Effectiveness Of Drug Treatment Courts

Drug courts are problem solving courts that take a public health approach 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. Drug courts began in 1989 in Florida, because it was assumed that people that had first time offenses with drugs, or low-level drug users could resist future drug use by this intervention than sending them to get locked up without any treatment. It was also assumed that the quicker treatments began after the initial arrest, the less time

I can’t speak for the entire State of Texas but Travis County drug court is making a positive impact on offenders’ lives. Two judges who manage Travis County’s drug court are directing addicts into a court supervised treatment program instead of incarceration. Drug courts like the one in Travis County have successfully handled nonaggressive defendants with drug and alcohol addictions. People who complete drug court programs rarely fall back into substance abuse. Per four drug-court judges surveyed, about 10 percent of program graduates commit new crimes. That’s a recidivism rate of one-fifth that of traditional probation programs. Which shows drug courts can ease the strain on congested penitentiaries and save taxpayer money. A study done by

Not only do the eligibility requirements of drug courts vary across the board, but the way the programs operate and their outcomes vary considerably, especially when it comes down to how they choose to operationalize the ten key components (Carey & Waller, 2011; Mackin et. al, 2009). In 1997, the National Association of Drug Court Professionals published these key components. The first key component is that drug courts integrate alcohol and other drug treatment services with justice system case processing (NADCP, 1997). Being that the mission of drug courts is to combat the abuse of drugs and alcohol it is imperative for them to promote recovery through coordinated responses. The second key component states that drug courts should use a

The Maryland drug court system has failed plenty of people since it was first introduced 1993, because of the goals and requirements are unrealistic and the offenders with an actual serious drug problem in the program are not getting the proper treatments they need to successfully stay clean once they graduate. In this essay elaborate on the practices that should be changed and if rehabilitation, detoxification and opioid treatments need to be available were to be implemented it would improve the program and keep people like my loved one on the right track and not headed to prison.

Dependent Variable. The effectiveness and the impact of the drug court will be assessed by analyzing the recidivism rates between the treatment group and the comparison group of probationers. Recidivism will be measured by examining both felony and misdemeanor charges and arrests, and drug related arrests will further be examined. Outcome data pertaining to arrests will be collected from the months of June, July, and August of 2016, allowing for an average follow-up time of 517 days. The data to be collected will include official rearrest results upon the completion of the drug treatment program and upon the completion of a probation sentence for the comparison group. Through the arrest results, further examination will be conducted on the severity of the crimes committed and whether they involved drug offenses.

Several offenders have benefited from the programs that are designed to address their issues within the drug court. These programs have changed defendants and justice professionals lives by creating new relationships with one another so they could understand what the defendants have been going through prior to being arrested and put into the criminal justice system. I will discuss why this program was implemented, the year and state the first Drug court was implemented.

Drug courts improve lawbreakers mental wellbeing, allowing for a halt of criminal activity. Improvements of wellbeing is a result of drug courts. A study from Mendoza et al (2013, p.787) found psychological symptoms have a significant impact on the completion of drug courts, implicating the likelihood of relapse and recidivism. There is a clear relationship between the completion of drug courts and a reduction of substance abuse and child wellbeing; allowing many drug affected families becoming reunified (Child & McIntyre, 2015, p.67,85). A study from Boles et al displayed that children reunified with offenders who partake in drug court treatments are safe from repeated mistreatment when compared with children not associated with drug court treatments (Boles et al cited in Child & McIntyre, 2015). It is clear drug courts increase mental wellbeing and allow for offenders to return to a family orientated

I visited the treatment court presided over by the Honorable Judge John Brown, who has been with treatment court for the past 3 years. Treatment court is a bi lateral contract between the defendant and the State of Montana where the court provides an avenue for willing participants to integrate themselves back into society, it is an alternative to traditional sentencing where substance abuse is a motivating factor for the offender’s criminal behavior. The five fundamentals of treatment court are as follows, sobriety, responsibility, honesty, integrity, and service. During the 18-month program participants are required to abstain from using any mind-altering substances, they must also report any substance uses to the

Drug addiction has increased drastically across America in the last fifty years. Non-violent drug offenders fill our jails and prisons. Taxpayer dollars are put into a prison system that is proving to be counter-productive. Recidivism rates are high. Drug Court is an alternative to incarceration that offers rehabilitation to criminal offenders. In drug court, the traditional functions of the U.S. justice system are profoundly altered. The judge is the leader of a treatment team. The judge makes all final decisions and holds a range of discretion unprecedented in the courtroom, including the type of treatment mandated and how to address

In 1994, Los Angeles County established its first Drug Court Program; within a few months, a second court was implemented. These two programs were the beginning of the Los Angeles County Drug Court system and represented a growing “movement to significantly alter the criminal justice system’s response to drug addiction and crime” (Fielding et al., 2002, p. 218). As of 2015, there are 12 adult drug courts in Los Angeles County that specialize in drug treatment services for drug involved and dependent offenders. According to the National Association of Drug Court Professionals (1997) the mission of “drug courts is to stop the abuse of alcohol and other drugs and related criminal activity” (p. 7). Drug courts utilize a team approach to promote

Drug courts integrates intensive judicial supervision, mandatory drug testing, and escalating treatment that breaks the cycle of addiction and the crime that follows. 4 In a ten-year study done by The National Institute of Justice, it was found that drug courts lower re-arrests and lower costs. They tracked 6,500 offenders in Multnomah County Drug Court between 1991 and 2001. Re-arrests were found to be lower after five years of completing drug court compared to participants of similar charges in criminal court.

Since the first drug court was established in 1989 in Florida, it can be said there are more than 800 active drug courts today. Drug courts work with the intent of treatment over punishment to prevent recidivism and promote public safety, therefore sentencing treatment over prison. There are two primary functions with the intention of either diverting offenders out of the criminal process by sentencing them to treatment or by post adjudication with suspended sentences pending rehabilitation (Siegel, Schmalleger, & Worrall, 2015, p. 142-143).

The drug court also provides powerful incentives and punishments for it participates. Some may be harsh and others are less harsh. At the state level the recidivism rate has lowered (Fulkerson et al., 2012; Rempel et. Al., 2003; Shaffer, 2011; Wilson, Mitchell, & MacKenzie, 2003). This is due to the defendant’s participation rate. There was a national study done showing a two-year recidivism rate of 28% (Roman, Townsend, & Bhati, 2003).

Currently, drug courts have been proven to be successful at reducing recidivism of offenders. In the United States there are about 120,000 people receiving help in order to rehabilitate them and to try to reduce the chances of recidivism (Office of National Drug Control Policy, 2011). These programs require individuals to participate in the programs for a minimum of one year. During this year the individuals are required to appear in court and be drug tested at

As a judge over a drug court program who has a drug user appearing before me for the fourth time, I must take certain thoughts into consideration. Drug courts are designed for non-violent offenders with substance abuse problems who require integrated sanctions and services, including (a) mandatory periodic testing for the use of controlled substances; (b) substance abuse treatment; (c) diversion, probation, or other supervised release; and (d) aftercare services such as relapse prevention, health care, education, vocational training, job placement, housing placement, and child care (Siegel & Bartolla, 2011). Additionally, knowing that approximately 80 percent of offenders in the United States were under the influence of drugs and or alcohol