Confronting the Cycle of Addiction & Recidivism:
A Report to Chief Judge Judith S. Kaye
by the New York State Commission on Drugs and the Courts

June 2000

"I first became a Drug Court client in July of 1995. On August 27th, 1995, I got high for the last time. I now have over 16 months clean. The road to recovery has not been an easy one, but it has been worth it.

When I first stood in front of Judge Schwartz, I was a different person than the one who stands before you today. I shuffled in here in handcuffs, wearing a red, jail issue uniform, 6 months pregnant, with a smirk on my face and a defiant look in my eye. I stood here, and hated the people in this room who were trying to help me. I was angry and resentful because the system wouldn't allow me to commit crimes and do my drugs in peace. More important, I did not believe that I could stop using.

My life hadn't always been like this. I had gone to college and had a career. I was using and drinking from time to time, but I believed I had control over my use. By the time I figured out that the drugs were controlling me, I was at the bottom of an abyss. Drugs had gradually changed me from a law-abiding, productive member of society, into a desperate, deviant criminal. I was homeless, penniless, malnourished and dirty. My possessions fit inside a couple of shopping bags. I spent every day stealing for the money to buy my drugs, and every free minute getting high. I got caught numerous times, but still I couldn't stop. I wanted to, but I didn't know how, or if I was capable of it. I had no support system, and no incentive to stop. Drug Court finally provided me with both. If it were not for this program, I am certain that I would not be alive today. I am certain that my 15 month old twin boys would not be happy and healthy, with a sober mom who is always there for them. . . .

Today, I feel better than I've ever felt in my life. As long as I stay drug-free, I will never again stand in this or any courtroom charged with a crime. Now that I'm not addicted, I have no need or inclination to break the law. Now that my head has cleared, my perspective has changed. I am responsible for my own life, and I'm making sane, healthy choices today.

I want to say that I think Drug Court is the best alternative to incarceration, because it fosters human motivation and the will to change, and provides a framework within which that change can take place. Without this program, so many sick, addicted people would be locked up instead of rehabilitated. When you take drugs away from an addict and provide that addict with the help he or she needs, you can see a changed human being result. I am one of those people."
A graduate of the Rochester Drug Treatment Court, speaking to the court upon her successful completion of drug treatment

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgments

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

SECTION I

THE PROBLEM OF DRUGS AND THE COURTS

The Impact of Drug Cases on the Criminal Justice System

The Central Issue of Addiction and Recidivism

SECTION II

THE PROMISE OF DRUG TREATMENT

The New Treatment Effort

The Emerging Evidence of Success

The Benefits of Successful Treatment

SECTION III

A REVIEW AND EVALUATION OF COURT- AND PROSECUTOR-BASED TREATMENT EFFORTS

Drug Treatment Courts

"DTAP" and Other Prosecutor-Based Programs

Family Treatment Courts and Juvenile Courts

Treatment on Probation

SECTION IV

THE SPECIAL PROBLEMS OF NEW YORK CITY'S CRIMINAL COURTS

SECTION V

A COMMENT ON THE MANDATORY SENTENCING LAWS

SECTION VI

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Conclusions

Recommendations

A CONCURRENCE AND DISSENT

APPENDICES

Acknowledgments

In October 1999, the Chief Judge of the State of New York, Judith S. Kaye, created an independent Commission to study the impact of drug cases on the New York State courts. The twenty-eight member Commission was comprised of judges, court administrators, prosecutors, defense attorneys, substance abuse experts, academics, and others from the public and private sectors. The Commission's mandate was to document the numbers and types of drug cases and their cost to the criminal justice system; evaluate the court's current response to these cases; review innovative and experimental approaches to the handling of these cases; and make recommendations for future reforms.

The Commission pursued this mandate during the course of the past eight months. As part of this effort, the Commission and its staff traveled to eleven counties, visited sixteen courts, and interviewed a total of 203 judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, Family Court practitioners, government officials, academics, drug treatment experts, and a variety of other professionals. We also reviewed the voluminous body of literature that exists on the subject of drug addiction and drug treatment within the criminal justice system, and collected a large volume of data from a variety of agencies, including the Unified Court System's Office of Court Administration, the New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services,1 the New York State Department of Correctional Services, the New York State Division of Probation and Correctional Alternatives, the New York State Office of Alcoholism and Substance Abuse Services, the New York State Division of Parole, the New York City Department of Correction, the New York City Department of Probation, the New York City Administration for Children's Services, and the New York City Criminal Justice Agency.

The Commission wishes to thank Chief Judge Kaye and Chief Administrative Judge Jonathan Lippman for the opportunity to participate in this important project. The Commission also thanks each of the above-mentioned organizations for their patience in answering our many questions and requests for data. Among the many agency representatives who devoted countless hours to this task were Michael J. Magnani, Chester H. Mount, Jr., and Gail Miller of the Office of Court Administration; Michael J. Farrell and Marge Cohen of the Division of Criminal Justice Services; Michele Sviridoff and Michael Rempel of the Center for Court Innovation; and Paul Korotkin and William Williford of the Department of Correctional Services. In addition, we are extremely indebted to the scores of judges, District Attorneys, professionals and experts who spent time with us sharing their experiences and views on a wide variety of issues.

Finally, we wish to thank the Commission's staff members at Davis Polk & Wardwell for their months of leg work and the drafting of this Report. They include Carey Dunne, Chief Counsel to the Commission, and Angela Bellizzi, David Massey, Ola Rech and Brian Weinstein, who served as Deputy Counsel. Other Davis Polk attorneys who helped with the project include Christopher Crowley, Gwen Kalow, Sean Knowles, and Patti Stuckler; other Davis Polk staff members include Jorge Ramirez, Lawton Cummings, Andrew Dean, Lauryn Gouldin, Stacie Branson, Caroline Keller, Jennifer Handal, Ariel Torsone, Jason Tomarken, Dean Serio, Marie Postlewate, Eric Bielke, and Shannon Reynolds. The hard work of all those who helped is sincerely appreciated.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In the last two decades, New York State's criminal justice system has been confronted with a staggering number of drug cases, the volume of which has risen by over four hundred percent in twenty years. This vast expansion has come at a great price to the public, and has taken a significant toll on the courts.

Drug cases have transformed the work of the courts, particularly the state's misdemeanor courts, and particularly those in the state's largest cities. In the face of swollen, drug-heavy dockets, judges in such courts can often spend only minutes per case, as they are forced to focus most on the speed of their dispositions. Such dispositions, however, can at times have little effect, as the same drug offenders are arrested again and again. Apart from the practical difficulties created by this volume of cases, the financial cost of adjudicating them has been extraordinary over the years.

On the felony side, the number of drug cases brought in the state's upper courts is more than five times what it was in 1980. While these courts' dockets are less congested than those in the lower courts, and while, in recent years, the numbers have decreased significantly, the caseloads are still dominated by drug offenses. And, as in the case of misdemeanors, the financial cost has been huge. One statistic is particularly telling: in 1980, the number of felony drug offenders sentenced to New York State prisons was less than 900; in 1999, it was nearly 9,000. These numbers become all the more startling when it is understood that the annual cost of imprisoning a state inmate is nearly $29,000. What this means is that the state now spends nearly $650 million a year to incarcerate drug offenders in state prison.²

In the state's Family Courts, there has been a similar explosion of drug-related filings. Between 1995 and 1999, there was a 40 percent increase in the number of Family Court cases involving the abuse and neglect of children, and an estimated seventy percent of these cases involved parents who had problems with substance abuse. As on the criminal side, these cases have imposed enormous social and financial costs. For example, the average length of a child's stay in New York City foster care is now four years, at a price of more than $15,000 per year.

Looked at from the perspective of the courts, these numbers pose a clear challenge. The question is whether there is anything that our state courts can do to better address this mounting volume of drug and drug-related filings.

In October 1999, Chief Judge Judith S. Kaye created the New York State Commission on Drugs and the Courts, and asked it to consider this issue. The Commission, chaired by Robert B. Fiske, Jr., was comprised of judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, agency representatives, academics, substance abuse experts and others from across the state. The Commission's mandate was to study how drug cases are handled by the courts, and to determine whether changes could be made that would enable the courts to deal more effectively with the volume of drug cases in our justice system.

From the outset, the Commission recognized that, in the criminal context, there are two different categories of drug crimes brought before our courts. On the one hand, there are drug crimes committed by drug traffickers who are in the business of selling drugs for a profit. The Commission believes that such crimes should continue to be prosecuted vigorously, and these crimes are not the subject of this Report. On the other hand, there is another important category of drug cases in our justice system: cases involving non-violent drug addicts whose drug and drug-related crimes are motivated by their addiction. It is this category of cases that we address herein.

With regard to these cases, the Commission was under no illusion about the depth and breadth of the scourge of illegal drug abuse, or about the courts' ability to solve this age-old problem. Chief Judge Kaye, moreover, made it plain to the Commission that we did not have a mandate to investigate the wisdom of drug-legalization proposals; particular policing strategies; or other social-policy issues. The fact remains, however, that the courts are in a central position to affect the conduct of drug addicts³ who are brought into the justice system. Drug addicts clog the courts' dockets, and they are often recidivists: that is, an addict who ends up criminally charged is highly likely to be responsible for multiple drug and drug-related crimes. It follows that, if the courts could help reduce the number of addicts, there should eventually be a decrease in the number of crimes and court filings; the costs of prosecuting and imprisoning such offenders would, as a consequence, be saved.

In this respect, great strides have been made in recent years. Since 1990, a number of courts and prosecutors in New York and around the country have begun to use the leverage of the criminal justice system to induce non-violent addicts to enter treatment in lieu of incarceration. The central tenet of this treatment approach is that the criminal justice system can provide a unique opportunity to identify addicted defendants, and to persuade them to take responsibility for their addiction by submitting to rigorous treatment.

These efforts have taken a variety of forms, including "Drug Treatment Courts," prosecutor-initiated "Drug Treatment Alternative-to-Prison" ("DTAP") programs, and other similar initiatives. In each case, the common denominator is a policy of requiring addicted defendants to agree to treatment in exchange for a favorable outcome of their cases. Whether such treatment is imposed as an alternative to a conviction, as a means to avoid imprisonment, as a condition of probation, or as a requirement of early release, once a defendant agrees to such treatment, the criminal justice system becomes a powerful forum in which to supervise the treatment, and to motivate an addicted defendant to succeed. Importantly, these treatment concepts are now also being employed in some Family Courts, to induce addicted parents to agree to treatment as a condition of being reunited with their children. These various efforts have shown great promise, particularly in breaking the critical cycle of addiction and recidivism.

To date, these treatment initiatives have been conducted largely on an ad hoc basis, in various venues around the state. While these programs have met with success, and while they have garnered attention and praise in the media, this ad hoc approach has led to a patchwork of efforts. If this type of treatment is to have a true impact, it must be expanded considerably, and in some coordinated way.

The Commission believes that it is now time to expand these programs to every corner of New York State. If this treatment could be made to work on a broad scale, the benefits could be significant. Indeed, we estimate that, last year, there were as many as 10,000 non-violent addicted criminal defendants who could have been eligible for treatment, but who were instead sentenced to jail or prison. If even a fraction of such offenders could be provided treatment in lieu of incarceration, the eventual savings in jail and prison costs could be in the tens of millions of dollars per year, and the related savings in court, social services and other costs could be higher still. (These potential cost savings, of course, say nothing about the benefits to the offenders and their communities that could result from a reduction in addiction and recidivism.) On the Family Court side, successful treatment can create other savings and benefits, such as the reunification of broken families and substantial reductions in the cost of foster care.

To accomplish this expansion of treatment, the Commission's principal recommendation is that the Office of Court Administration ("OCA") launch a systematic, statewide approach to the delivery of "coerced" drug treatment to non-violent addicts in every jurisdiction. This new approach would screen and identify addicts as soon as they are brought into the courts, and then divert eligible offenders into appropriate treatment programs. (Again, the key is that a favorable case result be conditioned upon successful completion of treatment.) This approach should not be limited to criminal cases, but should be extended throughout the state's Family Courts; in addition, these treatment concepts can and should be employed to teach juvenile delinquents the consequences of a continued pattern of drug abuse.

To this end, the Commission recommends that OCA - working with the state's District Attorneys, defense attorneys and other public and private agencies - develop and implement a plan for this statewide delivery of treatment, which should be tailored to the needs and preferences of each jurisdiction. The details of this recommendation are set forth in this Report. The key components include:

• statewide screening of all criminal defendants to identify non-violent addicts who may be eligible for treatment
• in-depth assessment and drug testing of those who are eligible and willing to participate in treatment in exchange for a favorable case disposition
• diversion to appropriate treatment in Drug Courts or other court - or prosecutor-sponsored programs of the types described herein
• supervision and monitoring of addicted offenders by judges and others throughout the treatment process
• continued drug testing and strict systems of sanctions and rewards to motivate defendants to succeed in treatment
• similar approaches to screening, assessment, diversion, and supervision of addicted parents in Family Courts

***

Some Caveats
By way of conclusion to this overview, several caveats are in order.

First, the Commission fully recognizes the importance of balancing the need to provide drug treatment against the need to address public-safety and criminal-justice concerns. All of the court- and prosecutor-based treatment programs the Commission has reviewed draw a distinction between an addicted drug user or low-level seller, on the one hand, and a drug trafficker, on the other. By advocating an expansion of drug treatment for non-violent addicted offenders, the Commission does not recommend a change in law-enforcement strategies toward more serious offenders; such strategies, in the view of law-enforcement professionals, have helped to curb the distribution of illegal drugs and reduce the levels of violent crime in recent years.

Second, this Report does not make a recommendation on whether there should or should not be a repeal of the state's mandatory sentencing laws. It was clear to the Commission from the outset (and was confirmed during the Commission's several discussions on this issue) that it would not be possible to reach agreement on such a recommendation, given the widely divergent views held by the members of the Commission. Section Five of the Report describes these differing views, which have been the subject of extensive debate in recent years. Section Five also sets forth a proposed modification to one aspect of these laws (the A-I felony provisions) that - we believe - could be adopted without significant dispute.

Third, the Commission does not for a moment advocate that the courts abandon their adjudicatory role. The principal duties of the courts are to find facts, to determine and apply the law, to resolve disputes, and to impose appropriate sentences. Judges are neither social workers nor therapists, and the criminal courts, in particular, should not be viewed as places where people should go to satisfy social-welfare needs. That being said, judges who sentence criminal defendants are, by definition, engaged in the business of behavior modification. Any judge who imposes a term of supervision as a condition of a criminal sentence should have an interest in overseeing a defendant's compliance with that condition. Indeed, the treatment programs discussed in this Report rely on the same concepts of accountability, choice, and personal responsibility upon which our criminal laws are founded. Requiring a defendant to make such choices and to accept responsibility as a condition of a criminal plea is completely consistent with a judge's traditional role. What this means is that, in a drug-treatment context, it should not be seen as a radical change in a judge's job description if he or she actively monitors a defendant's drug treatment in connection with a criminal disposition or plea.

Fourth, the prospects for success in these treatment programs should not be overstated. As explained in this Report, a significant fraction of addicted offenders will not be eligible for these programs, and, of those who enter the programs, a significant fraction will not succeed. Of those who succeed, some will later return to drug abuse. These are facts of life which result from the intractability of drug addiction. Nonetheless, the sheer number of addicts in the justice system is such that an expansion of these programs will be worthwhile.

Fifth, the process of expanding the delivery of treatment cannot happen overnight. To obtain the funding, educate the professionals, build the infrastructure and develop the necessary consensus will take a period of years. As this expansion is being implemented, it will be important to continue to study and evaluate the success of these programs. Concepts and approaches that do not work should be rejected and not repeated. The recommendations set forth in this Report should be reconsidered and improved upon continuously.

Finally, as noted at the outset, the Commission is extremely mindful of the inherent limitations of the courts. The causes of drug abuse are deep and complex, and the courts cannot be looked to as the only solution. A true response to this vast social issue must include efforts by families, schools, religious organizations, social-welfare agencies, and other public and private institutions. It is extremely important that the problem of drug abuse not be left at the courts' door.

With the foregoing thoughts in mind, the Commission respectfully submits its Report.

***

The Format of this Report
Section One of this Report provides the historical context for the current criminal-justice-based treatment effort, and outlines the scope of the current drug-crime problem, including statistics on the numbers of drug arrests and dispositions, and the financial and other effects on the courts.

Section Two describes the evolution of the current criminal-justice-based treatment initiatives that are now underway in the state. It discusses the evidence of such programs' success, and the financial and other benefits that can be realized as a result of successful treatment.

Section Three provides a comprehensive survey and evaluation of these current treatment efforts in New York State. These include Drug Treatment Courts; traditional alternative-to-incarceration programs; drug treatment in the Family and Juvenile Courts; prosecutor-sponsored efforts; and probation-based programs. It is the Commission's hope that, at a minimum, this comprehensive survey will make the Report a useful resource from which criminal justice professionals and others can learn about treatment initiatives that could be considered for their own jurisdictions.

Section Four discusses issues that are specific to New York City's Criminal Courts. The Commission has addressed these New York City issues separately in order to avoid drawing statewide conclusions that are premised on the dilemmas of this unique region.

Section Five describes the long-running debate about the state's mandatory sentencing laws, and sets forth a recommendation concerning one of these laws' provisions.

Section Six sets forth the Commission's conclusions and recommendations.

SECTION I

THE PROBLEM OF DRUGS AND THE COURTS

Our state's "war on drugs" has been waged since the early 1970s. In 1973, Governor Nelson Rockefeller of New York - in response to a burgeoning heroin epidemic - announced anti-drug policies that were premised on new law-enforcement strategies and strict mandatory sentencing laws.⁴ With these efforts, Governor Rockefeller initiated an all-out criminal justice offensive against illegal drug abuse, a campaign that was later mirrored by legislative and law-enforcement efforts in other states and in Washington. Thus began an era in which massive amounts of funds and resources were devoted to drug interdiction and anti-drug enforcement, an era that continues to this day.

New York's mandatory drug sentencing laws, of course, have proved extremely controversial over the years (see the discussion in Section Five, below), and critics have regularly questioned the wisdom and efficacy of our drug enforcement efforts.⁵ On the other hand, supporters of those efforts have long argued that these policies and expenditures have helped to rid neighborhoods of drug traffickers, reinforce cultural and moral proscriptions on drug use, and contribute to the unprecedented drop in violent crime that our state has enjoyed over the past ten years.⁶

Regardless of how one views these issues, the fact remains that this enforcement campaign has proved costly, and has had a serious impact on our courts. Those costs and that impact are outlined briefly below. As we see it, the fundamental question is whether there is anything that our courts can do to more efficiently and effectively adjudicate these cases, in a manner that is consistent with existing drug policies and law-enforcement initiatives.

The Impact of Drug Cases on the Criminal Justice System
New York's long-running anti-drug offensive has had a tremendous impact on the state courts. In 1980, for example, there were 27,407 drug arrests in New York State.⁷ By 1990, this number had risen to 103,834; and by 1999, it was 145,694.⁸ The courts' drug caseload in recent years (measured as a function of the number of arrests) thus represents a 430 percent increase over its caseload in 1980. During this time, however, the number of judgeships in the state's court system increased by only 15 percent.⁹ Given these numbers, there can be little dispute that drug cases have put a serious strain on our courts in the past twenty years.

As might be expected, this increase has come at a high cost. The state's lower courts spent $151.5 million handling misdemeanor cases in fiscal year 1999-2000,¹⁰ a year in which approximately 26 percent of the approximately 375,000 misdemeanor cases adjudicated were drug cases.¹¹ That same fiscal year, the state's upper courts spent $278.7 million handling indictments,¹² a year in which drug cases constituted 41 percent of the state's approximately 53,000 indictments.¹³ Based on these figures, it is fair to estimate that the 21,904 drug indictments filed in calendar year 1999¹⁴ cost the court system approximately $115 million to adjudicate.

These numbers, of course, say nothing about the police, prosecution, defense, incarceration, probation and other costs that are incurred in connection with each of these case filings. Probation departments around the state, for example, were assigned 9,369 probation sentences as a result of drug offenses in 1998 (22 percent of all probation sentences).¹⁵ Local corrections departments, which house the state's jail inmates,¹⁶ received 21,180 new drug sentences in 1999.¹⁷ In New York City, where the majority of these sentences were imposed, the average annual per capita cost of jail is $47,083.¹⁸

On the state prison side, the courts sentenced 470 drug offenders to state prison in 1970.¹⁹ In 1980, that number was 886.²⁰ By 1990, the number had grown more than tenfold, to 10,785. The number averaged over 10,000 per year during the 1990s (declining to 8,521 in 1999).²¹ To take a snapshot of the prison population, there were 71,449 inmates in New York State prisons at the end of February 2000. Of that group, 31 percent, or 22,149, were imprisoned for a drug crime.²² The annual cost of imprisoning each of these inmates is approximately $29,000;²³ New York State thus spent nearly $650 million housing its drug felons during the past year. The total cost was in the several billions of dollars during the past ten years.²⁴

In short, regardless of how it is measured, drug cases impose a huge financial cost on the justice system.

The Central Issue of Addiction and Recidivism
Looking at drug crimes²⁵ from the perspective of the courts, the question is whether anything can be done by the courts themselves to deal more effectively with this volume of drug cases. The courts, of course, do not write the state's drug or sentencing laws, nor do they determine prosecution strategies or set drug-policy priorities. The issue is thus whether there is anything —consistent with their adjudicatory role —that our state courts can do.

In the view of the Commission, the answer can be found by studying the population of drug offenders who are regularly brought before the state courts. Many offenders, of course, are drug traffickers who are in the business of selling drugs, and, as noted at the outset, the Commission does not recommend changing the current approach to such drug-trafficking crimes. Still other drug offenders have a history of violence or other attributes which make them inappropriate candidates for anything but vigorous prosecution.

Putting these two categories of offenders aside, however, there remains a large number of offenders who are non-violent addicts, whose repeated drug and drug-related crimes are motivated by their addiction. In the Commission's view, if the courts could focus on and reduce the crimes of at least some percentage of this group, the effect on crime rates and the courts' dockets could be significant indeed. As we see it, the courts can and should work to reduce the number of crimes committed by such offenders, by requiring these offenders to confront and take responsibility for their addiction.

All of the available surveys and data support the proposition that the state's drug-offending population is comprised, in significant part, of addicted recidivists. In 1998, for example, at least 35 percent of the defendants whose drug cases were adjudicated in that year had one or more prior drug convictions.²⁶ A recent study by the New York State Division of Parole shows that 30 percent of drug offenders on parole had their parole revoked for committing new felonies within three years.²⁷ According to a 1993 study by the New York City Criminal Justice Agency, roughly 50 percent of all drug felony arrestees convicted in New York City were rearrested within two years.²⁸

State prison statistics similarly show that drug offenders are commonly recidivists. For example, of the drug offenders released from state prison in 1998, 34 percent were rearrested within a year; of these rearrests, almost two-thirds were rearrested for new drug crimes.²⁹ Rearrest rates after three years are even higher. For example, of the drug offenders released from state prison in 1996, 56 percent were rearrested within three years; more than two-thirds of these were rearrested for new drug crimes.³⁰ Drug offenders released throughout the 1990s showed similar rearrest rates. These studies and statistics all support the conclusion that there is a core group of drug offenders in the state whose drug crimes are highly likely to continue. Each of these offenders, over time, will be responsible for multiple drug and drug-related crimes.

Studies, experience and common sense also dictate that a large percentage of these recidivists are addicts whose crimes stem from their addiction. For example, a study by the National Institute of Justice estimates that, in 1998, approximately 90 percent of those arrested in New York City for a drug offense (and approximately 80 percent of adults arrested for all offenses) tested positive for drugs at the time of arrest.³¹ The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University ("CASA") estimates that 75 percent of all arrests in New York City are linked to drug or alcohol abuse,³² and that 80 percent of jail and prison inmates are substance-involved.³³ While not every person who tests positive for drugs at the time of arrest is an addict, according to the New York State Department of Correctional Services ("DOCS"), a conservative estimate is that 67 percent of state prisoners have such a problem.³⁴

In our view, this group of addicted offenders should be targeted for intensive and rigorous treatment. If even a fraction of these addicts can be motivated to become drug-free, the benefits in crime reduction, and the savings to our courts, jails, prisons and criminal-justice agencies (not to mention society at large), could be significant. As discussed below, courts and prosecutors around the state have increasingly been making an effort to identify such addicts, and to induce them to enter into criminal-justice-based treatment.

SECTION II

THE PROMISE OF DRUG TREATMENT

The New Treatment Effort
In an effort to address this cycle of addiction and recidivism, a variety of innovations have been developed in recent years to provide drug treatment to addicts in the criminal justice system. The innovations have taken various forms, but throughout the country the most widespread and - by now - well-known is the concept of the "Drug Treatment Court."

As discussed more fully in Section Three, Drug Treatment Courts require non-violent addicted offenders to participate in intensive drug treatment programs as an alternative to a sentence of probation, jail or prison. In a Drug Treatment Court, an offender's progress and compliance with the court's conditions are actively monitored by the court, which imposes a system of graduated sanctions and rewards to encourage compliance and success. Drug Treatment Courts are premised on a recognition that the criminal justice system is in a unique position to identify and confront addicted offenders, and that the system has the coercive power to motivate offenders to accept rigorous and sustained treatment. By using the threat of incarceration and other sanctions, Drug Treatment Courts have experienced marked success in recent years.

The first Drug Treatment Court was established in Miami in 1989, in response to a wave of cocaine-related arrests that were overwhelming the court system in southern Florida at that time.³⁵ Shortly thereafter, numerous other jurisdictions with large drug-related caseloads began to develop Drug Treatment Courts based on the same principles. By now, the treatment court concept has taken hold throughout the country and has gathered wide public and political support. There are now over 450 Drug Court programs in all 50 states, plus the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico and two federal districts.³⁶ Nearly 300 additional programs currently are being developed,³⁷ and it has been estimated that approximately 200,000 individuals have enrolled in Drug Courts throughout the country since the first such court was established in 1989.³⁸ There are now associations of Drug Court professionals at the national level and in many states (including New York), and there is a National Drug Court Institute, which promotes education and research for Drug Courts, trains practitioners and publishes a semi-annual National Drug Court Institute Review. In addition, within the United States Department of Justice there is a Drug Court Program Office, which will administer $50 million in federal funding for Drug Courts in fiscal year 2000.³⁹ At this point, there are twenty states that have enacted or that are currently considering legislation relating to the planning, operation, and/or funding of Drug Courts.⁴⁰

The treatment and intervention principles at the core of these Drug Court programs have also been developed concurrently by prosecutors' offices, which have implemented their own alternative-to-incarceration initiatives. (Again, such programs are discussed in detail in Section Three.) The scope and nature of these programs varies widely, but all spring from the same fundamental recognition that the coercive power of the criminal justice system can be a powerful tool to combat substance abuse.

In academic literature as well as in the popular media, Drug Courts and other such programs have received widespread attention and support.⁴¹ Among the most outspoken advocates for Drug Courts and other forms of treatment for non-violent addicts has been General Barry McCaffrey, Director of the White House's Office of National Drug Control Policy.⁴² As General McCaffrey has observed:

It is clear that we cannot arrest our way out of the problem of chronic drug abuse and drug-driven crime. We cannot continue to apply policies and programs that do not deal with the root causes of substance abuse and attendant crime. . . .

It is possible to break the tragic cycle of drugs and crime by reducing drug consumption and recidivism rates among those involved in the criminal justice system. We must accelerate the development and fielding of drug treatment programs that offer alternatives to imprisonment for selected non-violent drug- and alcohol-abusing criminals. We must expand drug treatment availability both for drug-dependent inmates and those who remain under the supervision of the criminal justice system while on probation or parole. We can slow and eventually reverse the ongoing trend that has resulted in hundreds of thousands of additional Americans behind bars. The end result will be fewer addicts and drug users, less demand for drugs, less drug trafficking, less drug-related crime and violence, and fewer people locked up.⁴³

Others who are on the front lines of crime control also favor treatment as a way of reducing crime among non-violent addicts. In a survey of more than 300 police chiefs throughout the country, 59 percent responded that they favored requiring drug users (as opposed to dealers) to enter court-supervised treatment programs, as compared with only 13 percent who favored jail sentences of less than two years, and 15 percent who favored mandatory minimum sentences of more than two years.⁴⁴ Such views are also shared by the public at large: a 1999 poll of 700 voters throughout New York State revealed that 74 percent favored treatment over jail or prison for offenders charged with drug possession, as compared with 19 percent who favored incarceration.⁴⁵

The Emerging Evidence of Success
Evaluations of Drug Courts throughout the country have determined that they are effective in keeping offenders in treatment, and that they ultimately reduce the number of new crimes that treated offenders commit. Because many Drug Courts are relatively new and have limited data from which to draw conclusions, continuing research into the effectiveness of Drug Courts is critical.⁴⁶ Nonetheless, the success of Drug Courts is now well enough established to warrant their continued expansion. In the most recent and comprehensive review and analysis of Drug Courts to date, covering 59 independent evaluations of 48 different Drug Courts throughout the country, Columbia University's National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse concluded:

Drug Courts continue to engage drug offenders in long-term treatment and other services who have had limited treatment exposure in the past, providing more regular and closer supervision than received by those under other forms of criminal justice supervision in the community. Drug use rates (as measured by urine test results) and criminal activity (as measured by re-arrests) are comparatively reduced while participants are in the program. In those evaluations that included a comparison group, post-program rearrest rates for graduates are lower than for comparison sample offenders, and lower than those who drop out or are terminated from the program. Overall, comparing all Drug Court clients with comparison offenders, most studies found lower post-program rearrest rates for Drug Court participants.⁴⁷

Among the conclusions reached by this survey of 59 Drug Court evaluations are the following:

· Drug Courts increasingly are admitting more difficult to treat offenders, including addicts who have previously been unsuccessful in treatment, second felony offenders, and offenders with complex mental and physical health care needs.

· The proportion of positive urine tests is low for Drug Court participants, indicating a high level of sobriety and compliance with Drug Court conditions. Among the 13 courts reporting urinalysis test results, an average of 10 percent of participants tested positive for illegal drugs, as compared with an average of 31 percent for similar defendants under probation supervision in the same jurisdictions.

· Nationally, about 60 percent of all individuals who enter Drug Courts are still in treatment after one year, an important statistic as longer periods of treatment are associated with better treatment results. This 60 percent one-year retention rate compares favorably with retention rates among substance abusers who enter treatment without the involvement of the criminal justice system, or without active court supervision. One national study revealed that only half of those who were voluntarily admitted to outpatient treatment stayed three months or longer.⁴⁸ Similarly, a study of treatment retention among parolees in New York State found that only 31 percent remained in treatment after six months.⁴⁹

· Rates of rearrest while offenders are participating in Drug Court programs also remain low. For example, only 4 percent of participants in the Delaware adult Drug Court were rearrested during treatment; 3 percent in the Santa Clara County (California) Drug Court; and 12 percent in the Ventura County (California) Drug Court (as compared with a 32 percent rearrest rate for a comparison group of non-participants).⁵⁰

· Finally, Drug Court graduates consistently have lower recidivism rates than comparison groups of offenders. For example, 13 percent of graduates from the Jefferson County (Kentucky) Drug Court were reconvicted of a felony within a year, as compared with 60 percent of non-graduates and 55 percent of a comparison group that declined to participate.⁵¹ Similarly, in a 24-month followup of participants in the Multnomah County (Oregon) Drug Court, the average number of arrests per participant was .59, as compared with 1.53 for the comparison group.⁵²

In New York State, where there are currently 20 Drug Treatment Courts in operation, the retention rates⁵³ and recidivism rates of graduates are consistent with those reported elsewhere throughout the country. The vast majority of these courts report one-year retention rates of over 60 percent and many report one-year retention rates well over 70 percent.⁵⁴ See Appendix B. Among graduates of New York's Drug Court programs, most courts report one-year rearrest rates of less than 15 percent, See Appendix B, far below the 34-35 percent rearrest rates for drug offenders in the year after they are released from state prison or placed on probation.⁵⁵

Other Drug Court evaluations have also reported success. The following is a sampling of some of the retention and recidivism statistics reported in such evaluations:

· As of May 15, 1997, the two Baltimore, Maryland Drug Court programs had enrolled 297 and 1334 individuals with retention rates of 93 percent and 52 percent, respectively. Among the programs' graduates, there was a 14 percent rearrest rate and a 3 percent conviction rate.⁵⁶

· The Oakland, California court system has had a successful Drug Court treatment program in operation since 1991. As of May 15, 1997, the Municipal and Superior Courts had enrolled 5,564 and 1,879 participants, respectively, with corresponding program retention rates of 50 percent and 84 percent. The Oakland Municipal court experienced a 50 percent drop in recidivism for program participants.⁵⁷

· The Kalamazoo, Michigan court system has instituted the Substance Abuse Diversion Program for Female Offenders.⁵⁸ The program accepts women who have been charged with non-violent felony offenses, and women who are facing drug-related probation violations. As of July 1998, only 10 percent of the program's graduates had been arrested for new offenses. The program had a 55 percent retention rate. In addition, twenty-nine of the thirty-three pregnant women enrolled in the program delivered drug-free babies.⁵⁹

· The Escambia Juvenile Drug Court Treatment Program in Florida, begun in 1996, has also been successful. As of January 1999, fourteen juveniles had graduated from the program, twenty-four were still participating, and fourteen had been terminated from the program. As of January 1999, only one of the fourteen graduates had been rearrested.⁶⁰

· From 1989 to 1993, Miami's Drug Court placed over 4,500 offenders into court-supervised treatment. By 1993, two-thirds had remained in treatment (1,270) or graduated (1,700). Among graduates, 9.7 percent were rearrested and convicted twelve months after graduation, 13.2 percent after eighteen months, and 24 percent after five years. These numbers compare favorably with the general drug arrest recidivism rate in Miami, which is estimated at up to 60 percent.⁶¹

New York's prosecutor-initiated programs have had similar success. For example, the Kings County District Attorney's Drug Treatment Alternative-to-Prison ("DTAP") program reports a current one-year retention rate of 74 percent, and a three-year rearrest rate of 23 percent for graduates, compared to 47 percent of a comparison group.⁶² The New York County District Attorney's DTAP program reports an overall retention rate⁶³ of 70.3 percent and a one-year rearrest rate among graduates of 4.3 percent.⁶⁴ The Queens County District Attorney's DTAP program reports a 77.7 percent overall retention rate and an estimated 20 percent one-year rearrest rate for DTAP graduates. The Onondaga County District Attorney's Project PROUD program reports a 62.9 percent overall retention rate; 22 percent of its graduates have been arrested since graduation. The average overall retention rate for prosecutor-based programs that have reported figures to the Commission is 66 percent.

In short, looking at all the available data, it is clear that criminal-justice-based programs using supervised treatment in lieu of incarceration are having a positive effect on drug use and recidivism in New York State and throughout the country.

The Benefits of Successful Treatment
The decrease in recidivism rates makes it clear that successful treatment reduces crime; in addition, successful treatment can also create significant financial benefits. These include reduced prison and jail costs; long-term savings in court costs; and broader social benefits such as reductions in welfare, health care, and foster care costs that result when addicts are returned to stable lives. As discussed below, while some of these benefits are not easily quantifiable, numerous reports and surveys indicate that such benefits can be achieved. Given the sheer number of addicts in the criminal justice system, even a modest reduction in the recidivism rates of these addicts should provide significant savings to our communities.

Savings in Jail and Prison Costs
Drug Courts and other treatment diversion programs have the potential to save millions of dollars per year in jail and prison costs.⁶⁵ As noted above, in New York State, the average cost of incarcerating an offender in state prison for a year is almost $29,000. The cost of jail in some jurisdictions is even higher, although it varies widely across the state. For example, in New York City, where a substantial percentage of the state's non-violent addicts are incarcerated, the average annual per capita cost of jail is over $47,000.⁶⁶

In contrast, according to information provided by the New York State Office of Alcoholism and Substance Abuse Services ("OASAS"), the state agency responsible for licensing and funding substance abuse treatment, the average cost of a non-residential, or "outpatient," treatment slot is $5,100, and the average cost of a residential treatment slot is $18,400.⁶⁷ Put simply, treatment is far less expensive than incarceration.

Some of the evaluations of Drug Courts and other diversion programs throughout the country have attempted to quantify the cost savings resulting from avoided incarceration and the lower crime rates of treatment participants. Those that have done so have identified substantial costs that can be saved over time. One in-depth study of the Drug Court in Multnomah County, Oregon, for example, concluded that a one-year admissions cohort of 440 Drug Court participants resulted in $2.5 million in criminal justice system cost savings, or $5,629 per participant, over a two-year period (net of the annual $1 million cost of administering treatment through the program).⁶⁸ Similarly, by treating 102 offenders in one year, the Riverside County, California Drug Court produced an estimated net cost savings of $2 million in avoided jail, prison and parole costs.⁶⁹ The Kings County DTAP program estimates that, as of June 1, 2000, its 454 graduates have saved taxpayers $16.7 million, of which $13 million, or approximately $28,000 per graduate, were correction savings. The Brooklyn Treatment Court estimates it saves approximately $13,000 per participant in correction costs alone.⁷⁰

If similar savings were to be realized by diversion programs in other jurisdictions, the eventual savings to the state would be very significant. Indeed, we estimate that, in 1999, as many as 10,000 of the drug offenders and non-violent property offenders who were sentenced to jail and prison could have been enrolled in the Drug Court and DTAP programs discussed in this Report.⁷¹ If a substantial number of such offenders were to be enrolled in treatment programs in lieu of incarceration, the savings to taxpayers in avoided incarceration costs could eventually be in the tens of millions of dollars per year.

Other Benefits and Savings
As noted above, in addition to saving the immediate costs of incarcerating non-violent offenders, these programs create additional savings by reducing crime and avoiding victim losses and other criminal justice costs, as well as by producing a wide variety of social benefits and cost savings which, while difficult to quantify, are no less important. Successful treatment can, for example, reduce public assistance caseloads, reduce health care costs, and allow children to be removed from foster care and reunited with their parents. Two recent studies show that investing one dollar in treatment eventually saves taxpayers three dollars in such costs;⁷² other studies show even greater savings.⁷³

These estimates are corroborated by Drug Court evaluations that have examined and attempted to quantify these secondary social benefits. For example, a two-year evaluation of the Multnomah County (Oregon) Drug Court reported nearly $8 million in savings for every annual cohort of 440 participants (or $17,606 per participant), based on the effects of reduced crime, reduced public assistance caseloads, and reduced medical claims, above and beyond the nearly $2.5 million in pure criminal justice savings.⁷⁴ Similarly, the Kalamazoo, Michigan Substance Abuse Diversion Program for Female Offenders estimated that, during its first five years, the program saved taxpayers $3 million, based upon savings in attorneys' fees, incarceration, foster care and medical expenses.⁷⁵

Within New York State, the Erie County Department of Social Services determined, in a study of 176 Buffalo City Drug Court graduates, that out of 106 who had open social services cases (Medicaid, Food Stamps, and/or Public Assistance) when they enrolled in Drug Court, 45 (involving 61 individuals) had such cases closed; fifteen children who were in foster care were returned to their homes; four crack-free babies were born to former addicts; 18 Child Protective Services ("CPS") cases were closed; 51 children involved in CPS cases were allowed to remain in their homes; nine children were removed from social services rolls due to increased child support from parent-graduates; and more than $40,000 was collected in back child-support payments. The gross savings for a five-year period are estimated to be over $5.6 million.⁷⁶ The Kings County DTAP program similarly estimates that its 454 graduates have saved taxpayers approximately $9,000 per graduate in health care savings, public assistance savings, recidivism savings, and increased tax revenue.⁷⁷

Again, while savings in secondary social benefits may be difficult to quantify with precision, these are the kinds of benefits that can reasonably be anticipated to result from successful treatment.

The Effects on Addicted Defendants Themselves
The experiences and accounts of those who have successfully completed these treatment programs strongly support the conclusion that "coerced" treatment works, and illustrate the critical role that the courts can play in supervising treatment. Whether at court-sponsored "graduation" ceremonies or in individual interviews, these recovering addicts universally point to the importance of having been confronted about their addiction upon their arrest, that is, of having been forced by the criminal justice system to recognize that they had finally "hit bottom." Most acknowledge that they would not have sought treatment voluntarily, and all credit the role of the judge and other authority figures in the program as having been critical to their decision to accept personal responsibility for their addiction, and to their ultimate success in treatment.

One such participant, for example, stated, "When I first arrived at [Brooklyn Treatment Court] I really needed help. But I don't think I would have received it unless I was forced to. I think at times that a person has to be forced in order for that person to really see the `big picture.'" A graduate of the Kings County DTAP program similarly noted that close supervision was instrumental in changing his mindset, that "strict rules and regulations helped [me to] control aggressive behavior and take responsibility for things." A participant in the Bronx Treatment Court wrote the following in a letter to the treatment court judge:

This is a letter of appreciation. I don't know if anybody that you sentence to treatment ever thanked you for their sentence. Well, for me, I thank you from the bottom of my heart. Because the road that I was taking only was leading me to death and self-destruction; an unbearable amount of fear; and pain. . . . You gave me a chance to try a different road, and in this road, I found strength and learned to accept and to live life on life's terms. I learned I needed help. And you opened the door.

Obviously, these subjective testimonials cannot, standing alone, make the case for a dramatic expansion of "coerced" treatment. They do, however, provide a valuable insight into why these programs work; in other words, they help to explain why this interventionist approach makes sense in the context of the justice system.⁷⁸

A Note About Addiction and Treatment
As suggested above, a key reason why these approaches have shown success is that they provide the external motivation that is necessary to force addicts to confront their addiction and accept personal responsibility. These programs recognize that addiction is a chronic and recurring condition, and that an addict, once addicted, ordinarily cannot overcome his or her addiction simply by "choosing" to become drug-free. Drug addiction creates both a physical and a psychological dependence, and results in physical, psychological, social, economic and legal harms to an addict: harms that are tolerated and accepted by the addict as the necessary consequences of continued drug use. What this points to is the need for external influence and coercion: if an addict is willing to tolerate all these self-inflicted harms, it is unreasonable to believe that he or she will - without outside pressure - develop the necessary motivation to overcome his or her addiction.

It is precisely this type of external influence that court- and prosecutor-sponsored treatment programs are bringing to bear on addicted offenders in the justice system. The reason why these programs are achieving success is that they combine highly structured treatment with a clear system of external sanctions and rewards that promote consequential thinking and personal responsibility. Again, it is the coercive leverage provided by the threat of incarceration and other sanctions that is key.

***

If a widespread expansion of Drug Courts and other such programs is to be seriously contemplated, it will be important to understand how the different programs work, what resources are required, and what types of offenders can be appropriately reached. This is because no one approach will be right for every jurisdiction and, even within a given jurisdiction, different approaches may coexist side by side. With this in mind, the next section of the Report presents a detailed review and evaluation of the various court- and prosecutor-based treatment efforts now underway in New York State.

SECTION III

A REVIEW AND EVALUATION OF COURT- AND PROSECUTOR-BASED TREATMENT EFFORTS

Drug Treatment Courts
How Drug Treatment Courts Work
Drug Treatment Courts are specialized court parts that give non-violent⁷⁹ substance-abusing offenders an opportunity to reduce or eliminate criminal justice sanctions if they are successful in completing treatment. Participants regularly report back to court, as often as once a week, to be drug tested and to have their progress monitored by the Drug Court judge, who coordinates with treatment providers to monitor an offender in treatment. If the offender remains drug-free and makes positive strides in treatment, the judge provides positive reinforcement and may allow the offender to advance to the next stage of the program. If the offender resumes using drugs or otherwise fails in treatment, the judge imposes a variety of graduated sanctions, which may include short periods of incarceration. Ultimately, if the offender succeeds in treatment and graduates from the program, the pending charges are reduced or dismissed. If the offender fails and is dismissed from the program, he or she is then prosecuted (or, in some cases, immediately sentenced) and faces the full panoply of applicable criminal sanctions.

Eligibility
Drug Courts are not intended for all offenders charged with a drug-related crime. First of all, the offender must in fact have a substance abuse problem. Individuals who sell drugs as a business, rather than selling small quantities simply as a way of supporting their own addictions, are not eligible. Similarly, Drug Courts are typically not available to an offender who is violent. Additional restrictions may also be imposed in different jurisdictions. Many courts, for example, have adopted a blanket policy that any cases involving drug sales near a school are ineligible. And some courts, particularly some of the upstate courts, only handle misdemeanors. On the other hand, some courts are willing to accept cases even if the underlying charge is not a drug charge, where it is clear that the offense (often such offenses as petit larceny, trespass, or prostitution) and the offender's criminal history stem from substance abuse.

Intake
Offenders who are found eligible for Drug Court are diverted there as quickly as possible, usually within a few days to a week after arraignment. It is important to divert offenders into Drug Court quickly, to take maximum advantage of the moment of crisis surrounding an arrest, and to transform it into an opportunity for intervention. Referrals to the Drug Court typically come from a variety of different sources, including the arraignment judge or clerk, the prosecutor, the defense attorney, or a pretrial services agency. After a case is referred to the Drug Court, a determination is made, either by a case manager employed by the court who is trained in screening cases, or by a representative of a treatment provider, a local mental health department, or another public or private organization, as to whether the offender is genuinely an addict and is otherwise appropriate for the program. If the offender is deemed eligible, a complete assessment will be done, including a history of the individual's substance abuse problem, as well as the individual's other particularized problems and needs.⁸⁰ This assessment, in turn, will result in the creation of a treatment plan.

If an eligible individual decides to participate (after consultation with defense counsel), and after being told what participation will entail, he or she will typically sign a contract agreeing to abide by the procedures and requirements of the treatment court, and will then be brought before the treatment court judge. In some courts, the judge will take a plea from the defendant and adjourn sentencing pending the successful completion of the Drug Court program.⁸¹ In such a case, successful completion will result in a lesser sentence (usually probation) or a withdrawal of the plea and either a plea to a lesser offense or an outright dismissal of the charge. ⁸² Other courts use a "deferred prosecution" model, in which a plea is not entered, and the defendant is given the opportunity to reduce the pending charge (or avoid prosecution altogether) if he or she completes treatment. Regardless of the particular approach, the offender is always advised up front of the specific consequences (including the sentence) that will follow if he or she fails to complete the program.

Administration
In addition to the Drug Court judge, Drug Courts generally have a staff of professionals who help to monitor offenders in treatment and who serve as a link between the criminal justice and treatment communities. "Case managers" may be employed to assess the treatment needs of individual participants, recommend appropriate placements, and monitor the progress of defendants in treatment. A "resource coordinator" typically serves as a liaison between the court, the case managers and treatment providers, delivering status reports to the court and reporting back to the treatment staff regarding actions taken by the court. A "project director" may also be responsible for general oversight of all administrative aspects of the Drug Court.⁸³ In addition, many Drug Courts have a lab technician to administer on-site drug tests, and some have designated warrant squads which will immediately serve warrants upon participants who are absent from a scheduled appearance. Finally, the prosecutors and defense attorneys who practice in Drug Court are often specially designated to the part, so they may develop expertise in the nature of addiction and the treatment process.

Treatment
Broadly speaking, treatment may be either outpatient or residential, or a combination of the two (residential followed by outpatient). Whereas outpatient treatment focuses on individual counseling, residential treatment is commonly provided in "therapeutic communities." The goal of therapeutic communities is to prompt drug abusers to undergo a complete change in lifestyle, including abstinence from drugs, elimination of antisocial behavior, and the development of employable skills, self confidence, and improved character traits. All treatment providers must be licensed by the New York State Office of Alcoholism and Substance Abuse Services, which subsidizes the cost of treatment, to the extent that it is not otherwise paid for by other public entitlements, private insurance, or client fees.⁸⁴

Supervision
Once an offender has enrolled in a Drug Court program, he or she is required to report back to court on a regular basis, often as frequently as once a week in the early stages of the program. Most Drug Court programs are divided into "phases" which impose certain requirements on the participant - for example, a certain number of days "clean" - before the participant can move on to the next phase. As participants progress to successive phases, they are required to report to court less frequently (every other week or once a month).

At each court appearance, the participant is required to take a drug test. Generally these drug tests are conducted on site, with the results immediately available to the Drug Court judge.⁸⁵ The judge is therefore able to confront the participant if the test shows that he or she has been using drugs. This immediacy is regarded as a powerful tool in breaking through the denial that often accompanies substance abuse problems. Many courts have not only the technology to confront offenders with immediate drug-test results, but also the computer capabilities to track the entire history of the offender's progress through treatment, including all missed treatment appointments and all positive drug tests.⁸⁶ Treatment providers, as well as case managers employed by the court, actively monitor the offenders and, with the help of the court's resource coordinator, inform the judge at each court appearance whether an offender has complied with the treatment requirements.

Sanctions and Rewards
As participants progress or regress in treatment, Drug Court judges employ a continuum of graduated sanctions and rewards as an incentive to complete treatment.⁸⁷ If a participant has tested positive for drugs or failed to attend treatment meetings, the judge may impose sanctions which range from requiring the participant to sit in the jury box during a day of Drug Court (to witness the contrast between those who are succeeding and those who are failing); requiring the participant to perform community service; increasing the frequency with which the participant is required to report to treatment; increasing the level of treatment from outpatient to inpatient; or sentencing the participant to short periods of incarceration. For participants who fail to appear in Drug Court on their scheduled date, some courts (as mentioned above) have their own warrant squads which will immediately arrest absconders and bring them back to court. (Again, this immediacy and accountability is regarded as key to successful treatment.) If a participant is doing well in treatment and has satisfied the requirements of a particular treatment phase, the judge will allow the participant to progress to the next stage of the program on the way to graduation. On the other hand, a participant who does not participate, or who otherwise fails to meet the court's conditions, can be prosecuted or sentenced immediately.

Other Services
Aside from drug testing and imposing graduated sanctions and rewards, Drug Courts typically provide and coordinate a wide range of services other than drug treatment. Often, it is as important for rehabilitative purposes for an offender to receive education, job training, basic health care, or housing assistance as it is to receive drug treatment. Drug Court case managers and judges will thus track the progress being made in these areas as well. Some courts even have their own on-site facilities where participants can obtain medical advice or help in applying for public benefits. (Case managers play a key role in the provision of those services.) In order to graduate from many Drug Court programs, participants must not only have been drug-free for the period prescribed by the program (which varies depending on the court but is most commonly over a year), but also must satisfy other requirements likely to encourage a drug-free lifestyle, such as having a job or obtaining a G.E.D. or vocational degree.

A Different Mindset
In the broadest sense, Drug Courts not only apply different procedures than those used in traditional criminal cases, but also embody an enhanced model of adjudication, one that is focused on actively solving problems, as well as deciding cases. As a result, a different culture typically prevails in Drug Court, one which may require judges, prosecutors and defense attorneys to depart somewhat from traditional conceptions of their roles. Prosecutors in Drug Courts are willing to allow charges to be reduced or dismissed upon successful treatment because they have recognized that, in this class of cases, treatment can be more effective than incarceration in reducing crime. Prosecutors also recognize that many defendants regard commitment to drug treatment as a harsher penalty than serving a limited prison sentence, which some addicts view as the "easy way out." Similarly, defense attorneys who recommend Drug Court to their clients may do so despite the fact that it may entail a longer overall period of supervision by the criminal justice system, recognizing that, in the absence of effective treatment, their clients are likely to be back in the criminal justice system again and again, with more serious charges eventually facing them down the road.⁸⁸

The Drug Court judge, similarly, serves less as a passive arbiter of legal and factual arguments, and more as a problem solver who uses the authority of the court to play an active role in helping participants become drug-free. Drug Court judges often address the offender directly, reprimanding him or her when there has been a failure in treatment, and encouraging or praising him or her when progress has been made. For many participants, the close attention paid to them by the Drug Court judge, and the positive reinforcement they obtain for succeeding, may be the first time that they have experienced this kind of enhancement of their self-esteem. The Drug Court judge becomes a single, reliable authority figure who will immediately hold participants accountable when they fail, and who will acknowledge their progress when they succeed. This undoubtedly puts a different face on the criminal justice system for most substance abusers, and it seems to play an important role in achieving positive results in treatment.

***

Although all Drug Courts share the common elements described above, variations in approach will be found from court to court. Below we provide a brief overview of the landscape of New York State Drug Courts.

A Profile of New York State DrugTreatment Courts: Variations in Approach
The first Drug Treatment Court in New York State was established in Rochester in 1995. In 1996, the Unified Court System received federal funding for operation of the Brooklyn Treatment Court. There are currently 20 Drug Treatment Courts in operation throughout New York State, in jurisdictions as diverse as Manhattan and the other boroughs of New York City; upstate metropolitan areas like Buffalo, Rochester, and Syracuse; smaller jurisdictions such as City Courts in Lackawanna, Troy, and Tonawanda, among others; and Town Courts in Amherst, Rockland, and Cheektowaga. A table depicting all Drug Treatment Courts in operation throughout the state and some of the more pertinent statistics relating to them is included in Appendix B to this Report. Another nine adult Drug Treatment Courts throughout the state are in the planning stages.⁸⁹ A map depicting the locations of the existing and planned Drug Courts throughout the state is included in Appendix B.

While adhering to the common elements of the Drug Court model described above, Drug Courts throughout the state differ in their approaches to a variety of issues based on the decisions made by the local participants who plan the particular court. Among other things, courts differ in their eligibility requirements; the stage of the criminal justice process at which they divert offenders into treatment (i.e., pre-plea or post-adjudication); the consequences of success or failure in treatment; the methods of referral, screening, assessment, and monitoring; the frequency with which participants are required to report back to court; the requirements for graduation; the length of the program; the type and length of treatment provided; and the range of services other than drug treatment that are provided by the courts.

Apart from these specific court-to-court distinctions, there tends to be a basic distinction between the Drug Courts in New York City and those in the rest of the state. The Drug Courts in New York City primarily handle felony drug cases (felony possession or sales by low-level drug sellers who use their proceeds to support their addiction), whereas the Drug Courts in the rest of the state primarily handle misdemeanors. The reasons for this distinction are twofold. First, there has thus far been a general unwillingness outside of New York City to extend the Drug Court approach to felony drug crimes. Second, although there is a willingness in New York City to use Drug Courts to divert misdemeanants into court-supervised treatment, the approach tends to be less effective than it is elsewhere, because of the huge volume of misdemeanor arrests in New York City.⁹⁰ As described more fully in Section Four, the number of misdemeanor filings is so greatly in excess of the trial capacities of the New York City Criminal Courts that - in the vast majority of cases - there is simply no credible threat that a case will go to trial. As a result, penalties imposed for most misdemeanor offenses, even where the offender has already been convicted of numerous misdemeanors, tend to be minimal. Without the threat of a more significant jail sentence, courts lack the leverage to induce offenders to opt for rigorous treatment.⁹¹ Outside of New York City, however, where there is a credible threat of trial in misdemeanor cases, more substantial jail sentences are common. Accordingly, Drug Court judges outside of New York City more often have the leverage necessary to convince misdemeanor defendants to enter drug treatment as an alternative to incarceration.

New York State's TreatmentCourts: Evidence of Success
According to information provided to the Commission by the individual Drug Courts, approximately 8,875 individuals have enrolled in Drug Courts throughout the state since the first Drug Treatment Court was opened in Rochester in 1995.⁹² (See Appendix B.) Approximately 6,523 of these individuals have enrolled in Drug Treatment Courts outside of New York City, which primarily handle misdemeanors, and approximately 2,352 have enrolled in New York City Drug Treatment Courts, which primarily handle felonies. Of the 8,875 statewide participants since the programs began, 5,358 individuals have either graduated successfully or are still in treatment. A total of 2,030 have successfully graduated, including 1,568 from upstate treatment courts and 462 from New York City treatment courts. Another 3,328 individuals who enrolled in such courts are still active participants, including 2,231 from upstate treatment courts and 1,097 from New York City courts. A total of 2,923, or one-third of Drug Court enrollees, have failed and have been prosecuted, including 2,346 (36 percent) in misdemeanor courts and 577 (25 percent) in felony courts.⁹³

The number of individuals enrolled in Drug Courts throughout the state has increased substantially each year as more and more Drug Treatment Courts have begun operations. In 1999, approximately 2,859 individuals enrolled in Drug Treatment Courts throughout the state, including 1,938 in misdemeanor treatment courts and 921 in felony treatment courts.

Retention Rates
The one-year retention rates reported by these courts, defined as the percentage of individuals who have either graduated from the program or who are still active participants after twelve months of enrollment, are impressive. (See Appendix B.) The vast majority of Drug Courts in the state report one-year retention rates of over 60 percent, and many have one-year retention rates over 70 percent. (See Appendix B.) These figures vastly exceed the retention rate for substance abusers who enter treatment without the coercive "stick" of the criminal justice system providing an incentive to complete treatment.⁹⁴ These results are consistent with results in other parts of the country, as described more fully in Section Two.

Recidivism
Similarly, as with other jurisdictions throughout the country, the preliminary indications are not only that Drug Courts in New York are successful at keeping participants in treatment, but also that graduates are far less likely to commit new crimes than those who are released from jail or prison, or who are placed on probation. Among graduates of Drug Court programs, the one-year rearrest rate reported by most of the Drug Courts with enough graduates to have meaningful results is less than 15 percent. (See Appendix B.⁹⁵) The Brooklyn Treatment Court, which has undertaken a comprehensive analysis of official New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services ("DCJS") criminal history records, has determined that only 12 percent of its graduates have been arrested within one year of completing the program (6 percent for a drug crime), and only 7 percent have been convicted (3 percent for a drug crime).⁹⁶ These numbers are far below the one-year recidivism rates of drug offenders on probation and drug offenders released from prison, which are generally about 34 to 35 percent.⁹⁷ In other words, the available information suggests that graduates of Drug Courts in New York State are, on average, over fifty percent less likely to be arrested for a new crime within the first year of their graduation than are offenders within the first year of their being placed on probation or being released from prison.

Some Drug Court participants, of course, do not graduate. Of these participants, a small percentage are arrested - almost exclusively for non-violent crimes - while participating in Drug Court programs. (See Appendix B.) Based on information provided to the Commission by the individual Drug Courts, the percentage of Drug Court participants who are arrested while enrolled is less than 10 percent for most Drug Courts in the state, and the percentage who are arrested for violent crimes while enrolled is less than one percent. This is far less than the 35 percent of probationers statewide who are rearrested within a year of being put on probation,⁹⁸ and the 34 percent of drug offenders released from state prison who are rearrested within one year of their release,⁹⁹ particularly since many Drug Court participants are enrolled for more than one year.

Cost Savings
As discussed in Section Two, above, supervising an offender in Drug Treatment Court is also dramatically cheaper than housing the offender in jail or prison. It costs, on average, almost $29,000 per year to incarcerate an individual in state prison,¹⁰⁰ and in New York City the average annual per capita cost of jail is over $47,000.¹⁰¹ By contrast, according to information provided by the New York State Office of Alcoholism and Substance Abuse Services ("OASAS"), it costs an average of $18,400 per year to keep an individual in residential drug treatment, and an average of $5,100 per year for outpatient treatment.¹⁰² Of course, because the recidivism rates of Drug Court graduates are lower than incarcerated drug offenders, the long-term cost savings should be even more significant.

***

In short, New York's Drug Treatment Courts have demonstrated significant success over the past five years, success that mirrors the experiences of such courts in other areas of the country.

A Note on Traditional Alternative-to-Incarceration Programs
Even before the advent of Drug Courts and other new approaches, many judges had extensive experience diverting non-violent addicted offenders into treatment in lieu of incarceration. Typically, such judges did so on a case-by-case basis, by sentencing offenders to traditional Alternative-to-Incarceration ("ATI") programs. Many judges across the state continue to use such ATI programs, even in jurisdictions which employ treatment courts and other more organized treatment efforts.

The term "ATI" refers to a wide variety of community-based programs run by private non-profit organizations and local government agencies, which include pretrial release programs, community service programs, defender-based advocacy programs, programs that provide services to populations with specialized needs, and drug treatment programs.¹⁰³ Judges can divert offenders into treatment and ATI programs either pre- or post-plea. Prior to a plea, a judge may release a defendant who is unable to post bail into an ATI program and require substance abuse treatment as a condition of release. If the defendant is successful in treatment, this may persuade the prosecutor to consent to a plea to a lesser charge, or persuade the court that a sentence of probation would be appropriate. Post-plea, a judge may place a defendant in an ATI program as part of a probationary sentence; alternatively, a judge may adjourn sentencing while the defendant is placed in an ATI and while the defendant's treatment progress is monitored by the court. In the latter situation, success in treatment can allow a defendant to avoid a prison or jail sentence; under certain circumstances, it can (with the consent of the prosecutor) result in a withdrawal of the plea and a dismissal or reduction of the charge.

After a defendant has been diverted to an ATI, the organization is required to report back to the court regularly on the progress of the defendant. (If participation in an ATI has been ordered by the court as a condition of probation, it is the probation department's responsibility to report back to court.) The failure of a defendant to meet the various demands imposed by the court and the ATI is first dealt with by the treatment provider and/or ATI; however, if the violation is sufficiently serious, the ATI organization can either ask the court to put the case on the calendar immediately, or raise the issue with the judge at the next scheduled court date. Depending on the circumstances, the judge may decide to admonish the defendant, to increase the level of treatment from outpatient to residential (or otherwise intensify the restrictions or obligations placed upon the defendant), or to remand the defendant for a short period of incarceration before releasing the defendant to the same program or a different program. If the defendant ultimately fails to complete the ATI program, the defendant will be prosecuted, or (if a plea has been entered) the court will impose the applicable sentence of incarceration or cause a violation of probation to be filed.

The process of referring a defendant to an ATI may be initiated by the court itself, the prosecutor, the defense attorney, or the ATI. (ATIs often have in-court staff who identify and interview prospective participants.) Unlike the more structured eligibility review that takes place in a Drug Court, diversion to an ATI is usually the result of case-by-case advocacy by defense counsel and the ATIs themselves. Similarly, once an offender has been placed in an ATI, the nature and quality of the information that the ATI provides to the court concerning a defendant's progress typically depends on the particular ATI in which the offender has been placed.¹⁰⁴ In this respect, the process differs from Drug Courts, which have internal case managers and resource coordinators to monitor participants on behalf of the court.

At bottom, whether a defendant will be diverted to an ATI depends on his or her particular judge. Some judges have taken an active role in educating themselves about the availability of treatment alternatives and have been willing, in appropriate cases, to divert offenders into ATIs on a regular basis. For such judges, placing and monitoring offenders in treatment is part of their daily routine. Other judges have been less willing to take the initiative to place and monitor defendants in treatment. In the view of the Commission, any effort to expand the delivery of treatment should take account of these individual initiatives and ensure that they are included as a part of any statewide scheme.

A Note on the Willard Drug Treatment Program
Since 1995, courts have had the option of sentencing non-violent second felony offenders to the Willard Drug Treatment Campus, a 90-day prison boot-camp operated by the Department of Correctional Services and the Division of Parole that includes an intensive drug treatment program.¹⁰⁵ Those who graduate from the program are released to parole supervision, where they receive an additional six months of outpatient treatment.

Several District Attorneys, especially in New York City, have been reluctant to ask courts to impose Willard sentences because they perceive the 90-day sentence to be too short; because they have had difficulty obtaining information on Willard's performance;¹⁰⁶ and because they believe that the program involves insufficient supervision after the 90-day sentence is complete. As a consequence, the Willard facility has been underutilized, and the empty beds have been filled by parole violators.¹⁰⁷

In an effort to address these concerns, an enhanced Willard program was instituted in early 2000. This new program adds a six-month residential treatment phase between the 90-day Willard sentence and the six months of outpatient treatment, for a total of nine months (rather than three months) of 24-hour supervised residency.¹⁰⁸ It is expected that more offenders will be referred to Willard under the enhanced program.¹⁰⁹ This new program should be evaluated as new recidivism statistics become available.

"DTAP" and Other Prosecutor-Based Programs
In the past ten years, a number of District Attorneys throughout the state have developed and implemented "ATI"-type programs of their own. These have employed principles very similar to those that have been developed concurrently in Drug Treatment Courts. Again, the central tenet of these programs is that the criminal justice system provides a unique opportunity - and powerful leverage - to induce an addicted offender to submit to rigorous treatment. What follows is an overview of these prosecutor-sponsored programs.

Background
Fifteen of the state's 62 District Attorneys, as well as New York City's Office of the Special Narcotics Prosecutor, have reported to the Commission that they currently administer some type of treatment program as an alternative to incarceration.¹¹⁰ In several of these jurisdictions, the programs are referred to as Drug Treatment Alternative to Prison ("DTAP"); in other areas, such programs are referred to as Project PROUD, ITAP, or ADAPT. Two offices report having more than one of these programs.¹¹¹ (Hereinafter, these programs will be collectively referred to as "DTAP" programs.) These programs have proliferated on an ad hoc basis in the state since the Kings County District Attorney's Office started the first such program in 1990.

In 1992, the state began to fund the expansion of the DTAP concept to New York County, Queens County and the City's Office of the Special Narcotics Prosecutor.¹¹² As of June 2000, all five boroughs in New York City as well as a number of upstate counties have DTAP programs, and, in many counties, the programs operate alongside Drug Courts and traditional ATIs. The characteristics of these DTAP programs are similar; those characteristics are summarized below. (A chart showing the success rates of these programs appears at Appendix C.)

Eligibility
In contrast to the Drug Treatment Courts discussed above, all of the DTAP programs around the state limit their participants to felony drug offenders.¹¹³ The prosecutors' rationale for this limitation is that such offenders are the most likely to succeed in treatment, given the leverage provided by the prospect of state prison, and particularly given the state's mandatory prison sentences, which can impose minimum state prison terms ranging from one year to three years for first felony offenders, and one-and-a-half to six years for second felony offenders.

These programs typically exclude offenders who have a prior violent felony conviction, as defined by New York Penal Law § 70.02. Prosecutors also screen out defendants with other unacceptable characteristics such as a history of violent conduct, evidence of involvement in narcotics trafficking (as opposed to minor drug sales to support a drug habit), or a lack of community ties that suggests a risk of flight. (To this end, in some programs special warrant squads interview the defendant's family, friends, and acquaintances to uncover violent behavior and to determine how easily a defendant could be found if he or she left treatment.) Finally, any defendant who is already on parole or probation must have diversion approved by the relevant agency. This rigorous screening of defendants reduces considerably the pool of possible participants.¹¹⁴ As a result of this screening, these programs are able to address a population of drug offenders that is particularly amenable to "coerced" treatment: non-violent felony offenders who face the prospect of state prison.

Admission
The "diversion" process typically starts with a post-arrest screening of a defendant's paperwork by a representative of the prosecutor's office. As in a Drug Treatment Court, potential participants are initially identified based on a review of their "rap sheets" and other characteristics.

A defendant who is accepted into - and who agrees to enter - a DTAP program is typically required to plead guilty before treatment begins, although in some programs (as in some treatment courts) the plea is deferred until the treatment is completed. In either event, the defendant is put on notice from the outset of what the consequences will be if he or she fails to complete the treatment program.

Supervision
Given the prison sentences faced by this defendant population, these programs typically require a participant to agree to a lengthy regimen of residential treatment. Fifteen to twenty-four months is the norm, with some variation depending on the charge and the degree of a defendant's addiction. Once such residential treatment begins, the "first line" of supervision is conducted by the on-site treatment providers; the supervision, in turn, is monitored by representatives of the prosecutor's office, to whom the defendant is directly accountable. A DTAP participant reports to a judge less frequently than in a Drug Court; given the significant role played by the prosecutor in a DTAP program, the judge and the prosecutor both act as a defendant's "authority figures." Thus, it is the prosecutor who receives and reviews the regular progress reports that are provided by the treatment providers, and it is the prosecutor who decides whether a defendant has violated a program condition and whether a sanction should be requested. Ultimately, the defendant will be brought back before the judge for sentencing (in the case of a failure), or to have his or her case dismissed.¹¹⁵ As in Drug Courts, graduation ceremonies are typically held after completion to further reward those who have succeeded in a program.

Sanctions and Rewards
The sanctions and rewards in a DTAP program are generally less finely tuned than those administered in a Drug Court because the ultimate incentive - avoidance of a state prison sentence - is so stark. In DTAP programs, positive drug tests or other violations of rules are typically addressed by the treatment provider in the first instance, through such sanctions as a loss of privileges and increased supervision. Again, the focus is on immediacy and accountability. Rewards can include decreased supervision and progress toward graduation.

Other Services
Treatment providers and some prosecutors' offices themselves offer services to augment drug treatment, including HIV education, counseling and testing; onsite medical care; vocational training; and assistance in finding employment and housing. Again, job training and placement are crucial to a program's success, as research has shown a strong correlation between post-treatment employment and abstinence. Many programs monitor graduates to verify employment and offer continued employment assistance post-graduation. (The Kings County District Attorney's Office, for example, employs a full-time job developer; partly as a result of that commitment, 92 percent of its employable DTAP graduates have jobs, compared to 26 percent who were working before entry into the program.)¹¹⁶

Apprehending Absconders
DTAP programs often rely on warrant officers employed by (or assigned to) the prosecutor's office. As noted above, the initial eligibility screening includes an extensive background check and an evaluation of an offender's risk of flight. As a consequence, few who enter DTAP programs abscond, and those who do are typically located quickly by the warrant officers. As of 1996, for example, the DTAP programs in New York City had an overall return-to-custody rate of 92 percent and a median "return time" of just over a week.¹¹⁷ Research by the Vera Institute of Justice has shown that these enforcement efforts have succeeded in instilling a fear of re-arrest in DTAP participants, and that this perception is as important as actual enforcement capacity in boosting retention among DTAP participants.¹¹⁸ Indeed, the perception that arrest is inevitable has led substantial numbers of DTAP dropouts to turn themselves in.¹¹⁹

Retention Rates
Because the consequence of failing a DTAP program is so serious, the retention rates of these programs are high. For example, the Kings County DTAP program currently has a 74 percent one-year retention rate; that is, 74 percent of all participants who begin the program are still in treatment after one year.¹²⁰ Other prosecutors report overall retention rates - the percentage of all enrollees who have graduated or are still in treatment from the time they enrolled until the present - ranging from 62 to 78 percent.¹²¹ Not surprisingly, independent researchers conclude that legal pressure exerted by the threat of mandatory prison sentences plays an important role in treatment retention.¹²²

Recidivism Rates
The available evidence shows that graduates of prosecutor-based diversion programs are rearrested at a much lower rate than comparable groups of offenders. An independent evaluation of the Kings County DTAP program shows that 23 percent of DTAP graduates are rearrested within three years of graduation, as compared to 47 percent of a comparable group of non-participants who were arrested within three years of their release from incarceration.¹²³ Onondaga County reports that 22 percent of graduates have been rearrested since graduation.¹²⁴ These re-arrest rates are considerably better than those of drug offenders released from state prison, over 50 percent of whom are re-arrested within three years of their release from prison.¹²⁵

Cost Savings and Other Benefits
As with Drug Courts, DTAP programs can save taxpayer dollars by reducing incarceration costs and by generating secondary savings in welfare, health care and other community expenditures. They can also reduce crime and recidivism costs. (See the discussion in Section Two, above.) The Kings County DTAP program has estimated that, as of June 2000, the total net savings since 1990 - including correction savings, welfare savings, health care savings, avoided crime savings, and increased tax contributions - amount to $16.7 million, or almost $37,000 per graduate.¹²⁶

***

In short, as with Drug Treatment Courts, these prosecutor-sponsored programs have demonstrated marked success, and could generate significant statewide savings if they were expanded considerably. The Commission recommends such an expansion, as is further detailed in Section Six of this Report.

Family Treatment Courts and Juvenile Courts
Introduction
The impact that drug cases have had on the state's criminal courts is well-documented and well-known. Less obvious (to the general public, at least) is the effect that drug abuse has had on the state's Family Courts. These courts, too, have suffered serious strain from a vast expansion in the number of drug-related filings in recent years. Such cases typically involve allegations of parental abuse and neglect of children, where there is an indication that the abuse and neglect stems from a parent's drug addiction. Such cases often result in the removal of children from their homes, and the effects of such cases on children and families - and, eventually, on society at large - is severe. The high cost of foster care ensures that such cases are extremely expensive, too.

In recent years, a number of innovative courts around the country and in New York State - in Manhattan and Suffolk County - have begun to experiment with Family Court-based drug-treatment programs, programs that adopt some of the successful practices of Drug Treatment Courts in the criminal arena. This section of the Report examines these new Family Treatment Courts; juvenile-court counterparts (which, in New York State, are part of the Family Courts) are also discussed below.

The Scope of the Problem
Drug abuse has a vast impact on the state's Family Court and child welfare systems.¹²⁷ For example, of the 1.8 million children in New York City, the Administration for Children's Services ("ACS") has had contact with 465,000 (approximately 25 percent) of them, meaning that ACS has opened a case involving that child or a member of that child's family. Of these 465,000 children, it is believed that 70 percent come from families that have a substance abuse problem.¹²⁸ Similarly, in Suffolk County it is estimated that parental substance abuse was a contributing factor in approximately 75 percent of the 2,498 abuse and neglect cases filed in Family Court in 1998.¹²⁹ Substance abuse is believed to have affected a similar percentage of the 683 abuse and neglect cases filed in Monroe County in 1999, as well as the 1,090 cases filed in Erie County in 1999.¹³⁰ Nationally, it has been estimated that three million children were abused or neglected in 1997.¹³¹ Numerous studies have made clear that children of substance abusers are more likely to enter foster care - and remain there longer - than other children involved in the child welfare system.¹³² Such children are also more likely to be the victims of severe and chronic neglect.¹³³

In short, given the clear and understandable correlation between neglect and drug abuse, it should come as no surprise that drug abuse is a major factor in a great many of the over 20,000 neglect petitions that are filed each year in the state's Family Courts.¹³⁴

The Traditional Approach to Drug Abuse in Family Court Proceedings
Despite the significant role that drug abuse plays in the Family Courts, such courts historically have not been well-suited to the assessment and treatment of addiction. Case workers often lack the training and expert support necessary to detect and assess drug abuse; where such problems are detected, moreover, the traditional approach often has been simply to refer the parent to treatment, in the hope that treatment will be undertaken and that the treatment will succeed. There is often little to no effort to ensure that the referral is appropriate, or that the parent is effectively supervised during the treatment process.

Added to these shortcomings is the fact that Family Court proceedings are often characterized by lengthy delays. Given the enormous caseloads in many of the Family Courts around the state, a typical case can take years to reach a disposition. Months-long adjournments are routine, and even a trial can (given interruptions and adjournments) take several months to c