These comments are based on the Interim Report,

by the Onondaga County Task Force on Drugs and the Courts,

and were prepared at the request of the Hon. James C. Tormey,

District Administrative Judge, Fifth Judicial District, State of New York

and the Hon. Langston McKinney, Presiding Judge of the Syracuse

Community Treatment Court

how is success measured, and why was this model selected?

While there is little doubt anymore that simply locking up non-violent drug offenders is an ineffective method of reducing the harm to society caused by drug use, we must be careful to examine closely whether or not coerced treatment is going to be any more effective. There is an assumption here that substance abuse treatment is effective if you can coerce people into treatment. Actually, research is mixed on whether treatment is effective. Currently the best data available is on alcohol treatment and shows three things;

1. 80% of people with alcoholism who are in sustained abstinence for more than a year have recovered either without treatment or in spite of treatment (i.e., failed treatment.)

2. Over seven years, time is as effective as treatment.

3. Relapses are necessary for recovery.

If the goal of the drug court is to make available resources to help those drug users that desire help in ceasing to use drugs available, then it could be very effective.

If it is punitive in nature and serves only, in effect, to add conditions to probation, then it will not achieve its stated goals.

The Onondaga County drug court must be careful not to make the same errors that have caused serious problems in other drug courts. The mere presence of a drug court does not guarantee effectiveness. For example, recent studies of the drug court system in Denver CO revealed the following undesirable occurrences:

1.Enthusiasm of police and prosecutors massively increased cases filed in drug court.

2.Increased small-time arrests (buy and bust arrests).
3.Shear numbers overwhelmed the drug court.
4.Accumulating bench warrants.
5.Leads to a court that neither conducts trials nor hears motions.
6.Due to case numbers, increasing exclusionary criteria.
7.The number of incarcerations increased, i.e., though the percentage of drug defendants receiving prison sentences remained constant (~80% in Denver court), the increased numbers of persons in drug court increased total number of people sent to prison.

This so-called "popcorn effect" is the result of dismal recidivism rates coupled with massive net-widening. Coupled with poor treatment rates and speeded up process and a fixed number of treatment failures allowed before the drug abuser is sentenced to prison, the net result is many more people going to prison more quickly.

Even if we could massively increase treatment success (which have never been reported), the drug court would still be overwhelmed by the increases in drug case filings. Overall, in Denver, more people are going to prison then before drug courts, when we did not pretend to be able to distinguish the treatable from the untreatable.

Whatever form the Onondaga County Unified Drug Treatment Court takes we should be sure to conduct a study so that its effectiveness can be clearly documented in the future. Parameters for the study should be decided in advance so the necessary records will be available when needed.

We will need to measure whether it is effective in lowering recidivism and, if so, how? Specifically, which components are effective and which aren’t. ReconsiDer would like to see data collected that include, among other things:

Measurement Groups
Control group. Drug court eligible offenders that are randomly assigned to traditional courts.
Outcome group. This should include all drug court offenders, not just graduates.

Impact measures
Case processing speed. We will need to know if this affects the right to effective counsel? Will increased speed increase plea bargains?
Recidivism. Rearrest rates (or subsequent convictions) are more accurate
than probation violations.
Length of time for follow up. Retention rates are more an operational measure than a measure of effectiveness and reflect the compulsory nature of the drug court.

Meaningful impact studies can be expensive and funding should allocated for such a study

                                                        ###