Several thousand drug courts operate in jurisdictions throughout the United States. Similar courts have been established in Canada, Australia, the United Kingdom, and elsewhere. The first drug court appeared in Dade County, Florida, in 1989. This initial effort and other first-generation drug courts helped to establish a model for subsequent problem-solving courts focused on substance use disorders, mental illness, domestic violence, and other circumstances that frequently co-occur with criminal justice system involvement. A range of problem-solving courts—including mental health courts, DUI (driving under the influence) courts, veterans courts, prostitution courts, re-entry courts, and gambling courts—have been developed both in the United States and internationally based on the drug court model. The design of these specialty courts emphasizes collaboration rather than an adversarial due-process-based approach to decision-making, therapeutic interventions instead of the legal resolution of disputed cases, and informal, individualized engagement by judges and other court actors. Key features of the drug court model include the placement of defendants in treatment programs, the close judicial monitoring of defendants though periodic status hearings, and the use of criminal penalties as leverage to retain defendants in treatment. Some drug courts engage criminal defendants prior to the adjudication of their charges, but increasingly these courts operate post-plea with the imposition of program requirements as conditions of probation or a suspended sentence. Drug courts have been a politically popular response to the problems of over-incarceration and criminal system overload produced in part by the late-20th-century “war on drugs.” Outcome studies often report successes in reducing drug use and criminal recidivism. Significant critiques of the drug court model and of problem-solving courts more generally have been offered, however, raising questions about the reliability of the outcome studies and about other negative consequences of the model, including net-widening, debasement of the therapeutic intentions of the enterprise, and other distortions in both the behavioral health treatment system and the criminal justice system.
