Sentencing to Drug Court

Drug courts are frequently touted as an alternative sentencing option for low-level drug offenders and were even promoted by U.S. presidential candidates in 2020. While national organizations tout that “Drug Courts Work,” there are many who question their efficacy. Favorable statistics and success stories depend on close fidelity to the prescribed models from the National Association of Drug Court Professionals. With rapid adoption of drug courts nationwide, and little oversight of their fidelity to the drug court model, some judges may operate drug courts in ways that can harm, rather than help, an increasing number of participants. Improper drug court admissions and heavy use of jail sanctioning lead to worse outcomes for participants—and to suspicion toward drug courts among the criminal justice reform movement of which drug courts aim to be a part. While the drug court model has evolved as a treatment model for offenders with high criminogenic risk and high treatment need, some judges either disregard or are unaware of this shift. Participants are supervised more closely and are often given higher treatment dosages than they require to address their substance use disorder. Low-level offenders may end up with accrued jail time through their drug court participation that exceeds the amount they would have received had they simply been sentenced to a jail term at the outset of their plea. Increased oversight of drug courts, combined with required education for judges and court staff, will lead to a better understanding of the drug court model. By identifying the proper target population, focusing on treatment, and reducing or eliminating jail sanctions, drug courts will align with the national model, improve outcomes, and reduce both jail time and recidivism of their participants. This Article outlines the evolution of the drug court model and shows that lack of understanding of that evolution leads to harsher sentencing for low-level drug offenders.

Primary Purpose for Committing a Crime and Past-30 Day Opioid Misuse: A Statewide Sample of Justice-Involved Children

The prevalence of opioid misuse (OM) among justice-involved children (JIC) is significantly higher than children in the general population, yet little research has examined the predictors of OM among JIC. Goldstein’s “economic compulsive model” hypothesizes that JIC who commit crimes for material gain will have a higher likelihood of meeting past-30 day (P30D) OM criteria. The data in this study were cross-sectional and represented 79,960 Florida JIC. To test the hypothesis, logistic regression analyses were utilized. Over 2000 JIC (2.67%) met P30D OM criteria and JIC who committed crimes for material gain were 2.55 times as likely to meet P30D OM criteria. Findings indicate that children may be incarcerated due to an inability to afford their addiction, contributing to the criminalization of mental health. JIC could benefit from the increased utilization of drug courts and the implementation of a cascade of care model.

The Effects of Race and Ethnicity on Admission, Graduation, and Recidivism in the Milwaukee County Adult Drug Treatment Court

Drug courts play a key role in the criminal justice system by diverting individuals from incarceration and providing them with resources to address substance use issues and reduce criminal recidivism. However, it is unclear whether drug courts reflect—or even exacerbate—preexisting racial/ethnic disparities in the criminal justice system. While prior literature has offered some insight into the influence of race and ethnicity on drug court success, much of the focus has been on outcomes (i.e., program completion and recidivism) rather than disparities at earlier stages (i.e., referral to admittance). The current study adds to this body of research by evaluating the Milwaukee County Adult Drug Treatment Court to examine whether racial/ethnic disparities exist at several stages of the drug court process: (1) referral to admittance, (2) likelihood of graduation, and (3) likelihood of recidivism. Results of the analyses determined racial/ethnic disparities in the likelihood of admission to the drug court, as well as the likelihood of graduation. There were no racial/ethnic disparities found in the likelihood of recidivism. The analyses also identified several additional variables that were influential in the likelihood of admission (risk score, prior record), likelihood of graduation (age, prior record, custody sanctions), and recidivism (drug court outcome).

Accountability Courts and Diversion Programs

This chapter focuses on prosecutors’ roles in accountability courts and diversion programs, details their participation in creating these specialized courts and programs, explains their gate-keeping responsibilities, and discusses ethical rules raised by their participation. Specifically, the chapter describes drug courts and veterans courts, which are two of the most prominent specialized courts. Using these two specialized courts as representatives of other similarly situated courts, the chapter explains the history behind the creation of these courts, their structures, operations, and their specific goals of addressing the underlying causes of criminal defendants’ criminal behaviors. In the United States specialized court settings, the prosecutor, rather than being adversarial, tends to be collaborative with other court practitioners. In non-U.S. specialized courts, the prosecutors’ roles are not that significantly different from those of their U.S. counterparts. With ongoing efforts on reforming the U.S. criminal justice system, especially as it concerns issues addressed by specialty courts, U.S. prosecutors are likely to continue their support of these courts.