On Thursday, March 18, 2010, I observed Chester County Drug Court. Chester County first introduced its Drug Court in 1997. Drug court diverts cases from criminal court to allow certain offenders, primarily drug users, to get treatment rather than serve prison sentences. Not everyone qualifies for drug court, only non-violent drug offenders and DUI's and a drug offense. Offenders cannot be on probation or parole and must be currently addicted to drugs and/or alcohol. There are four phases in the treatment plan for these offenders. Each phase involves seeing a probation or parole officer, random drug and alcohol testing, appearances at drug court review sessions, compliance with a treatment plan, and active participation in Narcotics Anonymous or Alcoholics Anonymous. Each phase lasts a minimum on 90 days and is completed when the offender has remained clean for 90 consecutive days and has complied with all of the phase requirements. Upon successful completion of a phase the Judge, in this case the honorable Judge William Mahon, walks from behind his bench, shakes the offenders hand, congratulates them, and gives them a certificate of completion and a gift certificate. Once an offender has completed all requirements, the offense is expunged from his or her criminal record (Mahon, 2010).
Drug Court itself consisted of Judge Mahon speaking with each offender and his or her respective probation or parole officer to ensure he or she was in total compliance with the program. Many people were addressed in small groups or dyads with respect to their current phase. Such offenders were complying with their treatment programs, passing their drug tests, and meeting with their parole or probation officers. Offenders who had successfully completed a phase were addressed and congratulated alone and offenders who had not complied with an aspect of their representative phase were also addressed alone. Offenders who did not comply were given a verbal reprimand, up to 72 hours in jail, or both. One such offender, who, for the purposes of this assignment will be referred to herein as Jason, was, in Judge Mahon's words, "the worst case… [the court] had ever seen."
Jason is a male in his late forties who had failed his most recent drug test, missed appointments with his probation officer, and had a searing letter of distaste from part of his treatment, Colonial House, an inpatient drug and alcohol treatment center in York, Pennsylvania. A staff member of Colonial House sent the judge a letter raising numerous concerns with Jason's behavior during his treatment there. Jason, according to the staff member, was combative, stubborn, and reluctant to commit to treatment. The staff member also mentioned Jason was more concerned with telling others how to fix their problems during group therapy, than focusing on his own issues. Judge Mahon was not pleased. He spent almost twenty minutes lecturing the Jason about all of the things he has ruined, his marriage and the relationship with his children to name two. He concluded his sermon with a sentence of 72 hours in jail, the most jail time given to anyone during the drug court session (Mahon, 2010).
A study conducted by researchers at the University of Wyoming concluded adult drug court programs have a statistically significant reduction in the recidivism rate when the offender participates in drug court rather than prison or probation. The relapse into criminal behavior after one year after completing drug court treatment programs was between five and twenty-five percent for the thirty-nine jurisdictions included in the study. This relatively large study suggests drug courts have a positive effect on offenders and relapse rates. The study also found a gender difference in recidivism rates; women were less likely to be arrested after completing treatment or during treatment than their male counterparts. About nineteen percent of the drug offenders were arrested for another offense one year following successful completion of drug court treatment programs (Roussell, & Culhane, 2009). Another study conducted in Miami found comparable results. This means those who completed drug treatment programs were less likely to be arrested again (Lurigio, 2008).
Research on drug courts on Juveniles is similar to that for adults. A large study from Arizona State University studied the effect of drug court treatment programs on juveniles and recidivism rates. The research shows that juveniles who completed drug court treatment programs were less likely to be arrested than those who did not. The study also showed males and Hispanics were more likely to be arrested than other demographics. The study also concluded enrollment in school made juveniles less likely to commit subsequent offenses during treatment. Surprisingly, the study found the more days a juvenile spent in the program the more likely he or she was to commit delinquent acts. Researchers attributed this phenomenon to the sample, which consisted mostly of juveniles who had extensive prior contact with the juvenile justice system and concluded offenders with less experience with the justice system would be more compliant (Rodriquez, & Webb, 2004).
Overall, research shows drug courts work. They work better than prisons, which have a failure rate of around seventy percent. The highest failure rate among drug court participants was twenty-five percent (Roussell, & Culhane, 2009). This suggests drug courts are a viable alternative to traditional sentences. Not only are drug courts more effective, they are cost-effective. According to the Office of National Drug Control Policy, it cost between twenty and twenty-three thousand dollars a year in 1996 to incarcerate someone for a year. Yet to treat the same person, it cost about three thousand dollars. There is also a ripple effect of benefits to society, for which the Office of National Drug Control Policy placed a price tag of about nine thousand dollars (Walters, 2006). This means that drug treatment, in effect, pays for itself three times over. On the other hand imprisoning someone costs thousands of dollars more, and when that person gets out, he or she has a seventy percent failure rate. Based on the facts, the choice is simple: Drug courts, they save taxpayers money, and give society more productive individuals.
References
Heck, C., Roussell, A., & Culhane, S. (2009). Assessing the Effects of the Drug Court
Intervention on Offender Criminal Trajectories. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 20(2), 236-246. Retrieved from Academic Search Complete database.
Lurigio, A. (2008). The First 20 Years of Drug Treatment Courts: A Brief Description
of Their History and Impact. Federal Probation, 72(1), 13-17. Retrieved from Academic Search Complete database.
Mahon, W. (2010). Chester Country Drug Court. Attended 18 March 2009.
Rodriquez, N., & Webb, V. (2004). Multiple measures of juvenile drug court
effectiveness: results of a quasi-experimental design. Crime & Delinquency, 50(2), Retrieved from Academic Search Complete doi: 10.1177/0011128703254991
Walters, J. (2008, February 26). Drug treatment in the criminal justice system.
Retrieved from
http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publ... factsht/treatment/index.html