Drug Court: A Collaboration of Criminal Justice and Drug Treatment Professionals

by Alicia Mitchell-Mercer, ACP

The Far-Reaching Consequences of Substance Abuse

In July 2022, NALA invited Commissioner Melissa Zabor as a Keynote Speaker at the annual NALA Conference & Expo in Phoenix, AZ. She shared the successes of Maricopa County’s Therapeutic Courts and the transformations that participants experience through the program. I remember Ms. Zabor spoke of Arizona’s drug court program in particular and was moved by the personal stories she shared. As I sat at the conference, I knew we had a drug court in my county – Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. Still, I did not realize that our state has “drug courts” in only 27 of our 100 hundred counties (North Carolina Administrative Office of the Courts, n.d.).

The opioid epidemic continues to increase at an alarming rate. Since 1999, over 932,000 people have died from drug overdoses. In 2020, there were 91,799 drug overdose deaths in the United States. In 2020, the age-adjusted rate of overdose deaths increased by 31%, from 21.6 per 100,000 in 2019 to 28.3 per 100,000 in 2020 (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2022). This epidemic will personally or professionally touch many working in the legal field, so it is important to learn more about these specialty courts increasing throughout the United States.

In 2002, drug abuse cost the U.S. $180.9 billion (National Drug Intelligence Center, 2006). More significant are the immeasurable losses this staggering figure represents: lost lives, opportunities, and dreams. Drug abuse results in many concerns, including increases in chronic mental illness, chronic health issues, crime, joblessness, and homelessness (Brown, 2010).

First, drug treatment costs and long-term drug-related illnesses strain the healthcare system. Drug-related healthcare costs in the U.S. are more than $11 billion, including inpatient drug treatment, medical intervention, emergency service, and prevention and treatment research (U.S. Department of Justice & National Drug Intelligence Center, n.d.). Second, over 80% of users have experienced lifetime alcohol or drug problems (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 2011). Third, a small percentage of drug users have steady jobs, but most are unemployed or work sporadically (Brown, 2010). As in most states, working under the influence is grounds for termination, and unemployment law may disqualify an employee from receiving benefits for willful or negligent misconduct. Fourth, the impact of substance misuse on the commission of a crime and public health and safety are critical concerns for policymakers and law enforcement (Brown, 2010).  Drug crimes include domestic violence, child abuse, and additional violent offenses, such as murder, armed robbery, kidnapping, and others. One study showed that drug arrests made up the single-largest category of offenses in Arizona’s prison system, with 21.3 percent of prisoners having a drug crime as their highest charge (York & Schmidt, 2017).

Drug Treatment Court Programs (DTCs)

As of December 31, 2020, 3,848 treatment courts were operating across the United States to aid recovery from addiction and prevent future criminal activity (Office of Justice Programs, 2022; U.S. Department of Justice, 2020). These efforts also reduce the burden and costs of repeatedly processing low‐level, non‐violent offenders through the Nation’s courts, jails, and prisons (Office of National Drug Control Policy, n.d.). A DTC is a special court responsible for handling cases involving substance-abusing offenders through “comprehensive supervision, drug testing, treatment services, and immediate sanctions and incentives” (Law Insider, n.d.). DTCs offer a comprehensive, humane, and therapeutic alternative to traditional drug prosecution.

This collaborative and non-adversarial approach follows “collective action theory, polycentric governance, and institutional development analysis” (Hu & Kapucu, 2020, p. 14, as cited in Ostrom, 1990, 2007). Under this theory and framework, drug users’ behaviors can lead to real consequences on the collective level.  Institutional arrangements can overcome the common problems in collective action with diverse stakeholders and decision-makers, including a judge, prosecutor, defense counsel,  court staff, probation officers, substance abuse experts, case managers, and treatment providers to support and monitor a voluntary participant’s recovery (Michigan Association of Treatment Court Professionals, 2021; Hu & Kapucu, 2020, p. 14, as cited in Ostrom, 1990, 2007). DTC programs are centralized networks (Hu & Kapucu, 2020) and are unique because they help criminal justice and drug treatment professionals collaborate for the public good (The Sentencing Project, 2009).

Although program structure may vary, typically, DTC program teams meet to discuss the participant’s progress or lack thereof since the last court appearance. All team members can then recommend actions to the judge. Team members attend open court after the meeting. Each participant presents himself or herself to the Court and discusses individual progress or other relevant issues with the judge (Arizona Supreme Court Administrative Office of the Courts, n.d.). Also, family members can discuss any issues. DTC encourages parental and family input as a gauge of home compliance. The court may dismiss the original charge, reduce or set aside a sentence, or offer a lesser penalty for successful program completion (Arizona Supreme Court Administrative Office of the Courts, n.d.).

Generally, DTC programs include court appearances, intensive treatment, education, counseling, drug testing, and fee payment. The participant must be charged with a probation-eligible offense and have no violent or sexual felony convictions or pending felony charges. Participants must be legal residents willing to participate in all DTC Program aspects. Charges are dismissed or reduced upon completion of DTC.

Active monitoring of a participant’s progress allows the DTC Team to actively support the recovery process and react quickly when appropriate therapeutic supports are necessary or to reinstate criminal proceedings when participants cannot comply with the program. Participants will complete detoxification, inpatient and outpatient treatments, substance abuse counseling and support services, drug education classes, random drug screening, and community service hours. Participants also receive probation, supervision, and case management and must attend court hearings. DTC may also offer family counseling, life skills, and job skills training (National Association of Drug Court Professionals, 2018).

The National Association of Drug Court Professionals has designated eight key elements to provide a guideline and structure format for the nation’s DTCs.

1. DTCs integrate alcohol and other drug treatment services with justice case processing.
2. Using a non-adversarial approach, prosecution and defense counsel promote public safety while protecting participants’ due process rights.
3. Eligible participants are identified early and promptly placed in the DTC program.
4. DTC provides access to a continuum of alcohol, drug, and other related treatment and rehabilitation services.
5. Frequent alcohol and other drug testing to monitor abstinence.
6. A coordinated strategy governs DTC responses to participants’ compliance.
7. Ongoing judicial interaction with each DTC participant is essential.
8. Clear monitoring and evaluation measures track the achievement of individual participants’ program goals and gauge the program’s effectiveness (National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health, 2005).

Drug Court Program Strengths and Weaknesses

DTC programs have many strengths. DTCs purpose is to eliminate substance abuse and crime. Some scholars say DTCs operate with remarkable success (Jackson, 2013). DTCs are effective at enrolling individuals in treatment, a crucial step toward long-term sobriety, and those successfully completing DTC programs are far less likely to be re-arrested than those receiving traditional punishments.

The most effective DTCs can reduce recidivism by up to 35% to 40% and are cost-effective (U.S. Department of Justice, 2007). A decade-long study by the National Institute of Justice of a DTC led to the conclusion that “reduced recidivism and other long-term program outcomes resulted in public savings of $6,744 on average per participant” (U.S. Department of Justice, 2007). In contrast, 45% of offenders convicted of similar charges, who have not participated in DTC, will relapse and commit another crime (U.S. Department of Justice, 1999).

DTC programs, according to other scholars, have several weaknesses. The costly expansion of the U.S. prison systems is, at least partly, the result of punitive policies intended to reduce public drug demand but often confine addicts rather than high-level drug traffickers or manufacturers (Brown, 2010). One in four U.S. prison inmates is serving time or awaiting trial for a drug-related offense, costing $8 billion annually (Brown, 2010). 1.5 million arrestees were at risk for drug abuse or dependence in 2003, according to national surveys (Brown, 2010). Fifty-eight percent of drug offenders have no violent or high-level drug trafficking records (Brown, 2010). Seventy-five percent of state prison drug offenders are convicted of drug possession or non-violent crime (Brown, 2010).

Civic Responsibility, Ethical Behavior, and Recommended Research

Unfortunately, drug use data is rarely collected or reported centrally to allow a rigorous synthesis of ongoing drug use for DTC participants or comparison groups post-release (Brown, 2010). Urine drug test results are usually aggregated (i.e., total number positive vs. total number collected.) In DTC, urine drug testing is more routine than in probation, where it is triggered by program violations (Brown, 2010). This could lead to more positive test results among probationers than DTC participants. Further, changes in judges, local statutes or law enforcement practices, eligibility requirements, treatment providers, and DTC program structure have not been systematically examined (Brown, 2010).

Additionally, long-term studies are needed to ensure post-participation follow-up, which is rare. Scholars continue to debate whether DTC participants post-release continue to reduce criminal behavior and substance use and improve in other areas like employment or education is debatable (Brown, 2010). To promote civic responsibility and ethical behavior, the issues in this section are areas DTC and other community supervision programs should investigate further.

About the Author

Alicia Mitchell-Mercer is a legal project manager and FINRA securities arbitrator with 20 years of legal experience. She has a B.S. in Paralegal Studies, M.S. in Project Management, and is pursuing a Doctorate in Public Policy and Administration. Mitchell-Mercer has legal certifications from the NC State Bar, the SC Bar (SCCP), NALA (ACP), and NFPA (RP). She is also a Project Management Professional (PMP), Legal Project Practitioner (LPP), and Certified Scrum Master (CSM).

Mitchell-Mercer received the North Carolina Bar Association’s (NCBA) 2021 Distinguished Paralegal of the Year Award. She serves the legal community as a North Carolina State Bar advisory member, Guardian ad Litem, and Chair of the NCBA PD Technology and Utilization Committees. She recently completed a term on the NALA BOD and as Chair of NALA’s Continuing Education Council. She is now concentrating her efforts on advancing the North Carolina Justice For All Project’s (www.ncjfap.org) limited licensing proposal.

References

Arizona Supreme Court Administrative Office of the Courts. (n.d.). Drug Courts. Drug courts in the criminal justice system. Retrieved September 28, 2022, from https://www.azcourts.gov/casa/Training/Training-Courses/Drug-Courts

Brown, R. T. (2010). Systematic review of the impact of adult drug-treatment courts. Translational Research, 155(6), 263–274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trsl.2010.03.001

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2022). Death Rate Maps & Graphs | Drug Overdose. CDC. Retrieved October 7, 2022, from https://www.cdc.gov/drugoverdose/deaths/index.html

Drug Enforcement Bureau. (n.d.). Drug Enforcement Bureau. Maricopa County Attorney’s Office. Retrieved September 29, 2022, from https://www.maricopacountyattorney.org/155/Drug-Enforcement-Bureau

Hu, Q., & Kapucu, N. (2020). Network Governance: Concepts, theories, and applications. Routledge.

Jackson, S. (2013). World Bank Document. World Bank Document. Retrieved September 29, 2022, from https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/16609/774300NWP0J0D000Box377296B00PUBLIC0.pdf

Law Insider. (n.d.). Drug treatment court Definition. Law Insider. Retrieved September 28, 2022, from https://www.lawinsider.com/dictionary/drug-treatment-court

Michigan Association of Treatment Court Professionals. (2021). Adult drug court standards, best practices, and promising practices. Michigan Courts. Retrieved September 28, 2022, from https://www.courts.michigan.gov/49eaab/siteassets/court-administration/best-practices/psc/adc-bpmanual.pdf

National Association of Drug Court Professionals. (2018). The verdict is in. NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF DRUG COURT PROFESSIONALS. Retrieved September 29, 2022, from https://www.nadcp.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Adult-Drug-Court-Best-Practice-Standards-Volume-2-Text-Revision-December-2018-1.pdf

National Drug Intelligence Center. (2006). The impact of drugs on society – National Drug Threat Assessment 2006. Retrieved September 29, 2022, from https://www.justice.gov/archive/ndic/pubs11/18862/impact.htm

National Institute of Drug Abuse, National Institute of Health, & U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2011, May 2). Drug-related hospital emergency room visits. National Institute on Drug Abuse. Retrieved September 29, 2022, from https://nida.nih.gov/sites/default/files/hospitalvisits.pdf

National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health. (2005). 10 key components of drug courts – substance abuse treatment. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health. Retrieved September 29, 2022, from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK572952/box/ch7.box6/?report=objectonly

North Carolina Administrative Office of the Courts. (n.d.). Adult Drug Treatment Court | North Carolina Judicial Branch. The North Carolina Judicial Branch. Retrieved October 7, 2022, from https://www.nccourts.gov/courts/recovery-courts/adult-drug-treatment-court

Office of Justice Programs. (2022). Drug Courts. Office of Justice Programs. Retrieved September 29, 2022, from https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/238527.pdf

Office of National Drug Control Policy. (n.d.). Drug Courts. Obama White House Archives. Retrieved September 28, 2022, from https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/ondcp/ondcp-fact-sheets/drug-courts-smart-approach-to-criminal-justice

The Sentencing Project. (2009). “Drug Courts: A Review of the Evidence” from The Sentencing Project. The Sentencing Project. Retrieved September 28, 2022, from https://www.sentencingproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Drug-Courts-A-Review-of-the-Evidence.pdf

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (2011). HRC Facts Sheet. SAMHSA. Retrieved September 29, 2022, from https://www.samhsa.gov/sites/default/files/programs_campaigns/homelessness_programs_resources/hrc-factsheet-current-statistics-prevalence-characteristics-homelessness.pdf

U.S. Department of Justice. (1999). The Clinton Administration’s Law Enforcement Strategy:. Department of Justice. Retrieved September 28, 2022, from https://www.justice.gov/archive/dag/pubdoc/Drug_Final.pdf

U.S. Department of Justice. (2007). Impact of a mature drug court over 10 years of operation: Recidivism and costs (Final Report). Office of Justice Programs. Retrieved September 29, 2022, from https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/impact-mature-drug-court-over-10-years-operation-recidivism-and-0

U.S. Department of Justice. (2020). Treatment Courts Across the United States (2020). National Drug Court Resource Center. Retrieved September 29, 2022, from https://ndcrc.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/2020_NDCRC_TreatmentCourt_Count_Table_v8.pdf

U.S. Department of Justice & National Drug Intelligence Center. (n.d.). National drug threat assessment 2011. Department of Justice. Retrieved September 29, 2022, from https://www.justice.gov/archive/ndic/pubs44/44849/44849p.pdf

York, M., & Schmidt, C. (2017, August 19). Study: Arizona spends $600K a day to house drug offenders in prison. Arizona Daily Star. Retrieved September 29, 2022, from https://tucson.com/news/local/study-arizona-spends-600k-a-day-to-house-drug-offenders-in-prison/article_80c84817-9a40-5f29-946a-dcf44fd1de01.html