|
POSITION PAPER:
MAKING ALL COURTS DRUG TREATMENT COURTS |
| BACKGROUND
Recent developments in outcomes measurement and experiments in Arizona, Florida and now
New York have demonstrated the efficacy of creating "Drug Courts" to offer
treatment as an alternative to incarceration. The focus on rehabilitation over
incarceration for non-violent drug offenders had proven to be an effective option, as
measured by diminished rearrest rates, treatment completions, reduction in imprisonment
rates, and an attendant reduction in the financial burden to taxpayers. Forty states
now have well integrated drug courts. |
| THE REGION II EXPERIENCE
As an early innovator in developing a drug court, the Rochester City Court has had a
six years' experience in diversion, referral, treating, and monitoring drug offenders with
a great deal of success. Seven treatment agencies have dedicated case managers to
the court, realizing tremendous cost savings by reducing imprisonment and returning
offenders to the tax rolls. In a recently completed outcome study, preliminary data
shows an 11% rearrest rate at one year post-drug treatment court, and astoundingly there
were NO rearrests among the alumni of the Drug Court. The program has been so
successful that the Monroe County Family Court has begun a Juvenile Drug Treatment Court
(5-2000), is poised to begin a Family Court Adult Drug Court (3-2001), and discussions are
under way to develop drug court linkages to other county courts, town courts, and Supreme
Courts. Ithaca City Court (Thompkins County) has a one year old court, and
Livingston County has begun to assemble the resources to create a drug court and has 16
identified cases involved in intensive case management and a time line to begin
operations. Ontario County has completed a feasibility study and is beginning
operations in the near future.
From a treatment provider's perspective, the successes above have been limited by a
lack of financial resources to cover the case management required for drug treatment
courts to be successful. In some cases, funding had been non-exzistent, and in other
courts fundings has been limited to capital development of the court and terminated upon
implementation. Some providers who might have brought needed services to the
treatment mix were unable to participate because of staff shortage or funding constraints.
It has often been the case that treatment resources have been difficult to find, as
many of the drug treatment court clients have complex mental health, homelessness, and
vocational/educational needs that complicate their recoveries. |
| WHAT RESOURCES ARE NEEDED Realistically,
the drug problem will not be disappearing in the near future, necessitating that if drug
treatment courts are to continue, ongoing funding is needed. Enhancement of
the local assistance budget is necessary to provide funding for the case management that
is required for agencies to provide staff to address the needs of the courts and the
clients they refer.
A recent estimate from the Office of Court Administration predicts an additional 10,000
cases would be served in the courts if the drug treatment court concept was incorporated
statewide. Providers have determined that a caseload of 50 cases per manager is a
reasonable expectation. Assuming that a reasonable salary benefit package and other
direct expenses would cost $50,000 per year per case manager, the approximately 200 case
managers would require an infusion of $10 million dollars.
Even assuming that the existing treatment system funding can meet some of the needs of
the new cases, it is easy to see that the increase in clients, and the expansion of the
drug treatment courts would soon burden the already taxed treatment service delivery
system. The funding for additional treatment slots, the detoxification,
rehabilitation, vocational training, and mental health and other health needs will require
increased funding. Each treatment slot required currently costs $8,000 per year,
with each slot generating a 7 fold cost savings to society. |
| WHAT RESOURCES ARE NEEDED
Realistically, the drug problem will not be disappearing in the near future,
necessitating that if drug treatment courts are to continue, ongoing funding is
needed. Enhancement of the local assistance budget is necessary to provide funding
for the case management that is required for agencies to provide staff to address the
needs of the courts and the clients they refer.
A recent estimate from the Office of Court Administration predicts an additional 10,000
cases would be served in the courts if the drug treatment court concept was incorporated
statewide. Providers have determined that a caseload of 50 cases per manager is a
reasonable expectation. Assuming that a reasonable salary benefit package and other
direct expenses would cost $50,000 per year per case manager, the approximately 200 case
managers would require an infusion of $10 million dollars.
Even assuming that the existing treatment system funding can meet some of the needs of
the new cases, it is easy to see that the increase in clients, and the expansion of the
drug treatment courts would soon burden the already taxed treatment service delivery
system. The funding for additional treatment slots, the detoxification,
rehabilitation, vocational training, and mental health and other health needs will require
increased funding. Each treatment slot required currently costs $8,000 per year,
with each slot generating a 7 fold cost savings to society. |
| CONCLUSION
Drug treatment courts have proven themselves a tremendous success in preventing the
revolving door phenomena that solely criminalizing the drug behavior has caused. The
success of expanding our efforts to bring the resources of treatment to the courts
statewide, if funded adequately, will no doubt reduce the social and financial strain drug
dependency has caused throughout the criminal justice system. Treatment providers
have the talent and know-how that the courts need to be effective as a team. Our
challenge is now to provide the financial resources to be certain the teamwork can be
effected.
For more information: Charles L. Montante, M.S., CASAC, c/o Westfall Associates
(716)473-1500. |
Edited: 10/31/2000
11/06/2000
|
