Drug Courts Decrease Criminal Recidivism

National Research
According to a study released by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) in 2003 from a sample of 17,000 drug court graduates nationwide, within one year of program graduation, only 16.4 percent had been rearrested and charged with a felony offense (Roman, Townsend, & Bhati, 2003). A 2000 Vera Institute of Justice report concluded that “the body of literature on recidivism is now strong enough, despite lingering methodological weaknesses, to conclude that completing a drug court program reduces the likelihood of future arrest” (Fluellen & Trone, 2000).

Statewide Research
The largest statewide study on drug courts to date was released in 2003 by the Center for Court Innovation (CCI). The study analyzed the impact of the New York State drug court system. The study found that the re-conviction rate among 2,135 defendants who participated in six of the state’s drug courts was, on average, 29 percent lower (13% to 47%) over three years than the for the same types of offenders who did not enter the drug court (Rempel, et al., 2003). The study also concluded that drug court cases reached initial disposition more quickly than conventional court cases and that the statewide drug court retention rate was approximately 65 percent, exceeding the national average of 60 percent (Rempel, et al., 2003).

Local Research
To date, hundreds of evaluations have been conducted on local drug court programs throughout the nation. A sample of the most rigorous evaluations conducted among particular drug courts shows significant reductions in recidivism. In Chester County, Pennsylvania, drug court graduates had a rearrest rate of 5.4 percent, versus a 21.5 percent rearrest rate among the control group (Brewster, 2001); a 33 percent rearrest rate for drug court graduates in Dade county, Florida, versus a 48 percent rearrest rate among the control group (Goldkamp & Weiland, 1993); and a 15.6 percent rearrest rate for drug court graduates in Dallas, Texas, versus a 48.7 percent rearrest rate for the control group (Turley & Sibley, 2001).

Drug Courts Save Money

Statewide Research
A state taxpayer’s return on the upfront investment in drug courts is substantial. A study of six drug courts in Washington State reports that “a county’s investment in drug courts pays off through lower crime rates among participants and graduates” (Washington State Institute for Public Policy, 2003). The study estimates that the average drug court participant produces $6,779 in benefits that stem from the estimated 13 percent reductions in recidivism (Washington State Institute for Public Policy, 2003). Those benefits are made up of $3,759 in avoided criminal justice system costs paid by taxpayers and $3,020 in avoided costs to victims (Washington State Institute for Public Policy, 2003). A total of $1.74 in benefits for every dollar spent on drug court was realized (Washington State Institute for Public Policy, 2003).

Based on the Center for Court Innovation’s study of New York drug courts, the State Court System estimates that $254 million in incarceration costs were saved by diverting 18,000 non-violent drug offenders into treatment (Rempel, et al., 2003).

In California, researchers have recently completed two studies that demonstrate significant cost-benefit savings. Both studies demonstrate a minimum savings of $18 million per year through California drug courts. In fact, the studies concluded that California’s investment of $14 million, in combination with other funds, created a total cost avoidance of $43.3 million over a two year period (Judicial Council of California & California Department of Alcohol & Drug Programs, 2002; NPC Research, Inc. & Judicial Council of California, 2002). One of the two studies assessed the cost effectiveness of drug courts in terms of avoided incarceration costs and costs offset by participants’ payment of fees and fines. A total of 425,014 jail days were avoided, with an averted cost of approximately $26 million (Judicial Council of California & California Department of Alcohol & Drug Programs, 2002). A total of 227,894 prison days were avoided, with an averted cost of approximately $16 million (Judicial Council of California & California Department of Alcohol & Drug Programs, 2002). Participants who completed a drug court program paid almost one million dollars in fees and fines imposed by the court (Judicial Council of California & California Department of Alcohol & Drug Programs, 2002).

The other study, of three adult drug courts in California, documented cost avoidance averaging $200,000 annually per court per 100 participants (NPC Research, Inc. & Judicial Council of California, 2002). When projected statewide, these savings amount to $18 million in cost avoidance per year assuming that 90 adult drug courts operate with 100 clients per year (NPC Research, Inc. & Judicial Council of California, 2002). Due to these studies and an analysis of prison days saved by drug courts, 58 percent of California’s drug court funding is provided by a direct transfer of funds from the Department of Corrections budget.

Local Research
In Multnomah County, Oregon, a countywide study estimated that for every dollar spent on drug court, taxpayers saved ten dollars (Finigan, 1998). A follow-up study in the same location conducted by the National Institute of Justice showed that when costs were compared between “doing business as usual” and the drug court model, the drug court model saved an average of $2,328.89 per year for each participant (Carey & Finigan, 2003). One of the components of cost benefit analysis research is the value of the costs associated with victims of crime. If crime is reduced, the cost to victims, also known as “victimization costs,” is also reduced. When the victimization costs were accounted for in the Multnomah County study, the average savings increased to $3,596.92 per client (Carey & Finigan, 2003). The total savings to the local taxpayer over a thirty-month period was $5,071.57 per participant, or a savings of $1,521,471 per year (Carey & Finigan, 2003).

A study by the Department of Economics at Southern Methodist University reported that for every dollar spent on drug court in Dallas, Texas, $9.43 in tax dollar savings was realized over a forty-month period (Fomby & Rangaprasad, 2002).

Finally, a recent study on the effectiveness of the seven-year-old drug court in Saint Louis, Missouri, found that the program’s benefits far outweigh its costs. The findings of the Institute of Applied Research, an independent social science research firm, indicated that nonviolent drug offenders who were placed in treatment instead of prison generally earned more money and took less from the welfare system than those who successfully completed probation. The study compared the 219 individuals who were the program’s first graduates in 2001 with 219 people who pleaded guilty to drug charges during the same period and completed probation. For each drug court graduate, the cost to taxpayers was $7,793, which was $1,449 more than those on probation (Institute for Applied Research, 2004). However, during the two years following program completion, each graduate cost the city $2,615 less than those on probation (Institute for Applied Research, 2004). The savings were realized in higher wages and related taxes paid, as well as lower costs for health care and mental health services.

“What you learn is that drug courts, which involve treatment for all the individuals and real support – along with sanctions when they fail – are a more cost effective method of dealing with drug problems than either probation or prison” (Institute for Applied Research, 2004).

Drug Courts Increase Retention in Treatment

A drug court’s coercive power is the key to admitting drug-involved offenders into treatment quickly, for a period of time that is long enough to make a difference. This proposition is unequivocally supported by the empirical data on substance abuse treatment programs. Data consistently show that treatment, when completed, is effective. However, most addicts and alcoholics, given a choice, would not enter a treatment program voluntarily. Those who do enter programs rarely complete them; among such dropouts, relapse within a year is the norm.

Accordingly, if treatment is to fulfill its considerable promise, drug involved offenders must not only enter treatment but also remain in treatment and complete the program. If they are to do so, most will need incentives that may be characterized as “coercive.” In the context of treatment, the term coercion – which is used more or less interchangeably with “compulsory treatment,” “mandated treatment,” “involuntary treatment,” “legal pressure into treatment” – refers to an array of strategies that shape behavior by responding to specific actions with external pressure and predictable consequences. Moreover, evidence shows that substance abusers who get treatment through court orders or employer mandates benefit as much as, and sometimes more than, their counterparts who enter treatment voluntarily (Satel, 1999; Huddleston, 2000).

Four national studies, which began as early as 1968 and ended as recently as 1995, assessed approximately 70,000 patients, 40 to 50 percent of whom were court ordered or otherwise mandated into residential and outpatient treatment programs (Simpson & Curry; Simpson & Sells, 1983; Hubbard, et al., 1989; Center for Substance Abuse Treatment, 1996). Two major findings emerged.

First, the length of time a patient spent in treatment was a reliable predictor of his or her post-treatment performance. Beyond a 90-day threshold, treatment outcomes improved in direct relation to the length of time spent in treatment, with one year generally found to be the minimumeffective duration of treatment (Simpson & Curry; Simpson & Sells, 1983; Hubbard, et al., 1989; Center for Substance Abuse Treatment, 1996). Second, coerced patients tended to stay in treatment longer than their “non-coerced” counterparts. In short, the longer a patient stays in drug treatment, the better the outcome (Simpson & Curry; Simpson & Sells, 1983; Hubbard, et al., 1989; Center for Substance Abuse Treatment, 1996).

“Unfortunately, few drug abuse treatment clients reach these critical thresholds. Between 40% and 80% of drug abusers drop out of treatment” prior to the 90-day threshold of effective treatment length (Stark, 1992, as cited in Marlowe, DeMatteo, & Festinger, 2003) and 80 to 90 percent drop out in fewer than twelve months (Satel, 1999, as cited in Marlowe, DeMatteo, & Festinger, 2003).

“Drug courts exceed these abysmal projections” (Marlowe, DeMatteo, & Festinger, 2003). Nationally, drug courts report retention rates between 67 and 71 percent (American University).

In short, over two thirds of participants who begin treatment through a drug court complete it a year or more later. “This represents a six-fold increase in treatment retention over most previous efforts” (Marlowe, DeMatteo, & Festinger, 2003).

Drug court is the best vehicle within the criminal justice system to expedite the time interval between arrest and entry into treatment, and provide the necessary structure to see that an offender stays in treatment long enough for treatment benefits to be realized.

Drug Courts Provide Affordable Treatment

Surveys completed by treatment providers indicate that the annual cost of treatment services for drug court participants differs widely based on many factors. These factors include the target population treated in the program and the type of treatment services provided (which range widely in availability, cost, and application; i.e., intensive outpatient, medically monitored inpatient, methadone maintenance, therapeutic communities, etc.). In addition, annualized treatment costs may include ancillary services offered (i.e., job training, anger management counseling, etc.), drug testing, and case management (American University, 2000).

Given these variations in services offered and services delivered, 61 percent of drug court treatment providers report that the annual cost of treatment services per client ranges between $900 and $3,500 (American University, 2000).