NADCP, Drug Court Leaders Set the Record Straight

The National Association of Drug Court Professionals and leaders in the Drug Court community have vigorously responded to recent press surrounding criticisms levied by the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.  
 
Over the last month, NADCP and our members have been involved with the publication of a series of pieces that set the record straight and confirm to the public that Drug Courts are the most researched, cost effective and successful strategy in the nation for dealing with addicted offenders. Here are a few:

Response to the Sacramento Bee OpEd (11/9/09)

Drug courts unfairly attacked (11/16/09)

by West Huddleston, Chief Executive Officer, National Association of Drug Court Professionals

Re "Fresh look at drug courts could also ease prison crisis" (Viewpoints, Nov. 9): In its latest attack on drug courts, the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers reveals a startling comfort with distorting facts and ignoring the truth. In misrepresenting its recent anecdotal report as a "study," the NACDL chooses to ignore two decades of conclusive research, including hundreds of studies that prove drug courts reduce crime, reduce drug abuse, reunite families and save considerable money for taxpayers.

Here are the facts. Nationwide, 70 percent of the approximately 120,000 seriously addicted individuals who voluntarily enter drug courts with the assistance of their defense attorney complete it a year or more later and 75 percent of them remain arrest-free. A drug court participant is more than twice as likely to stay clean and remain arrest-free than is a newly released state inmate. Research also concludes that drug courts reduce drug abuse and improve employment and family functioning.

These effects are not short-lived. The longest study on drug courts to date shows these outcomes last as long as 14 years. Clearly, drug courts are not an experiment. They must be expanded to serve the 1.2 million substance-abusing arrestees before the courts. That is the real issue.

With every blind attack on drug courts, the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers calls into question only its own credibility.

Response to the Miami Herald Article (9/29/09)

Keep drug courts -- they're effective (10/13/09)

By Dr. Douglas Marlowe, Chief of Science, Policy and Law, NADCP

The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers chooses to attack our nation's most successful justice intervention for substance abusing offenders: drug courts (Cynthia Orr, Sept. 29 Other Views column, Rethink how we fight drugs).

It minimizes the impact of drug courts like the one in Miami-Dade, which has restored more than 12,000 lives and reunited tens of thousands of family members. NACDL only begrudgingly accepts drug courts as an interim improvement over the war on drugs until decriminalization is accomplished.

Two decades of research have proven that drug courts reduce crime, reduce drug abuse and save considerable money for taxpayers. The most conservative estimate is that every $1 invested in drug courts reaps between $2 to $3 in direct cost-savings to society.

Between 50 percent and 80 percent of all crimes are committed by substance abusers. NACDL'S assertion that drug courts are only treating low-level offenders is patently false. The majority of drug courts now treat serious offenders who have failed repeatedly in treatment and other dispositions.

NACDL recommends that drug courts treat high-risk offenders who would otherwise be in jail or prison bound in programs that do not require a guilty plea for entry.

But this would mean that serious and potentially violent offenders would face no legal repercussions whatsoever if they failed to complete treatment or even to attend it. When we consider the safety of our communities such recommendations cannot be taken seriously.

Response to the Philadelphia Inquirer Editorial (10/17/09)

Drug courts are needed; New Jersey shows why (10/24/09)

By Yvonne Smith Segars, New Jersey Public Defender (As New Jersey Public Defender, Yvonne Smith Segars is the head of the New Jersey Office of the Public Defender, an agency overseeing the Public Defender offices throughout state.)

Response to the NACDL; published in the Daily Journal (10/22/09)

Drug Courts Are the Most Sensible and Proven Alternative to Incarceration:  So What’s the Problem? (10/22/09)

By West Huddleston, CEO, NADCP

The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers recently released a report criticizing 2,100 (there are actually 2,369) Drug Courts that offer effective treatment instead of incarceration for drug addicted offenders. Instead, the NACDL calls for the decriminalization of highly addictive drugs such as methamphetamine, heroin and crack cocaine as the solution to the drug problem. According to Cynthia Orr, President of the NACDL, “Drug Courts have not stymied the rise in both drug abuse or exponentially increasing prison costs to taxpayers” because, according to the NACDL report, “Drug Courts focus on first-time or nonviolent offenders.” The evidence says differently.

It is now 20 years since the first Drug Court was initiated and there has been more research published on its effects than on virtually all other criminal justice programs combined. The scientific community has put Drug Courts under a microscope and concluded that Drug Courts work better than jail or prison, better than probation, and better than treatment alone. Most medications have less scientific evidence supporting their safety and benefit to the public. The research is unequivocal: Drug Courts significantly reduce drug abuse and crime and do so at less expense than any other justice strategy; and according to rigorous and replicated studies conducted by the University of Pennsylvania, the more serious the offender’s drug addiction and length of criminal record, the better Drug Courts work. Drug Courts are not for the fist time or the non-addicted offender.  Those individuals will do just as well by diverting them to a disposition that leads to record expungement upon successful completion of court conditions.  Drug Courts focus on high-value offenders; those who have the highest need for treatment and other wrap-around services, and who have the highest risk of failing out of those services without support and structure.  

Research demonstrates that nationwide, 70% of the approximately 120,000 seriously addicted individuals who voluntarily enter Drug Court with the assistance of their defense attorney complete it a year or more later and 75% of them remain arrest-free.  A Drug Court participant is over twice as likely to stay clean and remain arrest-free as a newly released state inmate.  Research also concludes that Drug Courts reduce drug abuse and improve employment and family functioning.   These effects are not short-lived.  The longest study on Drug Court to date shows these outcomes last as much as14 years.  And more research is coming out every day.  

Still, no one would argue that Drug Courts have realized their full potential. Drug Courts have not been made available to everyone who needs them.  Half of U.S. counties do not have a Drug Court and the Drug Courts that do exist only have capacity to serve 10% of the serious drug-abusing and addicted offenders estimated to be in need.   That’s the real issue.  

New York has implemented a Drug Court in every county in the state.  In a three year study, the New York State Court System estimates that $254 million in incarceration costs were saved by diverting 18,000 drug offenders into Drug Court. During the entire fifteen-year time period Drug Courts have been in operation throughout the state, New York has witnessed historic reductions in crime.  And through the first half of this year, crime has fallen another 4.7 percent.  According to a recent Northwestern University report, alternatives to incarceration like Drug Courts could lead to the closing of four half-empty adult prisons in New York. And a number of states such as Alabama, Missouri, New Jersey and Texas, among others, are following suit. In fact, in 2008, 44 state budgets included a specific appropriation for Drug Courts, totaling $208,000,000 nationwide.  The Obama Administration and Congress is also investing in new Drug Courts and increasing the capacity of the 2,369 Drug Court already in existence in all fifty states and U.S. territories with a 250% increase in federal appropriations from the year before.  That’s a great start, but far from what we need to reach the 1.2 million seriously drug abusing or addicted offenders who need treatment.  

If no other sentencing option can compare with its success, shouldn’t we finish the job and give everyone who needs it access to these life-saving courts?  It’s simple really. Drug Courts remain constrained by limited resources and by the more popular thinking that an alcoholic or addict can be punished out of their dependence.

It is no secret that prison has accomplished little to stem the tide of crime or drug abuse.  Upon their release from prison, between 60% and 80% of drug abusers commit a new crime (typically a drug-related crime)  and 85% to 95% relapse quickly to drug abuse.   In some states, such as California, more than 75% will be returned to prison. And amazingly, these disappointing figures have done little to curb prison spending.  National expenditures on corrections well exceed $60 billion annually.   On average, states spend $65,000 per bed, per year to build new prisons and $23,876 per bed, per year to operate them

Unfortunately, it is also not sufficient to simply offer more treatment.  Left to their own devices without intensive supervision by a judge, approximately 25% of offenders never arrive for a single treatment session. And among those who do show for treatment, most drop out prematurely before receiving any benefits.  The power and authority of the Court is necessary to keep them engaged in treatment long enough to experience any lasting gains.

Drug Courts are judicially supervised court dockets that strike the proper balance between the need to help addicted offenders get free from the gasp of drugs and the need to protect community safety; between the need for effective treatment and the need to hold people accountable for their actions; between hope and redemption on the one hand and productive citizenship on the other. Drug Courts keep drug-addicted individuals engaged in treatment for long periods of time, while supervising them closely and holding them accountable for their obligations to society, their families and themselves. Participants are regularly and randomly tested for drug use, required to appear frequently in court for the judge to review their progress, and immediately receive rewards for doing well and sanctions for not living up to their obligations. All of this with one simple goal; get the addict clean and sober.  

And everybody benefits when an addict gets clean and sober in Drug Court. The most conservative estimates by researchers show that for every 1.00 invested in Drug Court, $3.36 are saved by the justice system and up to $12.00 (per $1 investment) are saved by the community on reduced emergency room visits and other medical care, foster care, and property loss.  

In Drug Court, we have an effective intervention that is not being fully implemented. Now is not the time to change course. It is our hope that a drug-addicted citizen should not need to be arrested in order to receive the help they require. But for the 1.2 million drug-addicted arrestees currently involved in the adult criminal justice system, the verdict is in: Drug Court is the solution and the passport to a new way of life. Now we must make the investment and finish the job.