Expand drug courts, reduce crime

The treatment and rehabilitation of criminal offenders has made a comeback. Once looked upon with disdain, treatment is making an impact on crime. During the early 1970’s a flamboyant criminologist named Robert Martinson conducted a far-reaching evaluation of prison treatment programs. The result was nearly universal rejection of rehabilitation as an effective tool in reducing recidivism. Martinson’s name became synonymous with “nothing works.”

As the years passed and correction agencies dismantled their treatment programs the theory “nothing works” was debunked. Rigorous research has provided clear evidence that well designed programs provided by dedicated practitioners can succeed in curbing crime. Drug courts may be the finest example of treatment programs that reduce substance abuse and reoffending.

The first drug court was created in 1989 by former Attorney General Janet Reno, while she served as a Florida State’s Attorney for Dade County. Since 1989, drug courts have expend to all 50 states. There are 14 counties in Ohio with drug courts, including Mahoning and Trumbull counties. In Pennsylvania, there are 19 counties with drug courts. The Philadelphia Drug Treatment Court was the first of its kind in Pennsylvania. The court came into being in 1997, as the result of the efforts of Municipal Court President Judge Louis J. Presenza. According to Presenza, Philadelphia’s treatment court came into existence not because it was a highly touted alternative to traditional courts, but because it was necessary. In 2003, Presenza told the Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency, “Within the larger goal of protecting society, we [drug court] could rehabilitate, reduce recidivism and provide an alternative to incarceration.”

Judicial sanctions

Drug courts are an alternative to the traditional criminal justice model. In lieu of conviction and incarceration or supervision by county probation personnel, a guilty plea is held in abeyance while the court monitors the progress of participants. A judge personally imposes sanctions and rewards during frequent interaction with program participants. Ultimately, successful completion of programming may result in the dismissal of charges and expungement of the offense from the participant’s criminal record.

In the nearly 20 years since Reno’s first drug court there have been numerous studies examining their effectiveness. The National Institute of Justice found that incarceration alone has not been effective in breaking the cycle of drugs and crime. The minimal period of effective drug treatment is 12 months. The NIJ found that 80 to 90-percent of those participating in voluntary treatment drop out before 12 months of treatment. Drug courts provide an incentive-based treatment framework with authoritative sanctions that are swift and certain. A recent study entitled, “A Systematic Review of Drug Court Effects on Recidivism,” found that drug courts are effective in reducing reoffending by as much as 24-percent. Judge Presenza suggested that 92-percent of Philadelphia drug court participants stay drug and conviction free for at least one year after successfully completing the program.

The White House’s National Drug Control Strategy Update of 2004 found that drug courts are “one of the most promising trends in the criminal justice system.”

Drug courts are also cost effective. A study of Multnowah County, Oregon’s drug court found that over a 30-month period the county saved $2,329 in rearrest costs and $1,301 in victimization costs per participant. With 300 participants a year, Multnowah County saved $1.1 million annually.

So why aren’t there more drug courts? Many components of the criminal justice system are beholden to a dysfunctional crime and punishment model that ignores or fails to address evidence based treatment and accountability. There remain skeptics who deny or ignore new ideas and policymakers who fear the label “soft on crime.”

As a result, drug courts remain unfunded in Pennsylvania. Less than 30-percent of Pennsylvania’s counties have drug courts.

X Matthew T. Mangino is the former district attorney of Lawrence County and a featured columnist for the Pennsylvania Law Weekly. He can be reached at matthewmangino@aol.com.