Drug courts are problem-solving courts that take a public health approach to criminal offending using a specialized model in which the judiciary, prosecution, defense bar, probation, law enforcement, mental health, social service, and treatment communities work together to help addicted offenders into long-term recovery. Instead of punishment, their purpose is to address one of the underlying drivers of crime and, in the process, reduce the use of imprisonment, potentially leading to substantial cost-savings. Drug courts aim to do this by incentivizing or mandating offenders into addiction treatment combined with frequent drug testing and regular monitoring by the judge.
Key components
In 1997, the National Association of Drug Court Professionals in the United States published Defining Drug Courts: The Key Components. They named these as key components:
Drug courts integrate alcohol and other drug treatment services with justice system case processing Using a non-adversarial approach, prosecution and defense counsel promote public safety. Participants must waive their due process rights to a speedy trial and sign a pre-emptive confession before being allowed to participate. Eligible participants are identified early and promptly placed in the drug court program Drug courts provide access to a continuum of alcohol, drug, and other related treatment and rehabilitation services Abstinence is monitored by frequent drug testing (including alcohol) A coordinated strategy governs drug court responses to participants' compliance Ongoing judicial interaction with each drug court participant is essential Monitoring and evaluation measure the achievement of program goals and gauge effectiveness Continuing interdisciplinary education promotes effective drug court planning, implementation, and operations Forging partnerships among drug courts, public agencies, and community-based organizations generates local support and enhances their effectiveness
Effectiveness
How effective drug courts are largely depends on well they adhere to the ten key components described above. The United States has more drug courts than any other country in the world, so most studies of their effectiveness are based on results in the USA. Out of thousands of drug courts operating in the USA, 40% of states which have them do not have a management information system, required by the key components, which would enable their performance to be monitored properly.
Length of follow-up period
Another factor which affects how successful a drug court appears to be is the length of the follow-up period after participants have finished treatment. The longer the follow-up (sometimes as much as four years), the more likely participants are to relapse and reoffend. Results almost always look better if the follow-up period is only 12 months, while participants are often still engaged in the treatment program ordered by the court.
As a result of these methodological issues, meta-studies which have been conducted over the years describe quite variable results. Few studies have found drug courts which reduce reoffending by more than 20%. Studies which have found more positive results may not have taken confounding issues into account which undermine the reliability of their conclusions. For instance, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) study from 2005, which assessed 27 different drug courts, found that 24 of them reduced recidivism by between 1% and 13%. But one court in this study reported a reduction of 35%, which appeared to make it one of the best performing drug courts in the United States. However, this result was based on a follow-up period of only 12 months.
Another study which suggested a better result than 20% was the GAO analysis from 2011. This described reductions in recidivism from 32 different US drug courts, one of which achieved a reduction in the re-arrest rate of 26%. This was the Kings County Drug Treatment Alternative to Prison Program (DTAP) in New York which is “recognized as one of the nation’s most successful diversion programmes”. However, the reason this result appears better than all the others is because it refers solely to reduced offending by graduates – those who completed the programme. The other drug courts in this analysis appear less successful because their results include defendants who dropped out of treatment and reoffended.