .......... ........ ....... . ......... . ... 70 AITC Sample ........ ....... ... ..... ..... .................... ....... . . ....... ... 70 Non-AITC Sample ..... . . ........... . . . . . ... .... . .... .......... ..... 71 Data Collection ... ... ......... . ......... ................... . .... . ...... . 71 Results ofthe Case Stud y ... ..... . ....... . . ...... .......... ...... .... ....... . 72 Demographics ........... . . . ..... . ....... . ........ .................. . . . 72 VI

PAGE 7

Gender ................... ....... . . . . ..... . . ............ .................. .... 74 Age . .... . . . . . . . . . ........................ .... . . . ...... . .... .... . ..... 76 Substance Use . ...... . . . . . . . . . . . ..................................... 79 Recidivism Results ...................... ..... ..... . ...... ......... .......... 82 Further Analysis-Biases and Shortcomings ........ .... ....................... 84 5. CONCLUSION ...... ................... . . ............... ............. ...... ...... ...... ...... 88 BIBLIOGRAPHY .... ...... . ..... . ...... ......... ......... ......................................... 90 VII

PAGE 8

LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1 Operational drug courts by year . . ... .... .... ............. . . . .... . .... . .... . . 26-27 2 Nationwide comparison of re-arrest rates . . ..... ..... ..... .... ........ .... . . ....... 34 3 Five institutional studies . . .... . . . . ..... ..... . ..... ............................ ........ . 37 4 Differences in reconviction rates between drug court program participants and comparison group members . . . . . . .... .... ..... ..... ... . .... . .... . . ....... . . . 38 5 Cost benefit comparisons . ..... .......... ............. ..... .................. ...... . ...... .41 6 Minority representation in drug courts . . . . . . . . . .... ........ . ................. 74 7 Comparison of gender in drug courts ............... ... ......... ............ . . .... ... 75 8 Recidivism rates among gender ....... ............. ............ ........... ... .... . . . . 76 9 Primary drug choice of drug court participants .................... ......... ........ 78 10. Estimated recidivism rates .................... . ....... ...... . . .... . .... . .... . ....... 83 VIII

PAGE 9

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. The number of drug courts in all 50 states . . . . . ... .... . . .... .... . .... . . . 28 2. Re-arrest rate after year one and year two ..... . . . . . ...... ...... ...... ...... . .36 3. Age of participants in drug court .... . ..... . . ... ........ . . . .... ... ....... ... ... ... 77 4. Primary substance use in Boulder County ...... . . . . ... .... . .... . .... .... ..... 80 5 Primary substance use of comparison groups ........... ........ . .... .... . . . . 81 IX

PAGE 10

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION The purpose of this paper is to answer the following questions: What are drug courts and do they work? More precisely do drug courts help reduce crime and alleviate issues in the criminal justice system? Historically, the United States has struggled with how to deal with growing drug problems. The criminal justice system is not equipped to handle the mounting pressures of"war on drugs" policies and jail overcrowding. Drug courts however, have many beneficial impacts on the criminal justice system Research shows that alternative sentencing institutions like drug courts are mechanisms for reducing crime and saving money by reducing drug use and recidivism rates, through a combination of drug abuse treatment and the coercive power of the court. According to the National Association of Drug Court Professionals (NADCP) 75% of Drug Court graduates remain arrest-free at least two years after exiting the program. In order to answer the above questions, an analysis of drug courts is necessary to explore how they operate, and to document the measurable benefits (if any) of the courts including a reduction in crime. In this thesis data from several nationwide drug courts are compared to 2008 data from a Boulder County, CO adult drug court, including data concerning recidivism rates.

PAGE 11

Boulder County Drug Court a medium sized court, was selected as a case study because of its uniqueness in placing an emphasis on positive reinforcement. Not only are sanctions used as in other Drug Courts but incentives such as gift cards are used to reward participants for positive progress. To measure the recidivism rates for drug court graduates a total of 38 graduates were studied. This includes all graduates in 2008 allowing enough time for the program to resolve any issues. In addition, the study considers recidivism results of each participant one and two years post graduation in order to compare the results to nationwide results. Although selecting graduates from 2009 would have given a larger sample size; because 2011 is not complete it would not have given an accurate comparison of recidivism rates after two years. The data was collected through a name search in the Colorado statewide index The study also assessed the recidivism rates of drug court offenders who did not go through drug court. The sample of 48 offenders was randomly selected out of a pool of over eighteen hundred offenders in Boulder County. In order to be consistent the compared group exited the court system (sentence complete) at roughly the same time as the drug court graduates. In addition the non-drug court offenders chosen were charged with similar offenses (felonies) to the drug court graduates Results from the comparison of drug court and non-drug court graduates were then compared to nationwide studies 2

PAGE 12

The remainder of this report is broken into five chapters. Chapter one section one defines drug courts focusing on the purpose how they operate and who is involved. The second section describes why a change in the criminal justice system is necessary. In this section there are three sub-sections discussing prison overcrowding limitations with probation and the argument that addiction should be defined as a disease not a choice. The third section explains the history of drug courts in America. Chapter two gives a comprehensive look at nationwide stud i es and provides insight into whether drug courts work in terms of recidivism and cost. Additionally this chapter illustrates the impact of drug courts on society and the criminal justice system as a whole. The third chapter details how the drug court in Boulder County operates Chapter four is broken into three sections The first section discusses the methodology used for the case study of the Boulder County court outlining the site selection sample selection of both drug court graduates and non-drug court offenders and how data was collected. The second section is a comparative analysis of national results with the case study conducted i n Boulder County Incorporated in this section are results regarding demographics gender age types of substance addiction and finally recidivism. Finally potential biases and areas for further research are the focus of the third section. 3

PAGE 13

Lastly chapter five provides a summary of the findings on drug courts and the o v erall impact. Defining Drug Courts Drug Courts are an alternative to conventional criminal justice prosecution for drug-related offenses (California Courts 3 /11/ 11). Eligible drug offenders may be sent to drug court in place of the traditional justice system. These alternati v e courts seek to reduce drug use reduce crime save money and restore lives This is done through utilizing the coercive power of the courts to force drug offenders into treatment as opposed to simply using the coercive power of the courts to incarcerate offenders. The drug court movement also seeks to reduce drug related crimes more generally Research shows a significant number of crimes are directly or indirectly related to the use of drugs (Anglin and Maugh 199 2). But people involved in the criminal justice system are realizing that standard options in sentencing for drug-related crimes jail probation and dismissal are not a v iable long-term solution. Most drug court participants have a history of drug addiction of at least 15 years or more (Drug Court Clearinghouse 8 / 22 /11 ). The Drug Court response holds that without confronting the root of the issue of addiction society will be unable to resolve the problem of growing drug-related crimes and associated social skills The drug abuser will continue to cycle in and out of the justice 4

PAGE 14

system similar to a revolving door The core principle of drug courts therefore, is addressing the problem of addiction. Berman and Feinblatt point out The goal is to change behavior moving [individuals] from addiction to sobriety and from a life of crime to law-abiding behavior" (2005). Drug courts offer hope of overcoming such addiction with a new team approach that combines punishment with treatment. In terms of treatment drug courts serve as a means to address addiction through an integrated set of social and legal services instead of exclusively rel y ing upon sanctions through incarceration or probation (King and Pasquarella 2009) Additionally they provide closer and more comprehensive supervision than any other community based supervision programs according to National Association of Drug Court Professionals (NADCP 1997) Drug courts ensure compliance of offenders and as a result are six times more likely to keep offenders in treatment than traditional sentencing mechanisms long enough for them to become drug free. The fact is that without regular supervision from the court 60 to 80% of drug offenders drop out of treatment prematurel y (NADCP 1997) In addition to addiction drug offenders also often have poor social skills lack job training and are dependent on others (Anglin and Maugh 1992) Drug courts provide a combination of services 5

PAGE 15

addressing these supplementary problems, to aid in drug offenders successful recovery. There are two types of drug courts: deferred prosecution programs and post-adjudication programs (King and Pasquarella 2009). Twelve percent of all drug courts are pre-plea or deferred prosecution courts while fifty-eight percent are post-plea or post-adjudication courts (Huddleston and Marlowe 2011 ) The remaining courts are some sort of combination of the two Deferred prosecution or diversion programs consist of defendants eligible for drug court prior to pleading (guilty) to a charge. Defendants who successfully complete the drug court program are not prosecuted further. In the post adjudication or post-plea program defendants must plead guilty to a charge, but the sentence is suspended while they participate in the drug court program. Furthermore successful completion of the program results in a waived sentence and sometimes an expungement of the offense (King and Pasquarella 2009). Failure to successfully complete the drug court program (such as by continuing habitual drug use) means that defendants will be returned to court to face sentencing on the guilty plea (King and Pasquarella 2009) One of the essential functions of drug court is the use of coercive authority. It provides drug offenders with the oversight, structure and support in becoming drug and crime free Drug courts strive in helping individuals addicted 6

PAGE 16

to drugs through aggressive judicial monitoring (Berman and Feinblatt, 2005). Drug offenders are rigorously supervised by the drug court, instead ofbeing diverted into programs without supervision, incarcerated without services, or even given a "get-out-of-jail free card" (Berman and Feinblatt, 2005) Individuals eligible for the program are typically addicted, non-violent, and must agree to a formal plan of treatment and consequences for failure. Those who qualify are generally severe, non-violent addicts who get caught feeding their habit. The National Association of Drug Court Professionals point out that eligibility for Drug Court varies among state and local guidelines. Both drug and drug driven offenses (i.e. theft to pay for drugs) are usually considered (NADCP, 1997). Although eligibility guidelines vary, most Drug Courts do not consider violent offenders. To achieve the goal of drug offenders becoming drug free, the drug court program uses a variety of tools such as: drug treatment, mental health counseling, job training, and community-restitution projects. In order to monitor progress the drug court judge requires frequent court appearances where offenders report on advancement in the program. Success is acknowledged with appraisal from the judge and applause from everyone in the courtroom. On the other hand, individuals in noncompliance are given some sort of sanction, typically community-service. Berman and Feinblatt contend that this sort of carrot-and-7

PAGE 17

stick approach has led individuals to a safe and drug free life (2005). Additionally, "Everyone is a winner: the drug offender because the cycle of drugs-crime-jail is broken, the court because it no longer has to spend resources on the offender, and the general public because the streets are safer" (Berman and Feinblatt, 2005). Drug courts integrate judge, prosecuting attorney and defense attorney in a less adversarial setting than traditional courts. Furthermore, treatment professionals and the integrated treatment court (ITC) coordinator work closely with the fore mentioned legal professionals to achieve the same goals: helping drug addicts become drug and crime free and improving the lives of drug offenders, victims and communities (NADCP, 1997). The program coordinator has one of the most important roles on the drug court team, as they are responsible for the day-to-day operation of drug court (Mackinem and Higgins, 2008) They are responsible for organizing treatment, relaying information from treatment professionals to the judge and prosecuting and defense attorneys, tracking progress of drug offenders, and act as a primary contact for drug offenders Treatment professionals conduct an initial assessment to determine a drug offender's eligibility. Once admitted, the treatment professionals provide guidance and monitor progress in individual and group therapy sessions. The job 8

PAGE 18

of the ITC team is to select individuals who need help and have the potential for doing well in the drug court program. Defense attorneys make frequent referrals of defendants to the ITC program (Mackinem and Higgins 2008). They see it as an opportunity to bargain with the prosecuting attorney to give their client the opportunity to enter into the ITC program under a deferred sentence In many cases the client may have their record ultimatel y wiped clean with successful completion Family members probation officers and prosecutors may also advocate for drug offenders to be placed in drug court. When making recommendations for potential individuals into the ITC program prosecuting attorne y s consider the seriousness of offense and future risk. When considering entry into the program the ITC team typically considers four categories : need motivation risk and capability (Mackinem and Higgins 2008). If applicants are deemed unworthy in any one of the four categories they are not considered for the program. Applicants must have a serious drug use problem and need help. Upon admitting to a drug addiction the offender s confession translates to having a need The second factor examined when considering applicants is motivation The ITC team looks at the applicant s motivation and willingness to succeed in 9

PAGE 19

the program : Are they willing to take advice from staff? Comply with the rules? Motivation may result from internal or external factors When considering internal factors Mackinem and Higgins point out there are three components: problem recognition ; desire for help and treatment readiness (2008). Problem recognition occurs when drug offenders understand that their addiction is having a negative impact on their life. Once recognizing they have a problem applicants must have the desire to get help Treatment readiness differs from the desire for help in that applicants must be willing to receive specific treatment from a specific provider (Mackinem and Higgins 2008) External factors may be motivational including domestic partner ultimatums legal threats and health problems. Determining one s level of motivation is clearly difficult when selecting applicants for the program but an accurate determination is critical to ensuring the future success of drug court participants. The next category the ITC team considers is the risk or likelihood that the applicant will commit new offenses (Mackinem and Higgins 2008). When considering the level of risk the lTC team commonly wants to know if the drug addict commits crimes not violent in nature. Or are the offenders criminals in nature which incidentally use drugs or are they drug-users whose criminal behaviors stem from their drug use (Mackinem and Higgins 2008)? The team 10

PAGE 20

asks themselves if applicants are likely to commit new violent criminal offenses or behave in a way that will undermine the program. Alternatively those who may be first-time offenders with mild drug habits (recreational use) do not need drug court. Finally the lTC team considers whether applicants are capable of participating and succeeding in drug court. For e x ample Mackinem and Higgins point out that applicants may have a mental health or medical condition that would prevent them from succeeding in the program (2008) Furthermore such factors as lack of transportation inability to get out of work or inability to find childcare may lead the team to dismiss an applicant. However most drug courts do not find a lack of transportation to be excusable. Their argument is that if drug offenders can find drugs then they can find their way to treatment (Mackinem and Higgins 2008). The drug court judge takes all opinions into consideration but has the final say on whether an applicant shall be admitted to the drug court program. In most drug courts offenders are kept in the program for a minimum of one year long enough for treatment to work (Marlowe 8 / 22 /11 ) Drug offenders are closely supervised while being provided with intensive treatment and other services required in becoming clean and sober. Drug offenders are held accountable by the drug court judge for meeting requirements and obligations to II

PAGE 21

the court society themselves and their families (Marlow 8/22111). Requirements include regular and random drug testing and frequently required court appearances. Participants may be rewarded for doing well or sanctioned when they are not in compliance with set requirements Participants are defendants or drug offenders who are eligible for the integrated treatment court opposed to traditional court. The lTC team provides services and monitors participants progress in the program (Mackinem and Higgins 2008). They decide what actions to take such as sanctioning or promoting participants based on their progress For example if a participant violates the treatment plan with a hot or positive drug test they may be sanctioned to community service or a weekend in jail. Alternatively if a participant is doing well they may be promoted within the program moving on to the next phase and ultimately graduating. A participant s treatment plan may include attending group and individual counseling sessions self-help meetings submitting to frequent drug tests and paying fees (Mackinem and Higgins 2008). In addition participants are typically required to attend court review appearances every two weeks Prior to these in court appearances the lTC team convenes in staffing meetings to discuss the progress of participants and make recommendations to the judge of whether they should be rewarded or sanctioned At these review hearings participants report 12

PAGE 22

their progress and are given the opportunity to respond to accusations that they violated their treatment plan Discharge from the program occurs in three situations : participants disappears is terminated by the ITC team or graduates successfully from the program. When they disappear, for whatever reason they often go on the run-even moving out-of-state Offenders are terminated by the ITC team with the approval of the judge for failing to make a concerted effort to become drug free. They may also be terminated when being arrested on new charges. Graduation on the other hand is the ultimate goal and a joyous occasion. The court appearance becomes a sort of celebration with speeches, certificates and even receptions with cake With drug courts defined we must look at why drug courts are necessary. U nderstanding why Change in the Criminal Justice System is Necessary America has struggled with how to deal with drug abusers since the Civil War. Steven Belenko contends there has been constant tension between the medical approach and the punitive enforcement approach (2000). In other words there has been a constant tension between helping the sick drug abuser and punishing the drug-abusing criminal (Mackinem and Higgins 2008). 13

PAGE 23

Prior to the 1900s people were able to easily access a variety of drugs including opium cocaine and marijuana with no consequences (Mackinem and Higgins 2008) During the Civil War the number of people addicted to opium alone had grown to an estimated 250 000. Opium users feeble-minded were either considered to be a hapless victim of the drug or a sinister threat depending on the user's racial and cultural identity (Mackinem and Higgins 2008). For instance "The war veteran who treated his wounds with morphine or the housewife who used a tonic" to treat menstrual discomfort were pitied and helped (2008). On the other hand lower class people were ordered to institutions. Chinese immigrants addicted to opium were considered threats to America s way of life By the end of the century drug use escalated from a family doctor and community matter to a national crisis Newspaper articles on the evil of drug use and the threat of Chinese immigrants increased public fear of drugs Mackinem and Higgins illustrate in 1909 that Congress passed the Opium Exclusion Act and in 1910 the "Foster Anti-Narcotic Bill (Mackinem and Higgins 2008). Then in 1914 Congress passed one ofthe most important laws governing drugs the Harrison Narcotic Act making it illegal for doctors or pharmacists to prescribe drugs for non-medical purposes (Mackinem and Higgins 2008) 14

PAGE 24

Meanwhile Doctor Charles Terry a strong voice for the medical treatment of addiction and opposing criminali z ation. He bel i eved that addiction was a medical not legal issue Doctor Terry established the first opiate maintenance clinic in 1919 in Jacksonville Florida (Mackinem and Higgins 2008). Mackinem and Higgins explain "It was founded out of the community s concern over the plight of poorer addicts (2008). More than 100 clinics were established but in 1923 the last clinic closed due to federal inspection and harassment. As a result of the Harrison Narcotic Act many new offenders were arrested and incarcerated as they were addicted to drugs. In 1935 Alcohol i cs Anonymous (AA) was started in Ohio when two struggling alcoholics met for mutual support (Mackinem and Higgins 2008). In the 1950s Narcotics Anonymous (NA) was developed in order to treat those addicted. An active AA member who felt the need for drug users to gather in mutual support de v eloped NA. With the Harrison Narcotic Act having little impact on resolving the widespread drug issue President Richard Nixon declared a war on drugs in 1973 (Mackinem and Higgins 2008). Heroin had resurged since the 1920s marijuana became commonly available and a new drug LSD moved to the forefront of use. Congress r e sponded to the increasing drug issue with emphasis on treatment. For example congress passed the Narcotic Addict Rehabilitation Act of 1966 the 15

PAGE 25

Alcoholic and Narcotic Addict Rehabilitation Act of 1968 and the Drug Abuse Office and Treatment Act of 1972 (Mackinem and Higgins 2008). Drug treatment became more readily available to drug addicts. There are four major treatment modalities that have emerged to treat drug addicts including outpatient methadone maintenance deto x ification therapeutic communities and outpatient drug-free programs In 1987 correctional drug treatment programs were instituted based on a therapeutic-community approach (Anglin and Hser, 1990) However there are many obstacles that have reduced effectiveness in the treatment system For example there are no widespread outreach efforts to attract drug abusers to go to treatment voluntarily; qualified treatment sta f f are in short supply ; and after completing treatment drug addicts do not have the necessary support in place for them to remain drug free The tolerance and treatment of drug offenders led to the precursor of drug courts For example in the 1970s The Treatment Alternatives to Street Crime (T ASC) was developed to coerce identified drug abusing criminals into treatment (Mackinem and Higgins 2008). In the 1980s as drugs became less stigmatized insurance companies offered drug treatment coverage in their policies according to Mackinem and Higgins which also matched the national mood regarding treatment ( 2008) Additionally Lu x ury treatment programs quickly grew with the availability of insurance .. (2008). Private treatment programs located in 16

PAGE 26

large beautiful facilities became common, but by the 1990s, such places soon disappeared as national restrictions for the insurance industries increased (Mackinem and Higgins 2008). Meanwhile AIDS made a devastating appearance as intravenous drug use specifically heroin became more popular. In 1988, there was an estimated 1.1 to 1.3 million IV drug users in the United States (Schuster 1988) As drug users lived desperate and impoverished lives they spread the virus in locations such as alleyways and abandoned buildings (Mackinem and Higgins 2008). The focus of attention in AIDS prevention led to a renewed interest in drug treatment. Mackinem and Higgins explain, Private and nonprofit agencies tried many public health efforts to reduce the use of heroin including needle exchange and methadone maintenance far from the luxury treatment offered to the insured" (2008). In addition The National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) instituted broad-based AIDS prevention research programs specifically targeting drug prevention (Schuster, 1988). With the AIDS scare on the rise, America s toleration of drugs came to an end (2008). Once again Congress attempted to solve the drug problem by passing the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986. The adverse social consequences have led to substantial public resources being thrown at the problem (Anglin and Hser 1990). For instance resulting from the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, four billion dollars 17

PAGE 27

was spent on both drug banning and treatment effort s (Mackinem and Higgins 2008). Meanwhile drug users have flooded the streets jails treatment centers and courts Prison Overcrowding Today West Huddleston and Douglas B. Marlowe point out Prisons are overcrowded with nonviolent offenders charged with drug related offenses (20 11 ). The motto in criminal justice over the past several decades has been to get tough. Such measures as three strikes and you re out and minimum mandatory sentencing laws have caused an influx i n the inmate population from 500 000 in 1980 to 2 million in 2001 (Berman and Feinblatt 2005) In addition in 2002 over 600 000 inmates left state and federal prisons four times as many as were released in 1975 (Visher and Travis 2003) As a result the increase in incarceration has caused an enormous burden to America s prison s y stem with a spending increase from $7 billion to $45 billion (Berman and Feinblatt 2005). Jail overcrowding continues to be a national problem (Bureau of Justice Assistance 2000). For example a local example of Colorado shows overcrowding in Denver s two jails Chrstopher N Osher writes in a Denver Post article that The jails a v erage up to 2 500 inmates on a given day but they were built for 1 711" (2007). Justice system agencies are under growing pressure to resolve the issue of crowded jail conditions (Bureau of Justice 2000) The 18

PAGE 28

Bureau of Justice describes, "In a crisis atmosphere, concerns are often simply translated into a need for building larger jails" (2000) As a consequence, the expenditures for local jails in the United States more than tripled from $2.7 billion spent in 1983 to $9.6 billion in mid-1993 (Bureau of Justice, 2000) Construction and operation of jails and prisons are extremely expensive, according to the Bureau of Justice Assistance (2000). The Boulder County jail alone cost $14.95 million to acquire the land and an additional $11 million in overall construction costs (Boulder County Website, 9/2/11 ). Even if a jurisdiction is able to afford the cost of new construction, the operating costs may present difficulty for local governments. For instance one of the largest jails in the nation, the 4,1 00-bed, Twin Towers in Los Angeles County California costing $3 73 million and was left vacant for 16 months due to a lack of operating funds (Bureau of Justice 2000). History proves that the problem of jail crowding is not resolved through simply building more cells. District Judge M.J. Menendez, contends that drug offenders are not hopeless, "We can't keep putting people in prison" (Schrader, 2008, 9/23/11 ). Construction of jails has increased, yet the increase in cells is making little headway in eliminating the issue. Though "It is difficult to know the size of the national annual jail population it has been estimated that approximately 3500 jails receive 7 million 19

PAGE 29

persons every year ", according to Anne Bolduc (1985) District Court Judge Cohill of Pennsylvania points out that jails are dangerously overcrowded providing for an extremely dangerous environment with potential fires and prisoner unrest" (Bolduc, 1985). According to the NADCP, 1 in 100 U.S. citizens is now confined in jail or prison. The NADCP's research shows "The U.S. incarcerates more people per capita than 26 of the largest European nations" (NADCP 1997). Several factors have added to the need for a second look at jail over crowding. Foremost The National Institute of Justice points out "The problem of jail crowding has not abated since the 1985 publication of the first monograph studying this problem. Furthermore judges public defenders probation/parole officers and others often find that jail crowding acts as a severe constraint in dealing with individual cases in which jailing appears necessary but space is unavailable (2002). For example, a public defender s job is impaired by the inability to access inmates in a timely manner which is caused by overcrowded facilities and overworked jail staff. Court processing also suffers from a delay in the ability to move inmates to and from scheduled court appearances (National Institute of Justice 2008) There are several reasons that have contributed to the overcrowding, including the war on drugs mandatory arrest policies for domestic violence 20

PAGE 30

offenses and drunk driving, deinstitutionalization of the mentally ill and three strikes-and-you're-out laws. As a result of such policies, the number of cases entering the court system each year in America is astounding According to the National Center for State Courts, the criminal case filings increased by 50 percent from 1984 to 1998 (Berman and Feinblatt, 2005). With "get tough" policies put into place and jails full, however defendants are released after only short periods of time, often on probation. Limitations with Probation Probation is often used in an attempt to solve the problem of jail crowding. Although the issues with prison over-crowding is popularly recognized, the majority of criminal offenders are sanctioned to probation. Berman and Feinblatt contend that probation departments (traditional supervising units) are "The bastard stepchildren of the local community justice system" as they are largely under funded and often ignored (2005) Consequently, the probation systems in many parts of the country are near collapse. The case load in some jurisdictions rises to as many as 1,000 clients, per probation officer (Berman and Feinblatt, 2005). Astonishingly Berman and Feinblatt point out "Half of all probationers fail to fulfill the terms oftheir probation sentences and in any given year hundreds of thousands of probationers fail to even report in" (2005). Furthermore Kim et al. argue that probation has little deterrent value (1993). 21

PAGE 31

As Associate Chief Judge Herbert Klein of Florida s Eleventh Judicial Circuit put it : Putting more and more offenders on probation just perpetuates the problem. The same people are picked up again and again until they end up in the state penitentiary and take up space that should be used for violent offenders (Lessenger & Roper 2007) Even more disturbing is that thousands of criminals each year do not receive any punishment at all. For defendants the sentence is disguised as unconditional discharge or "time served ," but it is the same as a get out of trouble free card (Berman and Feinblatt 2005) Judge Robert G.M. Keating in New York protests that he has two options in low-level criminal cases : BandAids or brain surgery (Berman and Feinblatt 2005) This meant that he could let the criminal off with basically no sanction or send them to jail. Berman and Feinblatt argue that neither option really satisfies the four traditional goals of sentencing : Specific deterrence (discouraging the offender from re-offending) general deterrence (discouraging others from following suit) helping the offender changes his behavior or retribution (ensuring the offender gets his just deserts ) (2005). Today many of the cases traditionally processed in the criminal justice system are yielding unsatisfying results. Offenders are adjudicated and released 22

PAGE 32

back onto the streets only to re-offend again. It is as though the justice system is simply spinning its wheels. By not making a dent on the underlying problem the parties involved, the community and the courts continue to suffer the consequences. Some argue that the answer is simply more judges to process the increased volume of cases. However the resources are seriously nominal in comparison to the demand at large. The overall problem in the criminal justice system will not dissipate without getting to the root ofthe problem--addiction. Drug Addiction One promising strategy to alleviate the overcrowding problem is to address the problem of drug-related crimes. Eighty-three percent of all inmates in federal state and local prisons are seriously addicted to alcohol and drugs (Roman et al. 2003). Additionally there are over 600 000 prisoners released from prison every year (Lessenger & Roper, 2007) Seven in ten prisoners will have been rearrested after release from prison (Visher and Travis 2003) Of those released from prison, fifty percent are clinically addicted and sixty to eighty percent of all drug offenders commit a new crime typically a drug-driven crime (NADCP, 1997). With such a high number of criminals entering and exiting the criminal justice system addicted to drugs logic suggests that reducing drug use will reduce crimes committed 23

PAGE 33

Addiction was once characterized as a choice or a person s lifestyle. Authors James Lessenger and Glade Roper point out Addiction is now understood to be a disease of neuro-chemical pathways in the brain that render sobriety intolerable ". Furthermore drug use is not simply that of volition rather it is part of a disease process containing the effects of compulsion (2007) Without proper treatment, hope for recovery is bleak as sanction alone is not sufficient. Research shows that treatment is effective especially the longer an individual remains in treatment (Anglin and Maugh 1992). John R. Hepburn argues that exposure to treatment reduces subsequent drug use and criminal behavior (2005) Treatment for the disease of addiction should include: limiting exposure to environmental influences effectively treating withdrawal symptoms treating mental illness concurrently with addiction and providing increased support around periods of life stress that activate the craving process (Lessenger and Roper 2007) Unfortunately there are many obstacles preventing individuals from receiving services. For instance the limited availability of safe and affordable housing deto x ification services and mental health services present a strain on an addict's recovery (Lessenger and Roper 2007). This is especially burdensome for drug addicts who are in the criminal justice system and are expected to be drug and crime free Gene Kassebaum and Duane Okamoto suggest Punitive 2 4

PAGE 34

Sentences are simply not effective in changing the behavior of chemically dependent and socially marginalized defendants" (2001). Drug courts offer hope to drug addicts by providing services while implementing motivation through rewards and sanctions Meanwhile, they present a possible resolution to a nationwide drug and crime problem. In the next section I will discuss a broad history of alternative sentencing and the rise of drug courts. History of Drug Courts in America Alternative sentencing mechanisms are increasingly used to alleviate jail crowding. Boulder County, for example, uses a variety of alternative sentencing processes to help alleviate jail crowding. One of these alternatives is day reporting, where inmates reside at home as long as they meet the Day Reporting Center (DRC) requirements including, monitoring treatment, employment, and daily contact. A second option is a work crew program, in which inmates serve their sentences by working under the supervision of jail personnel (roadside trash pickup) on weekends or days off from employment. Finally, home detention gives offenders the ability to remain at home with an electronic bracelet ensuring compliance. Under this circumstance, offenders are to remain confined to their home and may only leave to attend employment, therapy and medical treatment (Boulder County Website, 9/2111 ). Many jurisdictions are in search of alternative 25

PAGE 35

sentencing methods in order to help alleviate jail-crowding issues. For instance, treatment courts have been increasing exponentially to help deal with non-violent drug offenders. Today, there are 2,459 reported treatment courts in all 50 states, serving over 120,000 people per year (Huddleston and Marlowe, 2011). There are various types of treatment courts serving people including: Adult Drug Court, Veterans Treatment Court, DWI Court, Family Dependency Treatment Court, Federal District Drug Court, Juvenile Drug Court, Reentry Drug Court, Tribal Healing to Wellness Court and Back on TRAC: Treatment, Responsibility Accountability on Campus. Adult drug court has been the most researched and publicized of all the treatment courts. Table 1 illustrates the number of drug courts opened in the United States by year. Table 1. Operational drug courts by year Year To Date 1989 1 1990 1 1991 5 1992 10 1993 19 1994 44 1995 75 26

PAGE 36

Table 1. (Cont.) Year To Date 1996 139 1997 230 1998 347 1999 472 2000 665 2001 847 2002 1,048 2003 1,183 2004 1,621 2005 1,756 2006 1,926 2007 2,147 2008 2 326 2009 2 459 Source: Huddleston, West and Douglas B Marlowe Painting the Current Picture: A National Report on Drug Courts and Other Problem-Solving Court Programs in the United States" National Drug Court Institute, (July 2011) p 6. http://www.ndcrc.org/siteslde(ault / fi/es / pcp report final and of]icial.pd[ (accessed August 21, 2011). The first drug court began in 1989 in Miami in an attempt to resolve the overwhelming increase of drug-related arrests. A group of justice professionals decided that the criminal justice system as it existed was broken and needed changed. Authors Mackinem and Higgins, point out, "In the 1980s, cocaine 27

PAGE 37

rained from the sky" (2008) Drug traffickers from South America dumped cocaine from small prop planes. Often officers would see the same offenders they had arrested earlier in the day for possession of crack cocaine, back on the streets because the justice system was not equipped to deal with such an influx of arrests (Mackinem and Higgins 2008). Since their initial de v elopment in Florida drug courts have since flourished across the nation. Figure 1 demonstrates the number of drug courts by state Totill oU.l47 Dq courts In the United States (December 1007) New England Figure 1. The number of drug courts in all 50 states 28

PAGE 38

Source : Huddleston West and Douglas B. Marlowe Painting the Current Picture : A National Report on Drug Courts and Other Problem-Solving Court Programs in the United States National Drug Court Institute (July 2011) p .21. http://ww w .ndc rc or g/s itesld e [ault lfiles / pcp r e port final and o{fi c ial.pd[ (accessed August 21, 2011). Prior to the first drug court jurisdictions encouraged and supported by the Federal Government developed an Expedited Drug Case Management system. This system simply sped up drug case processing thus existing resources were used more efficiently and drug trafficking cases were processed more quickly. The Expedited Drug Case Management system expedited drug cases but did little to address the problems of habitual drug use. It was merely a mechanism to speed up the revolving door from court to jails and back again Following the failed attempt of Expedited Drug Case Management justice professionals realized that treatment was a key component in reforming the justice system. The National Association of Drug Court Professionals (NADCP) a national non-profit corporation has been instrumental in the development of drug courts across the nation. The NADCP was founded in 1994 by pioneers from the first twelve drug courts in the nation (NADCP 11/8/11). Comprised of judges prosecutors defense attorneys and clinical professionals the NADCP created a common-sense approach to improving the justice system through a combination of judicial monitoring and effective treatment. 29

PAGE 39

As the leading national resource for drug court practitioners, the NADCP established the National Drug Court Institute (NDCI), a specialized institute, in December 1997 (NADCP, 11/8/11). The NDCI provides comprehensive training and technical assistance to the entire drug court field. Since it's beginning, the institute has trained 36,641 drug court professionals in all 50 states. One ofNADCP's earliest victories was the passage ofthe "Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994." According to the U.S Department of Justice, the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act represents a bipartisan product after six years of hard work (NADCP 1997) As a result of this bill, drug courts were given $29 million in 1995 and $971 million in 19962000. According to the NADCP, that single piece oflegislation is responsible for the incredible growth of drug courts nationwide (11/8/11). In 2006, the NADCP began a massive campaign to put a drug court within the reach of every American in need. The NADCP has received a renewed commitment for drug courts among Congress and the general public. The NADCP's campaign has resulted in increased federal funding With drug courts and federal funding increasing, it raises the question of whether drug courts are successful in reducing recidivism. 30

PAGE 40

CHAPTER2 DO DRUG COURTS WORK? In looking at whether drug courts are successful we must ask the simple question of whether they provide benefits to the criminal justice system Since the first drug court was implemented in Florida in 1989 Drug Courts have been under a microscope and the results show that Drug Courts do in fact work (Carey et al. 2008). Drug courts are found to be more successful than jail or probation and treatment alone. Researchers illustrate the benefits of drug courts through reduced recidivism rates and increased cost effectiveness. These benefits can be illustrated in the case of Patty McParlan from Boulder CO McParlan was homeless and addicted to drugs for 30 years She was found eligible for Boulder drug court and went through the process. She is now sober and in transitional housing (Fender 2011 4/23 / 11). Additionally when asked about drug court McParland explained: You get praise. It boosts morale It helps a lot with that. A lot of times even on regular probation you re doing a great job and the only thing you hear from those people is what y ou're doing wrong. (Fender 2011 4 / 23/11). McParland's story is not unique. Across the nation drug courts have been found to reduce recidivism rates and save court and jail costs. 3 1

PAGE 41

Recidivism One of the most common ways to measure drug court's success is reduced recidivism. Recidivism can be generally defined as the tendency to fall back into undesirable behavior. The Federal Sentencing Guidelines define recidivism as "(a) re-conviction for a new offense ; (b) a re-arrest with no conviction disposition information available on the post-release criminal history record; or (c) a supervision revocation (Maxfield 2005). For the purposes of this paper recidivism will be defined as a re-arrest (charge) for any offense other than a minor traffic offense. Recidivism is affected by post prison factors such as family, peers and environment (Visher and Travis 2003). Criminals especially if on drugs or addicted do not act rationally Rather they behave impulsively and irrationally. Drug courts provide a support system in order to alleviate negative influences and help criminals come back to a rational ability to weigh benefits and consequences. The NADCP reports that, "Drug Courts are the most effective justice intervention for treating drug addicted people" (NADCP, 1997) Research indicates that most effective drug courts reduced crime as much as 45 percent over other dispositions (Huddleston and Marlowe 2011 ) A nationally representative sample of drug court graduates conducted by Roman et al, revealed an average of only 16.4% of drug court graduates that were re-arrested (charged) 32

PAGE 42

after year one and only 27.5% after year two (Figure 2). Although the results from each drug court varied based on the diversity of characteristics of participants (i .e. severity of their addiction types of drugs used and criminal history) the drug courts with the highest recidivism rates are serving the most difficult to reach populations while the drug courts with the lowest recidivism rates are serving those with mild drug problems (Roman et al. 2003) Drug courts have a lasting effect reducing recidivism among participants even y ears after leaving the program Researchers have found that 75% of Drug Court graduates remain arrest free at least two years after leaving the program nationwide (NADCP 1997). Moreover studies examining long-term outcomes show that reductions in criminal pehavior last at least 3 years and can endure for over 14 years (NADCP 1997). For example one study conducted on six drug courts in New York showed that recidivism among drug court graduates after 3 years was reduced b y 29-56 percent shown in Table 2 (Marlowe 8 / 22111) Meanwhile for the drug court graduates the recidivism rate is a staggering 70 percent less than offenders who are processed through conventional courts (Marlowe 8/22 /11 ). 33

PAGE 43

Table 2. Nationwide comparison of re-arrest rates Location(s) No. of Drug Court ReComparison Group ReDrug arrest Rate arrest Rate Courts Nationally 95 16% after 1 year 46% new offense representative 27% after 2 60% probation sample years violation California 9 29% after 4 years 41% after 4 years statewide study New York 6 29% to 56% by 41% to 65% by Statewide study county after 3 county after 3 years years Baltimore MD 1 32% after 1 year 57% after 1 year 66% after 2 years 81% after 2 years Suffolk County, 4 46% 52% MA Dade County FL 1 33% after 18 48% after 18 months months Los Angeles CA 1 24% after 1 year 3 7% after 1 year Source: Marlowe, Doug B Recent Studies of Drug Courts and DWI Courts: Crime Reduction and Cost Savings National Association of Drug Court Professionals. http://www. i s c. idaho .gov l dcourt / D C R esearc h Update408. pdf (accessed August 22, 2011). A national study encompassing 95 drug courts showed a re-arrest rate difference of 30% after 1 year and 33% after 2 years. Another recent study of 34

PAGE 44

participants in a Baltimore drug court discovered that high-risk offenders-those with an average of 12 prior arrests were 19% less likely to be re-arrested than comparable offenders three years after their original arrest (Berman and Feinblatt, 2005). A study in California of 9 drug courts results showed a 29% re-arrest rate among drug court participants compared to 41% of the comparison group, after 4 years (CA Courts, 3/11/11) Los Angeles CA, alone saw a considerable difference of 13% see Table 2. Overwhelmingly, drug courts have been proven effective in reducing criminal behavior (Bermann and Feinblatt, 2005) A sample of2, 000 graduates from 95 different drug courts nationwide, revealed that the average re-arrest rate was only 16% in the first year after leaving the program and 27% after the second year illustrated in Figure 2 (Roman et al. 2003) The results are highly favorable when compared to recidivism rates of offenders supervised by conventional probation. Of those on probation 46% of drug offenders commit a new offense and over 60% commit a probation violation" (NADCP, 1997). Furthermore, a literature review conducted by Wilson et al. of 41 drug court evaluations from across the country revealed that 35 drug courts have achieved lower recidivism rates with the average being 14 percent (2002). Table 3 represents results documented by institutions across the country and Canada. There were as few as 22 drug courts studied in these five reports 35

PAGE 45

and as many as 76. Results ofthe five studies indicate an average reduction in crime of 13 percent. 30 25 "tl .Sl lh 20 G) ... ... 111 I 15 D First Year G) Second Year C) J!l 10 c G) G) D.. 5 0 Source: Roman John and Wendy Townsend and Avinash Singh Bhati. Recidivism Rat es for Drug Court Graduates : Nationally Based Estimates, Final Report", Urban Institute and Caliber Associates (July, 2003), p 3 https://www.ncjrs.gov / pdffilesl/201229 .pd( (accessed August 22, 2011) Figure 2. Re-arrest rate after year one and year two 36

PAGE 46

Table 3. Five institutional studies Institution No. of Drug Drug court reduced crime Courts by average an % of Campbell Collaborative 55 26% Canada Dept of Justice 66 14% University ofNevada 76 9% University of Cincinnati 22 8% Washington State Institute 57 8% for Public Policy Source : Marlowe Doug B. Recent Studies of Drug Courts and DWI Courts : Crime Reduction and Cost Savings National Association of Drug Court Professionals. http://w ww i s c idaho gov / d c our t / D C R ese arch U pdat e 408. I2!if (accessed August 22 2011). An analysis conducted by the United States Government Accountability Office (GAO) revealed similar results one year after drug court entry with an average crime reduction of 13.75% as shown in Table 4 (GAO 2005). The GAO used two distinct control groups to compare to drug court program participants The historical comparison group is comprised of individuals who received conventional case processing shortly before the drug court program was implemented. The contemporaneous comparison group includes defendants (1) who were eligible for drug court but received conventional case processing during the same time as the drug court participants (2) who were from a district within a court s jurisdiction from which arrestees were not eligible to participate in the 37

PAGE 47

drug court program or (3) who had similar charges and were matched on characteristics ( GAO 2005) Table 4. Differences in reconviction rates between drug court program participants and comparison group members Percentage point difference Time frame covered Drug Court Comparison group used Up to 1 2 to 3 years Program in program evaluation year after entry after entry Bronx Treatment Historical-eligible -9% -15% (3 Court arrestees yrs) Brooklyn Contemporaneous-eligible -10% -14(3yr) Treatment Court arrestees Douglas County Contemporaneous-8% Drug Court traditionally adjudicated offenders Kentucky Drug Contemporaneous-15% -5% Court Programs assessed offenders combined felony and misdemeanor charge or conviction Queens Treatment Historical-eligible -21% -13% (3 Court arrestees yrs) Rochester Drug Contemporaneous-eligible -10% -10% (3 Treatment Court arrestees who were not yrs) arraigned before a judge supportive of the program Suffolk County Historical-eligible -21% -25% (3 Drug Treatment arrestees yrs) Court S y racuse Historical-eligible -16% -14% (2 Community arrestees yrs ) Treatment Court 3 8

PAGE 48

Source : United States Accountability Office Adult Drug Court s: Evidence Indicates Recidivism Reductions and Mixed Results for Other Outcomes (2005) http://ww w gao gov / new. it e ms/d05 2 19 pdf (accessed August 22 2011 ). Note : The negative percentage points indicate reduced reconvictions in drug court program participants compared to comparison groups Of the results from the eight drug court programs listed in Table 4, the differences in reconviction rates between drug court participants and comparison group members ranged from 8% to 21% within 1 year after entry into the drug court program (GOA 2005). The rates 2 years or more after entry ranged between 5% and 25%. It must be noted that the results from these drug court programs are for reconviction not re-arrest (charged). Perhaps, ifthe re-arrest rates were also taken into count the percentage differences may be higher (or lower). Additionally the statistics include those who merely enter into drug court rather than only examining graduates. It may then be possible that the percentages differences would be higher when contrasting the comparison group to drug court graduates only. Cost Savings In addition to reducing the recidivism rate drug courts have also been proven to be cost effective. "In 2001 the Office ofNational Drug Control Policy estimated that in 1998 illegal drug use cost Americans $31.1 billion in criminal justice expenses $30.1 billion in lost productivity and $2 9 billion in costs related 39

PAGE 49

to property damage and victimization" (Steven Belenko, 2005). Drug courts offer a good way to reduce these costs because, according to the Department of Corrections, the annual institutional cost per inmate is approximately $38,900, and the highest annual cost per drug court participant is $25,813. A cost-saving analysis of drug courts conducted by The Urban Institute revealed an average of $2.21 in direct benefits for every $1 invested-a 221% return on investment (Huddleston and Marlowe, 2011 ). The savings is reflective of direct and measurable cost-savings resulting from reduced re-arrests law enforcement contacts court hearings and the use of jail or prison beds Huddleston and Marlowe convey that "When indirect cost-offsets were also taken into account, such as savings from reduced foster care placements and healthcare service utilization, studies have reported economic benefits of drug courts ranging from approximately $2 to $27 for every $1 invested (Huddleston and Marlowe, 2011) Drug courts also have proven to have substantial economic benefits ranging from $3, 000 to $12,000 per person each year. Depending on the size of a specified drug court program, the total cost savings exceeded $7 to $9 million per year (Huddleston and Marlowe, 2011). Moreover, Huddleston and Marlow point out, "These cost savings, reflect reduced prison costs reduced re-arrests, trials, and reduced victimization" (Huddleston and Marlowe, 2011 ). An economic 40

PAGE 50

analysis done in California revealed an average cost savings of $8, 000 per client each year (NADCP 1997). King and Pasquarella point out A 1997 national survey of court administrators in 97 drug courts reported savings of as much as $400 000 per year accumulated from the reduction in pre-trial stays and jail beds alone (2009). Table 5. Cost benefit comparison Location(s) No. of A vg benefit for Average cost Total Drug every $1 savmgs per projected Courts invested participant cost savings National 57 N / A $4 767 N I A data Washington 5 $1.74 $2 888 NIA State study St. Louis 1 $2.80 after 2 $2 615 after 2 years $298 399 Felony Drug years $7 707 after 4 years after 4 years Court $6.32 after 4 years California 9 $3. 50 $11, 000 $9 million statewide per year study Multnomah 1 $2.63 $6 744 in CJ costs $7 9 million County OR $12 218 including per year Drug Court victimization Source : Marlowe Doug B. Recent Studies of Drug Courts and DWI Courts : Crim e Reduction and Cos t Savings National Association of Drug Court Professional s 41

PAGE 51

http://www. is c idaho gov l dcourt !DC Re se arch Update408 pdf (accessed August 22, 2011). Table 5 above, illustrates cost savings in five different studies. A national study of 57 drug courts showed an average cost savings of $4,767 per participant, while a study conducted in California yielded a cost savings of $11,000 per participant. An analysis done in Washington State concluded an average cost savings of $2,888 and in St, Louis there was a net savings of $2,615 after 2 years and $7,707 after 4 years (Marlowe, 8/22/11). Another study completed in Multnomah County Oregon found that for every $1 dollar spent on drug court $2.63 is saved by avoided conventional adjudication (Bermann and Feinblatt, 2005) The estimated costs do not include costs associated with victimization public assistance and medical claims. With these costs figured in, the total savings is approximately $10 for every $1 spent (Bermann and Feinblatt, 2005) Additional cost savings include those for babies born drug free Of female drug court participants there have been over 500 drug-free babies born every year (Marlowe, 8/22/11 ) This demonstrates a substantial medical and social service cost savings of roughly $250,000 per baby, in care for drug-addicted infants (Marlowe, 8/22111 ). 42

PAGE 52

Impact of Drug Courts on Individuals / Society and the Criminal Justice System Other benefits resulting from drug court include benefits for families and children and the criminal justice system as a whole According to a report prepared by the Drug Court Clearinghouse and Technical Assistance Project Approximately two thirds of the drug court participants are parents of minor children. Many of these parents have lost custod y or are in danger of losing custody oftheir children because oftheir drug use (Marlow 8/22111). As an example Jessica Fender reporter for the Denver Post describes the situation of David Neal a Boulder County Drug Court participant. Neal faces the reality of, Recently losing custody of his children because of a 22-year addiction to heroin (Fender 2011 4/23/11). Another participant ofEl Paso County Colorado Deanna Simmons was a meth addict. Her son was taken from her custody due to her addiction but she has since been able to take him home according to Barbara Cotter of the Gazette com (Cotter 2010 9 /14/11 ). Jefferson County Commissioner Jim Congrove was quoted in Ann Schrader s article of the Denver Post commenting on drug court s caring aspects stating "It will help them get off drugs and will keep families together. (Schrader, 2008 9 /23111 ) Drug courts also allow the criminal justice system as a whole to operate more efficiently. With fewer drug addicts stifling court dockets and jail beds 43

PAGE 53

resources can be allocated to more appropriately deal with violent offenders those posing a greater risk to society. Court dockets of non-drug court judges have been freed to allow more time for other criminal matters and civil cases which have been given second priority (Marlow, 8 / 22 /11 ). Moreover police are able to focus on more violent criminals with drug courts improving the revolving door syndrome that allows drug offenders back onto the streets and back to using drugs (Marlow 8 / 22 /11 ). Defense attorneys also see benefits from drug courts As drug courts reduce recidivism rates and overall prison crowding they are able to spend more time with clients rather than waiting on overworked jail staff to locate their client. 44

PAGE 54

CHAPTER3 DRUG COURT METHODS USED IN BOULDER COUNTY To add to the existing literature surrounding the efficacy of drug courts this thesis will now examine the adult drug court in Boulder County CO. As of 2009 Colorado had 50 problem-solving courts (Painting the Picture Huddleston Marlow 2009) Boulder County containing one of the fifty began its adult drug court in November 2006. Since the beginning of the Adult Integrated Treatment Court (AITC) the mission has been To combine judicial oversight, intensive probation supervision and substance abuse and mental health treatment in order to increase public safety reduce crime and promote offender responsibility. By helping participants achieve long-term sobriety the program seeks to improve the lives of participants and their families thereby benefiting the community (AITC Policy/Procedures 2011). Setting it apart from all other Colorado Drug Courts Boulder emphasizes on positive reinforcement. In addition to praise at court review hearings drug court participants may receive gifts such as certificates, grocery cards and movie tickets. Chief Judge Roxanne Bailin states that: One of the critical parts of a successful drug court program is the immediacy of sanctions and the immediacy of rewards. Tangible rewards maximize success It relates to the fact that people who 45

PAGE 55

are addicted to drugs are really people for whom immediate gratification is important. That's what drug use is. (quoted in Fender, 2011, 4/23111) Though Boulder is the first court in Colorado to place a greater emphasis on positive reinforcement in general, than sanctions; Boulder's drug court adheres to the basic goals of drug courts across the nation. There are seven goals, which the Boulder AITC court wishes to achieve: 1. To enroll all eligible defendants who wish to enter the AITC program 2. To provide early screening, assessment and court intervention 3. To provide effective court supervision 4. To provide an integrated program of substance abuse treatment 5 To provide an integrated program of rehabilitation services 6 To promote public safety by reducing recidivism 7. To demonstrate cost-effectiveness to the taxpayer Source: AITC Policy and Procedures (2011) (http://www courts state. co. us/ Courts / County / Local Resources. cfm?County _ID= 62). The AITC court in Boulder County is a post-plea, probation violation court, meaning defendants have already been convicted and are struggling to serve out their probation sentence Resulting from a probation complaint and 46

PAGE 56

revocation, AITC serves as part of their new sentence. Individuals targeted for the AITC program are those with significant histories of drug and/or alcohol abuse and who are at high risk for engaging in criminal behavior. The criterion for the AITC program mirrors that of other drug courts When considering potential participants, the AITC team looks at their need, motivation, risk and capability. Specific similarities include : participants admitted are addicted non-violent and agree to a formal treatment plan. There are a total of eleven conditions listed in the AITC policies and procedures illustrated below 1. Defendant voluntarily agrees to participate in the AITC. 2. Defendant is a resident of Boulder County Defendants residing outside of Boulder County may be considered if they have the means to pay for their own treatment and there is sufficient program capacity 3. Defendant has open case in a CR file jacket, meaning that it is a felony criminal case. 4. Defendant meets Diagnostic and Statistical Manual Fourth Edition, Text Revision (DSM-IVTR) diagnostic criteria for substance abuse or dependence. 5. There is a probation violation or violation of deferred sentence pending in any Criminal (CR) or Misdemeanor (M) file. 6. Conviction or deferred sentence for current offense is not for one of the following (unless the disqualification is waived by the district attorney) : 47

PAGE 57

a. Criminal enterprise drug sales b Vehicular assault or homicide or other crime involving serious bodily injury or death. c. Sex offense under C R .S. 18-1.3-1003(5)(a). d. Contributing to the delinquency of a minor involving a sexual factual basis e. Crime involving use of a firearm f. Residential burglary when entry is into the main living space of the occupant and defendant is not a member of the family of the occupant g. 1 s t or 2nd degree arson 7. Pending felony charges may cause suspension or termination at the discretion of the Court Each case will be considered on its own merits. 8. If public funds will be used, defendant must be eligible for substance abuse and/or mental health services. 9. Defendant is not subject to a C.R.S. 27-10 mental health hold 10. Defendant is not subject to an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Hold 11. Defendant does not possess an active medical marijuana certificate. Source: Policy and Procedures (2011). (h.ttp://www. courts. s tate. co. us / Courts / County/Local Resources cfin?County ID = Ql). 48

PAGE 58

AITC Program Rules Once admitted participants must follow the terms and conditions of probation in addition to the following seven AITC program rules: 1 Abstain from the use of illegal drugs and alcohol. 2. Submit to all drug screens as ordered by your probation officer treatment provider, or the Court. 3 Inform your health care providers of your substance abuse history so that they can make informed decisions regarding the use of prescription medications. 4. Attend court dates, treatment sessions and probation meetings as scheduled. 5 Refrain from association with those using or possessing illegal substances 6. Inform your probation officer and treatment provider of any changes in your address or phone number immediately 7 Comply with any other conditions as outlined in the terms and conditions of probation as well as those outlined in the AITC contact. Source : Policy and Procedures (2011) (http://www courts state co us / Courts / County / Local Resources cfm?County ID = 62). 49

PAGE 59

Similar to other drug courts the Boulder County AITC program includes a team of professionals that collectively work with drug offenders. The team includes: the AITC Judge, District Attorney, Public Defender (defense attorney), AITC Coordinator probation officer and treatment providers The AITC Policy and Procedures illustrate each role the members of the team play. For instance, the AITC Judge uses input from other team members to make all final decisions about participation and progress in the program (Boulder Policy and Procedures 2011) The members of the team meet ahead ofthe court review hearings in "staffings" to discuss each participant's progress in the program The district attorney represents the people and the public defender or defense counsel represents the participant in the program. The AITC coordinator boasts a significant role in the program. As the main contact for the AITC program, coordinators work closely with the AITC team and other community agencies (such as medical providers and housing programs) to ensure participants have the necessary resources to be successful in the program (Policy/Procedures 2011). Probation officers are the primary contact for participants and act as the primary source of information to the AITC team regarding the participant's status in the program (Policy/Procedures 2011) The AITC team encompasses treatment providers with Boulder Public Health being the most commonly used. Once participants have been admitted 50

PAGE 60

into the program, Boulder Public Health conducts a Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, Fourth Edition, Text Revision (DSM-IVTR) assessment for substance abuse and mental disorders (Policy/Procedures, 2011 ). If participants are determined to suffer from a mental disorder in addition to their dependence, they are referred to the Mental Health Center. Participants may also seek service from private providers Entry Process Entry into the AITC program occurs once several steps have been completed. First, the probation officer identifies that a defendant is struggling on probation due to addiction and is subject to violation of probation. The probation officer then conducts an initial screen to determine if the defendant meets minimum requirements for the AITC Program. Second, the AITC Probation Officer screens the defendant for eligibility into the AITC program based on all available information provided in the defendant's case file, a pre-sentence investigative report (PSI), and any assessments or evaluations. Third, the probation officer files a complaint with the court (indicating violation of probation's terms and conditions as specified by the court). In the complaint, the probation officer makes a referral for the drug offender to be accepted by the court into the AITC program. This process varies from other drug courts as the 51

PAGE 61

defense counsel family members or AITC coordinator typically makes the recommendations for participation in drug court. Next the defendant appears in court on the probation violation complaint. Prior to the court appearance the Public Defender (or private counsel) meets with the defendant giving them general information about the AITC program and requirements The defendant is also given the AITC Participant Handbook (Boulder 2011 ) If the defendant is not ready to agree to participation in the program, the court may continue the case in order to give the defendant more time. Once the defendant agrees to participate in the AITC program the Public Defender (or private counsel) and District Attorney discuss an agreement (Boulder 2011) The agreement is then presented to the court and the AITC Judge provides an additional explanation about the AITC program The AITC Judge then determines if defendants appropriate for the program based on their history of substance abuse motivation desire to change and other criteria listed above (Boulder 2011) If the AITC judge finds the defendant appropriate for the program the agreement is approved The defendant is then set on the courts docket for an AITC Status Review hearing two weeks from entrance into the program. The defendant is set to appear every two weeks for 15-18 months. 52

PAGE 62

Finally following the probation violation hearing the AITC probation officer and AITC coordinator meet with the defendant for intake. Defendants sign the Release/ Authorization to share information and the AITC Participant Contract. According to the Twentieth Judicial District AITC Policies and Procedures Manual defendant's initial appointment with their probation officer as well as their substance abuse evaluation at Boulder County Public Health is scheduled (Boulder 2011) Additionally AITC participants are given a calendar with all appointments with probation and treatment providers and upcoming AITC court dates (Boulder, 2011 ). A ITC Court Hearings Similar to other drug courts upon entry participants are required to attend a court review hearing every other week. Occasionally when individuals are struggling they may temporarily be required to attend weekly court sess i ons (Adult Integrated Handbook 2011 ). As participants move forward through phases they are likely to have fewer court review hearings. Importantly participants must attend all court review hearings (Handbook, Boulder 2011). Failing to appear to a court review hearing results in a warrant for arrest. There may be pre-approved circumstances where a participant is excused from the court review hearing for instance if they are unable to get out of work. 53

PAGE 63

Sanctions & Incentives Comparable to other drug courts sanctions and incentives are collectively used as a mechanism in response to a participant's behavior. For instance, incentives are given to participants in recognition of compliance and positive progress in treatment (Handbook, 2011 ). Boulder County differs from other drug courts emphasizing incentives over sanctions, such as gift cards or coupons toys, gifts activity passes bus passes applause/recognition from the court, reduced fines and costs, reduced treatment costs, or the reduction of a previous sanction, and promotion to the next phase (Handbook, 2011). Sanctions are imposed when participants are in noncompliance or violation of program requirements and may include community service day reporting work crew or work release electronic home monitoring (EHM) or straight jail time (Handbook, 2011 ). Positive missed altered or refused drug screens will result in sanction Participants are warned that the use of prescription drugs, over-the-counter medications herbal remedies and dietary or energy supplements may affect test results. Participants are expected to notify their health care providers of their addiction issues (Handbook 2011 ) When the treating physician deems prescription medications necessary participants are urged to try to obtain a non narcotic alternative if one is available (Handbook 2011) The Handbook 54

PAGE 64

illustrates "Participants will be expected to notify their probation officer within 24 hours of being placed on a prescription medication, or if any changes are made to existing prescriptions" (Handbook 2011). Failure to do so results in a sanction. Participants with dependence on prescription drugs are restricted to one prescribing physician and must agree to work with the physician to discontinue use of habit-forming prescriptions (Policy/Procedure 2011). Termination Criteria Typically the AITC team is in agreement regarding the dismissal of a participant yet the AITC judge is ultimately the decision maker. Once terminated participants will return to the regular criminal court. The AITC Handbook outlines the following reasons participants may be terminated from the program : 1 Participant requests termination from AITC 2. Participant fails to complete assessment and evaluation prior to second AITC status conference. 3. Participant disappears from Probation supervision and fails to contact Probation and request participation in AITC within one month of last contact. 4 Participant moves away from the area in which Public Health or other necessary provider can provide treatment. This criterion does not apply if participant is served by a private provider unaffected by residence of participant. 55

PAGE 65

5. Participant is arrested for an offense that disqualifies him or her from participation whether the conduct occurred before or after participation in the AITC began. An arrest for non-disqualifying offenses will not suspend AITC participation unless the participant is incarcerated in another jurisdiction AITC participation could terminate if the sentence for the new offense renders the participant unavailable for an unreasonable period of time. 6 Participant is determined to have a condition that would prevent the participant from participating in or achieving benefits from the AITC's clinical programs 7. Participant fails to move through each of the Phases of Treatment within a reasonable period of time. 8. Participant is absent from court appearances other than those truly beyond his or her control after seeking assistance from the AITC Coordinator before his or her status review 9. Participant makes threats or engages in acts of violence toward treatment providers while in the program. Source : AITC Handbook 2 119110 (http://www. courts state. co. us/ Courts / County / Local Resources. cfm?County _ID = 62) Participants may also be suspended pending release from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) or mental health holds or incarceration in another jurisdiction (Handbook 2011 ). Participants may be allowed back into the program at the discretion of the AITC team 56

PAGE 66

Program Phases The objective is for each participant to complete the AITC program in 15 -18 months (Boulder 2011) The program does, however, allow for exceptions for those with unique circumstances that require special consideration regarding the individual's expectations. Moreover, the manual specifies, "Such situations will be considered on a case-by-case basis" (Boulder, 2011). Any variation to a phases or treatment must be approved by the AITC judge and/or the AITC team (Handbook, Boulder 2011). Five phases complete the AITC program in Boulder County. As stated in the Policies and Procedures Manual, "Each phase must be successfully completed before advancing to the next phase" (Boulder, 2011). In order to move on from each phase participants are responsible for all financial obligations to the court as well as to treatment providers The cost of treatment is minimal for the first 90 days and increases on a sliding scale (Handbook, 2011 ) Participants may be denied treatment if refusing or failing to make acceptable arrangements to meet financial obligations. Phase I: Orientation Phase: The first phase is the orientation phase and lasts for a minimum of 2 weeks. During this phase the AITC participant meets with their probation officer and treatment provider for the first time. The AITC Handbook explains that 57

PAGE 67

participants are required to attend all scheduled court appearances and probation meetings, submit to drug screens as instructed, attend drug/alcohol evaluation and intake appointment(s) and attend community support groups on days that no other treatment appointments are scheduled (Boulder, 2011) The AITC Handbook specifies at the bi-weekly court status reviews; participants are expected to be on time and provide the Judge with an honest update on how things are going (Boulder, 2011). The probation officer provides the participant with the terms and conditions of probation and requirements of the AITC program (Handbook, Boulder 2011). Probation officers are very important to the success of the participant in the program. They are more involved and have more interaction with participants than regular probation officers. They serve as the AITC participant's main contact person. As stated in the AITC Handbook, participants will meet regularly with their probation officer to discuss employment status, home situation, etc. Participants are to also expect periodic home visits from their probation officer (Handbook, Boulder 2011 ). Participants "Are required to submit to any testing ordered by the probation officer or the Court" (Handbook, 2011). Substance abuse monitoring is typically done through urine, breath or saliva tests. Probation will not terminate 58

PAGE 68

during Phase 1 due to positive test results. However continued or new use will result in sanctions according to the participant handbook (Boulder 2011 ) All participants are subject to a treatment intake immediately following acceptance in the AITC program. Once intake has been completed participants are given instructions as to what types of treatment and support groups to attend (Handbook Boulder 2011 ) In Phase 1 participants are required to attend treatment or support groups every day. On days that participants do not have an individual or group treatment session they are required to attend a support group or activity (Handbook 2011). For each session, it is required of all participants to have a support group verification form documented and signed. Support groups are instrumental in recovery and encompass AAINA 12-Step Fellowship meetings Transitional Outpatient Program (TOP A) church groups Phoenix Multisport and meetings with a sponsor (Handbook 2011). In this phase participants are also required to obtain safe and sober housing. The AITC team will aid in finding a suitable living arrangement. Finding employment education or training is a ke y requirement. The AITC team explains that having an established schedule is very beneficial in the success of participants especially in the early stages of recovery (Handbook 2011) 59

PAGE 69

Phase 2 : Stability Phase : Participants spend a minimum of 12 weeks in Phase 2 or Stability Phase. In this phase they are required to attend all court appearances, probation meetings, submit drug screens as directed and attend all weekly treatment appointments noted in the treatment plan (Handbook, 2011 ). The plan may include: Two groups per week (Recovery Skills Readiness Group, or Relapse Prevention) Community support groups (at least four per week) Individual therapy Source : AITC Handbook 2 1 19 1 10 (http://www. courts. state. co us / Courts / County / Local Resources cfm?County ID = 62). Participants must attend at least four support group sessions per week. In addition, they are expected to maintain a safe and sober living environment. Employment or education/training must be maintained (Handbook, 2011). The AITC Handbook explains that in order to be eligible to move forward to Phase 3 participants must be sober for 30 straight days and making progress in their recovery (Handbook, 2011 ). Phase 3 : Sober Living Skills Phase : Phase 3, a 24 week minimum is considered the sober living skills phase. 60

PAGE 70

It focuses on providing participants with the necessary skills in maintaining sobriety. Similar to Phase 2, during this phase participants are required to attend all court appearances, probation meetings treatment appointments and submit drug screens as directed (Procedures/Policy, 2011). Contrary to Phase 2, where participants are required to attend four hours of community support groups, they are directed to attend a minimum of three hours per week in Phase 3. Phase 4: Relapse Prevention: During the Relapse Prevention Phase or Phase 4 participants are required to continue all the requirements in Phase 3. A 12-week phase includes an additional weekly relapse prevention group session from the previous phase. In the first three phases the AITC team is focused on revealing factors for substance use (social or mental health) and providing treatment. In Phase 4 the team is focused on providing the necessary tools to maintain sobriety. Support groups are one of the tools and are key in participants' success In order to move to the fifth and final phase of the program participants must demonstrate a substantial pattern of sobriety subject to the treatment team s approval (Handbook, 2011) Phase 5: Maintenance Phase : Phase 5 marks the near end of the AITC program It is typically a minimum of 12 weeks. Participants are required to attend all court appearances probation meetings drug screens as directed and treatment appointments 61

PAGE 71

(Handbook 2011). At this point in the program each participant's case plan may vary in terms of the number of appointments and screens required due to their own performance and needs Other participants will look to those in this phase for leadership and support (Handbook 2011). Participants who have done well in the program may be selected to act as mentors to participants in earlier phases (Handbook 20 11 ) Mentorship is voluntary. Participants selected to mentor may participate in speaking to groups meeting with participants who are struggling and helping others connect with their support groups (Handbook 2011). The AITC Handbook outlines the following graduation eligibility criteria: A substantial pattern of sobriety Actively engaged in treatment and committed to recovery In Phase 4 or 5 Demonstrating stability in other areas of their lives such as housing employment, etc. Consistent involvement in a 12 Step program or other community-based support program Making regular payments on any balances owed such as treatment costs restitution etc. 62

PAGE 72

Source: AITC Handbook 2 119/10 (http://www. courts state co. us/ Courts / County / Local Resources cfm?County _ID= 62). After completion of Phase 5, participants are eligible for graduation. Eligibility requirements for graduation include demonstration of sobriety determined by the treatment team (Handbook 2011 ). According to the AITC Coordinator Harry McCrystal the team looks at the big picture of how participants progress throughout the entire program. If a participant relapses in the final phase they may still be eligible for graduation. Graduation Criteria Graduating from the AITC program is a major accomplishment for participants. At their last court review hearing there is a celebration with cake. The AITC team AITC judge and all participants in the program commend the individuals on a job well done. The road to graduation is long yet rewarding. In order to achieve success in completion of the program participants must accomplish three main objectives They must participate in and complete treatment and court monitoring phases (Handbook 2011 ). They must complete all terms and conditions of probation. Lastly the AITC Team must be content with participants' transformation To receive approval the following must be met : 63

PAGE 73

1. Participants have received necessary medical and dental care; 2. Have a legal means of support and a plan for long-term self sufficiency ; 3. Has sober and secure housing ; 4. Has sufficient support available in the community to remain sober and stable; 5 Has completed all terms and conditions of probation that have not been waived or eliminated. 6. Has developed a long-term sobriety plan; 7. Participant has made good faith efforts to pay all fees and costs not waived by the court 8. Completed all treatment and court monitoring phases Source: AITC Handbook 2 119110 (http://www courts. state co. us/ Courts / County / Local Resources. cfm ?County _ID= 62). Probation Supervision Participants accepted into the AITC program may be clients on regular probation supervision or intensive supervision (ISP). Probation provides supervision to individuals placed on regular probation by the court. Probation officers do an assessment of each individual to gauge risk and supervision needs. Individuals or probationers are supervised accordingly Probation officers refer 64

PAGE 74

probationers to outside resources as needed, such as substance abuse treatment and employment assistance. Probationers are often subject to what is termed "intensive supervision" (ISP) Those on ISP endure more severe and hands-on supervision from the probation officer, including daily contact increased levels of drug testing curfews electronic monitoring home visits, required employment or education efforts and treatment as necessary. The law in Colorado specifies how offenders shall be supervised while under intensive supervision. Pursuant to Section 18-1.3-208, C.R.S the judicial department shall require that offenders in the program receive at least the highest level of supervision that is provided to probationers Such supervision consists of restriction of activities daily contact with the probation officer monitored curfew home visitation employment visitation and monitoring drug and alcohol screening treatment referrals and monitoring and restitution and community service and shall minimize any risk to the public Source : Policy and Procedures (81 22 1 11). http://www michie com /c olorado/lpext dll?f= templates&fn = main-h. htm&cp=. The frequency of contacts participants have with their probation officer is dependent upon their probation status (Policy/Procedure, 2011). The AITC policies and procedure manual illustrates the below types of contact and frequency for those on regular and ISP probation: 65

PAGE 75

Regular Probation PHASE 1 Orientation (Minimum of2 Weeks) Contact Type Office or Field Visits Home Visits AITC Status Reviews Drug Screens Treatment Monitoring Arrest Checks PHASE 2 Stability (Minimum of 12 Weeks) Contact Type Office or Field Visits Home Visits AITC Status Reviews Drug Screens Treatment Monitoring Arrest Checks Frequency Once per week One within first 30 days Bi-weekly 3 per week Weekly Daily Frequency Six per month One within first 30 days, then every 60 days Bi-weekly 4-7 per month Weekly Daily PHASE 3 Sober Living Skills (Minimum of24 Weeks) Contact Type Office or Field Visits Home Visits AITC Status Reviews Drug Screens Treatment Monitoring Arrest Checks Frequency Four per month Every 60 days Biweekly or monthly (per case plan) 3-5 per month Weekly Daily PHASE 4 Relapse Prevention (Minimum of 12 Weeks) 66

PAGE 76

Contact Type Office or Field Visits Home Visits AITC Status Reviews Drug Screens Treatment Monitoring Arrest Checks Frequency Per LSI & case plan Every 60 days Monthly 2-3 per month Weekly Daily PHASE 5-Maintenance (Minimum of 12 Weeks) Contact Type Office or Field Visits Home Visits AITC Status Reviews Drug Screens Treatment Monitoring Arrest Checks Frequency Per LSI & case plan Every 60 days Monthly 0-3 per month Bi-weekly Daily Adult Intensive Supervision Program (AISP) PHASE 1 Orientation (Minimum of2 Weeks) Contact Type Office or Field Visits Home Visits AITC Status Reviews Drug Screens Treatment Monitoring Arrest Checks PHASE 2 Stability (Minimum of 12 Weeks) Contact Type 67 Frequency Twice per week One within first 30 days Bi-weekly 3 per week Weekly Daily Frequency

PAGE 77

Office or Field Visits Home Visits AITC Status Reviews Drug Screens Treatment Monitoring Arrest Checks Seven per month Within first 30 days, then monthly Bi-weekly 6-8 per month Weekly Daily PHASE 3 Sober Living Skills (Minimum of24 Weeks) Contact Type Office or Field Visits Home Visits AITC Status Reviews Drug Screens Treatment Monitoring Arrest Checks Frequency Seven per month Monthly (after curfew) Biweekly or monthly (per case plan) 4-7 per month Weekly Daily PHASE 4 Relapse Prevention (Minimum of 12 Weeks) Contact Type Office or Field Visits Home Visits AITC Status Re views Drug Screens Treatment Monitoring Arrest Checks Frequency 3 per month Monthly (after curfew) Monthly 3-5 per month Weekly Daily PHASE 5 Maintenance (Minimum of 12 Weeks) Contact Type Office or Field Visits Home Visits 68 Frequency 3 per month Monthly (after curfew)

PAGE 78

AITC Status Reviews Drug Screens Treatment Monitoring Arrest Checks Monthly 1-5 per month Bi-Weekly Daily Source : Boulder County AITC Handbook (2011) (http://www. courts s t a te. c o u s / C ourt s / County/Lo cal R es our ces c(m?County ID = Ql) Boulder s drug court is structured similarly to other drug courts around the nation. The goal of the drug court to decrease the recidivism rates among drug addicts mirrors that of nationwide goals. Boulder s drug court hopes to have significant positive results in meeting this goal. In the following chapter the methodology used in the study as well as results of the Boulder drug court will be revealed CHAPTER4 Methodology The results of the case study were developed through a four-step process: Site Selection. The location of the study is the District Court of Boulder County CO Boulder County s Adult Drug Court was developed in November 2006 Given the unique aspect of emphasis on positive 69

PAGE 79

reinforcement in this court this study will examine whether the results obtained by Boulder s drug court are similar to others in the United States. AITC Sample This study e x amines general results from the total number of AITC participants (327) but with respect to recidivism results the sample only reflects participants that successfully graduated in 2008 There were a total of 38 participants who graduated in that year. The sample is a mix between those supervised under regular probation and adult intensive supervision Since the Adult Drug Court program in Boulder County is only a post-plea probation violation court the concern for bias between differing courts (pre-plea verse us post-plea) is eliminated. Non-AITC Sample The sample selection for the compared group was conducted in a systematic manner. The compared group includes three criteria. (1) Their initial case tracked was resol v ed around the same time the drug court participants graduated from AITC giving both groups a similar time frame. (2) Although the compared group was not eligible to participate in the drug court program they contained similar types of charges (felony-drugs burglary theft trespassing etc ... ) and criminal histories (3) Finally the compared group of 48 who met the first two criteria were randoml y selected from a pool of over eighteen hundred 70

PAGE 80

individuals charged with a felony in Boulder County and exited the criminal justice system the same year as the drug court graduates. It should be noted that the compared group served a combination of probation and jail sentences. Data Collection. The sample list of drug court graduates was obtained from the AITC Coordinator. The list consisted of drug court participants in Boulder County who graduated successfully in 2008 (38 total). Next, a list of a relatively similar sample size contained of non-AITC participants who exited the Boulder County court system (case resolved) in the same time frame was randomly sorted Lastly a statewide name search with individuals from each list was completed The results of each name search gave information about whether the offender had been arrested and charged with a new offense. The time period of 1 and 2 years in which the new offense was committed was also documented. RESULTS OF THE CASE STUDY Over 22,584 participants have successfully graduated from drug courts nationwide in 2008 The national average graduation rate in 2008 was 57% (Huddleston and Marlowe, 2011). Since the development of the Boulder County AITC program in November of 2006 there have been 327 participants. According to research results by Boulder County, Chief Judge Roxanne Bailin 71

PAGE 81

and Jim Tanner 32.11% have graduated with 20 80% actively participating (Bailin and Tanner 2011). Meanwhile 41.59% were unsuccessfully terminated and the rest voluntarily withdrew or have been suspended (Bailin and Tanner 2011). Demographics Table 6 is a comparison of the demographics of participants in drug courts nationwide, Boulder County AITC and other drug court populations. The minority representation for drug court participants was roughly the same as the population in traditional probation and parole settings Of all drug court participants recorded of over 2 000 participants 62% were Caucasian 21% were African-American and 10% were of Spanish or Hispanic descent (Marlowe 8 / 22 / 11). Marlowe explains that the results varied among all drug courts (8/22111 ). In some jurisdictions the number of Caucasians was high while in others the number was low. Comparatively speaking in some drug courts African-Americans made up nearly all participants while in other drug courts African-Americans were virtually absent (Marlowe 8 / 22/11 ). Of the drug court participants in Boulder County 73.5% were Caucasian 11.5% higher than the drug court population nationwide In addition 20.02% were Hispanic twice that of the national average. The African-American population of 2 5% is dramatically lower than the average drug court population 72

PAGE 82

and is disproportionately represented compared to other populations. This can be explained by the overall population of Boulder County according to the U.S Census Bureau Caucasians make up 87.2% African-Americans make up only 0.9 %, and 13.3 % are Hispanic see Figure 3 73

PAGE 83

Table 6. Minority representation in drug courts compared to other populations Population Caucasian Black/ AfricanSpanish/Hisp American anic/Latino Drug Courts1 62% 21% 10% Boulder County AITC 73.5% 2.5% 20.02% Residents in Boulder 87 2% 0.9% 13.3% County General Population 1 80% 14% 15% Prison Inmates 1 34% 44% 20% Jail Inmates 1 43% 39% 16% Probationers & 56% 28% 13% Parolees1 1 Source : Huddleston West and Douglas B Marlowe Painting the Current Picture : A National Report on Drug Courts and Other Problem-Solving Court Programs in the United States National Drug Court Institute (July 2011), pp. 1-58. http://www ndcrc. or g/sites l default l files / pcp report final and official. pdf (accessed August 21, 2011). 2 Source: Bailin, Roxanne and Jim Tanner. "The Integrated Treatment Court 2011 Outcome Report", Power Point of Research (September 2011). Note : N/ A =Not available or reported. Gender A comparative study of over 2000 drug court participants revealed 68.6% are male while less than half are female. The results of all participants in Boulder County show a larger differentiation of 46.8%, shown in Table 7. Based on these results, it can be assumed that the male population is more than twice as likely to 74

PAGE 84

have a drug addiction and commit crimes when compared to the number of females. This hypothesis seems to be true for AITC Graduates. The results conclude males are re-arrested 15. 7% and females only 2.6% after the first year. After the second year the recidivism rate for males is 26 3% while the rate for females is 7.6% se e Table 8. Table 7 Comparison of gender in drug courts Gender % ofaUAITC % ofBoulder %of all drug Participants in Boulder County AITC Study court participants County n=3271 n=38 n=20172 Male 73.4o/o 78.95% 68.6% Female 26.6% 21.05% 31.4% 1 Source : Source : Bailin Roxanne and Jim Tanner The Integrated Treatment Court 2011 Outcome Report", Powerpoint of Research (September 2011) 2 Source: Source: Roman John and Wendy Townsend and Avinash Singh Bhati Recidivism Rates for Drug Court Graduates : Nationally Based Estimates Final Report", Urban Institute and Caliber Associates (July 2003) p 3 http s://www. n cjrs.gov / pd(fil es 1 / 20122 9.pd((accessed August 22 2011) 75

PAGE 85

The comparison group of non-AITC participants however, disclosed similar results, shown in Table 8. Males were more likely to be re-arrested after year one than females, with percentages of 3 5. 9% to 27. 7%. The percentage difference in year two was higher, with the recidivism rate for males at 48 7% and the rate for females at 34.4%. The re-arrest rate for both males and females increased between year one and year two. Table 8. Recidivism rates among gender Female Male 1st Year 2nd Year 1st Year 2nd Year AITC Graduates 2.6% 7 6% 15. 7% 26.3% Non-AITC Offenders 27.7% 34.4% 35.9% 48.7% Age Almost half of drug court participants in Boulder County are between the ages of twenty and twenty-nine. Of all other drug court participants nationwide the average age is 33.3 years. The comparison is illustrated in Figure 4. The variation may be a result in different population demographics depending on region or 76

PAGE 86

county stu d ied. For instance, there may be more people between the ages of2029 res i d i ng in B o u lder County, especially since it is cons i de r e d a "college town." Age of Participants In Boulder County Age Percent Under20 0 6% 20-24 23 .5/o 25-29 24.1% 30-34 16.4% 35-39 12 7% 40-44 8 .3/o 45-49 6.5/o 50-54 4 9% 55-59 2 8% F igure 3. Ag e of participants in drug court Ag e of Participants in Comparison Groups2 Age Percent Un d er 24 21. 6% 2 4-30 1 8.8 % 3 0-36 19.8 % 3 642 1 7.3 % O ver 42 22.6% 1 Source : Source : Bailin, R oxanne and Jim Tanner. "The Integrated Treatment Court 2011 Outcome Report", Powerpoint of R esearch (September 20 I I). 2Source: Source : Roman, John and Wendy Townsend and Avinash Singh Bhati. "Recidivism Rates for D rug Court Graduates : Nationally Based Estimates Final R eport", Urban Institute and Caliber Associates (July 2003) p 3 https:/lwww.ncjrs.gov / pdffilesl / 2 01229.pd((accessed August 22 2011). 77

PAGE 87

Table 9. Primary drug choice of drug court participants Primary Drug Choice of 1Boulder County 1Comparison Group Drug Court N=327 Among Urban Drug Court Participants Alcohol 36% 27% Amph/Methamphetamine 23.28% 16% Cocaine 16. 60% 27% Marijuana 13. 20% 22% Opiates 4 90% N/A Heroin 4.30% 7% Ecstasy 0.30% NIA Hallucinogens 0.30% NIA Benzos 0.30% 2% 1 Source : Source: Bailin Roxanne and Jim Tanner "The Integrated Treatment Court 2011 Outcome Report", Powerpoint of Research (September 2011).) 1Source : 1 Source: Huddleston West and Douglas B Marlowe Painting the Current Picture : A National R eport on Drug Courts and Other Problem-Solving Court Programs in the United States National Drug Court Institute (July 2011), pp. 1-58 http ://www .ndcrc or g/s it eslde [ault lfiles l pcp r e port final and official.pd[ (accessed August 21, 2011) Note: N / A=Data Not Available or Collected 78

PAGE 88

Substance Use The number of all AITC participants in Boulder County with an alcohol addiction is 36% almost ten percent more than that of other drug court participants. Additionally the use of methamphetamines is nearly twice that of compared drug courts Con v ersely the use of cocaine marijuana and heroin is almost half that of other drug court participants. Table 9 shows a side-by-side comparison of primary drug use among all drug court participants in Boulder County and participants in urban nationwide studies Figures 4 and 5 shows only results for Boulder County drug court participants and the comparison from other urban drug court studies. 79

PAGE 89

Substance Use in Boulder County Alcohol Methamphetam ine c Cocaine C Marijuana Hero i n c Ecstasy Hallucinogengs c Prescript ion Drugs Source: Source : Bailin Roxann e and Jim Tanner "The Integrated Treatment Court 2011 Outcome Report", Power Point of Research (September 2011) Figure 4. Primary substance use in Boulder County 80

PAGE 90

Comparison Groups 2% Alcohol Methamphetamine Dcocaine 0 Marijuana Heroin 0 Prescription Drugs Source: Source : Huddleston, West and Douglas B Marlowe. Painting the Current Picture : A National Report on Drug Courts and Other Problem Solving Court Programs in the United States National Drug Court Institute, (July 2011) pp. 1-58. http://www.ndcrc.org/sites / de(ault l files l pcp report final and o(ficial.pd[ (accessed August 21, 2011) Figure 5. Primary substance use of comparison groups 81

PAGE 91

Recidivism Results The results of the study when comparing AITC participants to non-AITC participants revealed similar percentages to that of nationwide studies, shown in Table 10. For instance, the recidivism rate for AITC graduates after one year is 18% compared to an average 16%, in a nationally representative study including 95 drug courts. The rate after two years is higher at 39%, than the nationwide study of 27% This may be indicative of the type of participants targeted in AITC. They tend to be high-risk offenders who commit some of the most severe of crimes, including : burglary, robbery, possession of a weapon, and menacing Important to note is that such differences can be caused by the small sample size of38 people in a single year. There can be a lot of variation from larger national studies in such a small number study. Another study conducted in Baltimore, MD showed a 32% re-arrest (charge) rate after one year and 66% after two years. The results in Boulder illustrated a re-arrest (charge) rate 14% lower than Baltimore after the first year and 27% less after the second year. Furthermore, when compared to results in Los Angeles, Boulder County results were 6% lower after 1 year. Overall, the results are similar to those of national studies with the recidivism rate of AITC participants increasing after year two. 82

PAGE 92

One Year Table 10. Estimated recidivism rates (AITC-n=38) (Non-AITC-n=48) AITC Participants Comparison Group Two Years AITC Participants Comparison Group 18% 44% 39% 51% A comparison of Boulder County AITC participants and non-drug court offenders, revealed a recidivism difference of26% after 1 year and 12% after 2 years The recidivism rates of AITC participants and comparison group are demonstrated in Table 10. After the first year, non-AITC offenders are more than twice as likel y to be re-arrested as their counterparts (39% to 18%) Over fifty percent of non-AITC participants were charged with committing a new offense in year two Boulder County's re-arrest rate difference of26% is slightly higher after one year. Yet the difference of 12% after year two is within the average range (5-25%) of other studies. Additionally studies of five different institutions (Figure 3) found that drug courts reduced crime by an average of 13%. Although Boulder County's drug court's recidivism rate reduction is half of the five institutions average after the 83

PAGE 93

first year it is roughly the same after year two The results of the five institutional studies did not indicate the time frame for results. The cost of Boulder s drug court is roughly $500 000 per year. It is significantly less than the $9 ,105, 192 appropriated for personnel and $1,594 977 of operations for the Boulder County jail. When calculating the cost per bed of the total536 beds $19 963.04 is estimated in costs per year. In comparison, Boulder s drug court averages 112 participants at any given time and the calculation of the costs for each participant per year is $4 464.29. It should be noted that these numbers are based on the amount of funding received from the County Commission. The Boulder drug court may also receive state and grant funding. The information was not available during this study. Further Analysis-Biases and Shortcomings The purpose of this paper was to answer the questions of what drug courts are and do they work with a specific focus on Boulder Colorado? The first question was relatively easy to address while the second required collection of data from a sample group (38) of Boulder County drug court graduates and comparing them to a sample group ( 48) of non-drug court participants Because the results are based on a small sample from each group a larger sample may produce different results. 84

PAGE 94

This study was limited to recidivism rates and an estimated cost savings given the time frame of the study and available information An analysis ofthe economic benefits would propose a more complete answer to the question of whether drug courts work. The process for collecting data contains some noteworthy flaws For instance results were based on a statewide name search. If a subject from either sample group moved outside of Colorado any new arrests outside of the state were not recorded Furthermore offenders with aliases and no date of birth listed may not be accurately tracked. Recidivism rates are measured by re-arrests (charge). This provides for two potential biases. Without considering convictions the actual recidivism rate may be lower. Some cases are dismissed for lack of evidence Interestingly the rates for re-arrest and re-conviction among nationwide results indicated little variation. Alternatively such factors as crimes not reported may cause the actual recidivism rate to be elevated though one can conjecture that the crimes not reported rate is similar for both drug court graduates and non drug court arrestees. The recidivism rates are an average of the sample drug court graduates in a post-plea court. One should not assume that pre-plea drug courts would yield the same results. Drug courts designed for pre plea diversion contain varying 85

PAGE 95

influences on participants For example in the pre-plea scenario drug offenders have more at stake Nor shall it be assumed that these results are true for all drug court participants Therefore it is important that these results be applied in the appropriate context: they simply measure recidivism among drug court graduates of a post-plea court. Other factors may affect the results of recidivism such as structural and socio-economic environments criminal history and primary substance abuse A more comprehensive study should consider selecting sample groups of similar backgrounds and economic status Moreover subjects selected for each group were charged with felonies and considered to be high-risk offenders. Selecting offenders with identical criminal history (number of arrests) may produce more accurate results. Researchers suggest that some substance addictions are more difficult to overcome. The purpose of this study was to look at general recidivism rates with all types of substance abuse thus specific results about varying substances cannot be concluded. Such an analysis is beyond the scope of the data collect for this study Additional reasons that may alter the results include age and race A question about the affects of these factors should include: Does age play a role in recidivism results? There are certainly more AITC participants in Boulder County 86

PAGE 96

between the ages of 20-29 than national averages are they more or less likely to be re-arrested? One might assume that it is not too late for younger groups to change while it could be argued that older offenders may be at their lowest point in their lives and are determined to be drug free Additionally, young people are known to take greater risks and abuse drugs at higher rates than older adults. Aside from age does race play a role in recidivism rates? Because the population in this study contained a majorit y of Caucasian and a small representative group of African-Americans a more thorough study would include a more proportionate sample group. A study analyzing the impac t s of these characteristics on recidivism would be useful. Some might argue that drug court participants are more successful than non drug court offenders because of their handpicked nature. In other words only those with the chance to succeed are chosen thus they are more prone than non drug court participants to become drug and crime free. However nationwide studies examining non drug court participants also eligible for the program but do not participate indicate that the selection process is not a factor for success. Selection of non drug court participants eligible for the Boulder drug court but did not participate in the program would have helped prove this point. 87

PAGE 97

CHAPTERS CONCLUSION This study was conducted for the purpose of exploring what drug courts mean to the criminal justice system. With growing support for drug courts, this study was designed to critically investigate whether drug courts work. Results from nationwide studies and from the Boulder County case study affirm that drug courts reduce recidivism rates and save money. The case study concluded that eighty-two percent of drug court graduates from the Boulder County drug court were not re-arrested after year one Sixty one percent of drug court graduates did not receive a new arrest after two years. The compared non-drug court offenders were re-arrested at a rate of 44% after the first year and 51% after the second year. National studies revealed similar results; only 16% of drug court graduates were re-arrested (charged) after year one and 27% after year two. Other benefits inferred from reduced recidivism rates include: benefits for the drug offender families, communities, and the criminal justice system as a whole. Drug offenders are given an encompassing opportunity to be drug and crime free and live a productive life. Families also see the benefits--loved ones get back on their feet. Children in danger of or placed in foster care are able to 88

PAGE 98

return to a stable home with their parents. Communities are safer with decreased recidivism rates as a result of drug courts. Finally the criminal justice system profits in many ways. Jails courts and probation departments are able to operate more efficiently as the number of drug offenders processed in the system decrease As a result, defense attorneys are assumedly able to better serve their clients Furthermore drug courts provide an economic benefit reducing the need to build more jails thus sav i ng taxpayers and local government s money 89

PAGE 99

BIBLIOGRAPHY Adult Integrated Handbook, (20 11 ). 22 Aug. 2011 Anglin, Douglas M. and Thomas H. Haugh II. "Ensuring Success in Interventions with Drug-Using Offenders", Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 521, (May 1992): 66-90. 21, Mar. 2011 Anglin, Doulas M., and Yih-lng Hser. "Treatment of Drug Abuse", Crime and Justice Vol. 13 (1990): 393-460, 21 Mar. 2011 Bailin, Roxanne and Jim Tanner. "The Integrated Treatment Court 2011 Outcome Report", Powerpoint of Research September 2011. Belenko, S. R. "Drugs and Drug Policy in America ", A documentary of history Westport CT: Greenwood Press, 2000. Bembry, Larry L. "Drug Courts", New Jersey Office of the Public Defender, (2007). 22 Aug. 2011 Berman, Greg and John Feinblatt. The Case For Problem-Solving Justice: Good Courts New York NY: The New Press New, 2005. Bolduc Anne. "Jail Crowding" Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 478, (March, 1985): 47-57 27 March 2011 Boulder County Website. (2011). 2 Sep 2011 < http: //www .bouldercounty.org / live /s afety / pages/ default.asp x> Bureau of Justice "A Second Look at Alleviating Jail Crowding: A Systems Perspective" U.S. Department of Justice (2000). 14 Mar. 2011 90

PAGE 100

California Courts: "Programs: Collaborative Justice: Drug Courts", (March 11, 2011). 14 Mar 2011 Carey Shannon M., and Kimberly Pukstas, MarkS. Waller, Richard J. Macklin, Michael W. Finigan "Drug Courts and State Mandated Drug Treatment Programs: Outcomes, Costs and Consequences", NPC Research, Portland OR, March 2008. 14 Jul. 2011 Cotter, Barbara. "Second Chances: Drug Court Helps People Tum Lives Around" Gazette.com (20 1 0) 2 Sep 2011. Drug Court Clearinghouse and Technical Assistance Project. "Looking at a Decade of Drug Courts" U.S. Department of Justice. 22 Aug 2011 Fender, Jessica. "Boulder Court's Caring Touch and Rewards Help Drug Rehabilitation Stick", Denver Post (January 16, 2011). 23 Apr. 2011 Hepburn, John R "Recidivism Among Drug Offenders Following Exposure to Treatment" Criminal Justice Policy Review. (2005): 237-259, 21 Mar. 2011 Huddleston, West and Douglas B. Marlowe. "Painting the Current Picture: A National Report on Drug Courts and Other Problem-Solving Court Programs in the United States" National Drug Court Institute (July 2011): 1-58 ,21 Aug. 2011 Kassebaum, Gene and Duane K. Okamoto. "The Drug Court as a Sentencing Model", Journal ofContemporary Criminal Justice, Vol. 17 (2001): 89104,21 Mar. 2011 Kim 11-Joong Bruce L. Benson, David W. Rasmussen, Thomas W. Zuehlke. "An 91

PAGE 101

Economic Analysis of Recidivism Among Drug Offenders", Southern Economic Journal Vol. 60 No. 1 (Jul. 1993): 169-183 22 Mar. 2011 King, RyanS. and Pasquarella Jill, "Drug Courts: A review of the Evidence" Washington DC : Sentencing Project (April, 2009) : 1-19, 14 Jul. 2011 Lessenger James E. and Glade F. Roper. Drug Courts: A New Approach to Treatment and Rehabilitation Benicia CA: Springer Science+Business Media LLC 2007. Mackinem Mitchell B. and Paul Higgins. Drug Court: Constructing the Moral Identity of Drug Offenders. Springfield Illinois: Charles C Thomas Publisher, LTD, 2008 Marlowe, Doug B. Recent Studies of Drug Courts and DWI Courts: Crime Reduction and Cost Savings" National Association of Drug Court Professionals 22 Aug. 2011 Maxfield, Linda Drazga "Measuring Recidivism under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines Federal Sentencing Reporter. Vol. 17, No 3 (Feb., 2005): 166-170 22 Mar. 2011 < http: // www. jstor.org/stable/20640941 > National Association of Drug Court Professionals. "Defining Drug Courts: The Key Components" Washington, DC: US Department of Justice (January 1997): 1-7 ,21 Mar. 2011 National Institute of Justice Do Drug Courts Work? Findings from Drug Court Research US. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs May, 2008. 14 Mar. 2011 National Institute of Justice Recidivism Rates for Drug Court Graduates: Nationally Based Estimates US. Department of Justice. (2002). 22 Mar 2011 92

PAGE 102

Osher, Christopher N "New Drug Court Aims to Ease Crowding The Denver Post. (Mar. 22 2007). 10 May 2011 Policies & Procedures Manual. State of ColoradoTwentieth Judicial District Adult Integrated Treatment Court (20 11 ) 22 Aug 2011 Roman John and Wendy Townsend and Avinash Singh Bhati. "Recidivism Rates for Drug Court Graduates: Nationally Based Estimates Final Report" Urban Institute and Caliber Associates (July, 2003), pp. 1-38, 22 Aug. 2011 Schrader Ann. "Drug Court to Trump Jail", Denver Post (Dec. 3 2008) 23 Sep 2011 Schuster Charles R. "Intravenous Drug Use and AIDS Prevention" National Institute on Drug Abuse (May-June 1988) 7 Nov. 2011 Spohn, Cassia. The Deterrent Effect of Imprisonment and Offenders' Stakes in Conformity Criminal Justice Policy Review Vol. 18 (2007), pp. 1-31,21 Mar 2011 United States Accountability Office Adult Drug Courts : Evidence Indicates Recidivism Reductions and Mixed Results for Other Outcomes (2005). 22 Aug. 2011 U.S. Census Bureau 2010. 22 Aug 2011 Visher, Christy A. and Jeremy Travis. "Transitions from Prison to Community: Understanding Individuals Pathways", Annual Review ofSociology, Vol. 29 (2003) pp. 89-113, 22 Mar. 2011 93

PAGE 103

Wilson, David B. and Ojmarrh Mitchell, and Doris L. MacKenzie, "Drug Court Effects on Recidivism". (2002). 22 Aug. 2011 94