Adjudication of Drug-

Involved Offenders
Gottfredson, et al (2002)
Cooper (1994)
 Cooper (1994):
Expedited Drug Case Management
 1980s: Growing #s of Drug Cases in Courts
 Courts re-examined methods for handling them
 Many cases included…
 Possession of small amounts of drugs
 Time consuming pre-trial motions, drug analysis
 Need for immediate supervision/Treatment
 Typical Changes involved…
 Special Drug Divisions in Regular Criminal Courts
 Expedited Processing of Drug Cases

 Deferred Prosecution w/Supervised Drug Treatment

 Increased Coordination of Court and Treatment

 Cooper: EDCM (cont.)
 Courts needed to Quickly identify:
 Cases amenable to Treatment from those not, and
 Cases that can be handled quickly by CJS

 Many courts were starting to coordinate

other agency’s efforts (treatment)
 1989: Bureau of Justice Assistance started
Demonstration Program to help states
 Middlesex, NJ; Portland, OR; Philadelphia, PA
 Developed “Differentiated Case Management”
 Outcomes of EDCM
 Court: More Efficient, Better Control of Caseload
 More productive judges, prosecutors, public defense
 Fewer defendants Failing to Appear
 Fewer Bench Warrants issued
 Treatment Services (Some offered): More Effective
 Individualized case plans (Sanctions & Treatment)
 Improved communication & coordination of services
 Ensured timely/effective treatment interventions
 Corrections: Reductions in Costs
 Fewer pretrial jail days
 Lower costs for pretrial detention

 Programs were really early versions of Drug Courts

 10 Key Components of Drug Courts

1. Integrate Treatment with Criminal Justice processing

2. Use a Non-Adversarial Approach
3. Identify participants Early
4. Provide Continuum of Treatment services
5. Monitor Abstinence with Drug Testing
6. Graduated Sanctions & Rewards
7. Ongoing Judicial Interaction

8. Monitor/Evaluate Program Goals

9. Continuing Education for Personnel
10. Forging Community Partnerships
 Gottfredson et al (2003):
Baltimore City Drug Court Effectiveness
 Goal is to reduce addiction & crimes for $$
 Can be “diversionary” or “post-adjudication”
 Kleiman says too costly, testing alone is enough
 Others argue treatment is crucial ingredient
 Exact relation of Drugs and Crime in unclear, so…
 We need to focus on overall changes in person…

 We accomplish this with Treatment services

 Prior research shows less crime & drug use

 Better Treatment retention & cost savings, but
 Many studies are not that well-conducted
 Use small samples, compare graduates to drop-outs
 Gottfredson (cont.)
 Baltimore Drug Court Description
 Felony & Misdemeanor offenders from 2 courts
 Includes ISP, Judicial Contacts, Treatment, U/As
 About 2 years long; Many Heroin Addicts
 This DC follows the “10 Key Components”
 Evaluation Methods
 Randomly assigned offenders to DC or not (rare)
 Mostly went where assigned (91% got DC as assigned)
 Collected data on Treatment, Sanctions, U/As, Arrests,
Prior Offenses, Demographics, Time in Jail
 Attempts to examine impact of Deterrence & Treatment
 Gottfredson (cont.)
 Results: Groups were similar (randomized)
 Most were Heroin or Cocaine addicted
 Grads took ~18 months, Drop outs ~ 12 months
 DC participants got longer sentences, more time
suspended (so higher threat/deterrence)
 Also more days in jail, as a program sanction
 Only 52% of DC offenders got any “certified” Tx
 About 22% of the Control group got any Cert. Tx
 Little Methadone Maintenance (6%), despite Heroin

 Recidivism Results:
 66% of Drug Ct participants rearrested
 81% of Control (non-DC) offenders rearrested
 Gottfredson (cont.)
 DC also had fewer re-arrests & charges
 Also, fewer re-arrests for drug crimes
 No diff. in effectiveness by addiction severity (works for all types)
 So, does getting Treatment Matter?
 DC offenders w/10+ days Treatment: 57% re-arrested
 DC offenders w/o any Treatment: 75% re-arrested
 Control (no-DC) offenders: 81% re-arrested
 DC people got longer sentences & more sanctions
 Still DC w/o Treatment did not make a difference
 Treatment matters
 DC w/no treatment was the same as the Control group (who got
regular probation/parole)