Leadership New Jersey
216 West State Street
Trenton, NJ 08608

Phone  609 802 0880
Fax 609 802 0883
E-Mail info@leadershipnj.org

This Executive Summary represents almost two years of research by the Leadership New Jersey Class of 1998 into ways to make the criminal justice system more effective in dealing with drug-related offenses. For a printable copy of the full report, please use the link above.

Leadership New Jersey identifies, honors, educates and challenges emerging leaders from around the state in a one-year program of seminars on key issues. After their seminar year, LNJ Fellows undertake a project aimed at furthering systemic improvement that can ameliorate or resolve an important statewide issue.

Most inmates in New Jersey state prisons, perhaps as many as 80 percent, suffer from dependency on drugs, including alcohol. The vast majority are non-violent offenders. In the past generation the number of young citizens dependent on drugs and alcohol has soared, the rate of drug-driven criminality has exploded, and the number of prisoners and the cost to confine them has skyrocketed. Addiction to alcohol or drugs is largely unaffected by prison or probation, even when some form of treatment is incorporated. Recidivism is chronic.

	Rather than defining its criminal justice policies by whether they are "tough" or "soft", New Jersey should ensure that they are smart and effective.

Traditional methods of punishment and purported rehabilitation have proved ineffective in reducing lawlessness driven by substance abuse. It is not enough to be tough on this kind of crime -- New Jersey must also be smart. An intelligent alternative could strengthen the current system: Drug Courts. Drug Courts avoid the high financial and societal costs of incarceration and addiction by doing more than locking up offenders. They make it possible to treat the root cause of much non-violent criminality -- addiction.

We need not look far to find evidence of Drug Courts' success. Over the past several years two Drug Court initiatives have developed in New Jersey. The careful monitoring of both gives a solid basis for optimism.

1. Seven counties have launched programs based on a model promoted by the federal Office of Justice Programs.
2. A separate state "Drug Court Initiative" (DCI), is being piloted in five counties. In the state pilots, prison-bound, non-violent offenders whose criminality is drug-driven are placed on probation after stays of at least six months in residential treatment facilities.

Existing Drug Courts in New Jersey enjoy broad support. Backers include the Chief Justice, the Governor's Office, the Office of the Attorney General, the Office of the Public Defender, the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC), and the Division of Addiction Services. In addition, most Presiding Judges of the Criminal Division, leaders in the Division of Youth and Family Services, and the Juvenile Justice Commission support the Drug Court concept. So does the Association for Children of New Jersey.

Broader public understanding of Drug Courts is needed to speed the adoption of this innovative and effective response to crimes arising out of offenders' addictions. The purpose of this report is to increase public understanding of the potential Drug Courts have to resolve the dilemma of increasing cost and decreasing effectiveness of current corrections policy.

Drug Courts both in New Jersey and nationally are so successful that they should be available throughout the state. The Leadership New Jersey Class of 1998 has concluded, based on almost two years of research and analysis, that Drug Courts should be fully implemented and funded statewide.

Drug Courts -- how they work

Offenders are admitted to Drug Court programs only after meticulous screening according to specific eligibility criteria. Defendants must admit their wrongdoing, and their drug dependency must be germane to their wrongdoing. Those who offended solely out of a profit motive are ineligible, as are those with any history of violence. They must also agree to be subject to potential sanctions, such as earlier curfews, increased reporting requirements, more frequent urinalysis testing, extra community service hours, and essay and speech requirements. Short terms in jail may even be imposed, after which participants are released to continue in the program.

	The purpose of this report is to increase public understanding of the potential Drug Courts have to resolve the dilemma of increasing cost and decreasing effectiveness of current corrections policy.

Drug Courts fuse criminal justice with treatment to induce constructive, permanent change in participants. Interweaving long-term, specifically calibrated intensive addiction therapy with arduous probation requirements, they rely upon legal remedies developed to ensure programmatic compliance when necessary. Judge-led teams supervise and mentor carefully screened participants, making many demands and enforcing them through a wide range of sanctions and incentives. The Drug Court process understands addiction and the complexities inherent in real change. Participants engage in intensive recovery-related activity for an extended period of time. When the system works, participants internalize the program's external controls, take ownership of their own recovery and improve their chances of successful long-term response to treatment.

A Drug Court redefines the roles of its institutional participants: judge, prosecutor, public defender, treatment providers, and probation officers. Rather than being pitted against each other, they all report great success and satisfaction in working together to help previously faltering individuals reclaim their own lives.

Most Drug Court programs entail weekly in-court reviews, require the completion of several stages and have clearly defined graduation requirements which are strictly honored. Positive reinforcement for successful compliance is typically given through incentives such as later curfews, fewer reporting requirements, or less frequent random urine screens.

Drug Courts prove themselves

Nationally, Drug Courts have been encouraged by federal grants from the Office of Justice Programs (OJP) over the past decade. They have expanded to all 50 states. Close to 600 Drug Courts currently exist at some stage in the United States; there is also a burgeoning number of Juvenile Drug Courts and even a smattering of Family Drug Courts.

Key indicators (tracked by the Drug Courts Technical Assistance Project at American University) point to the success that Drug Courts enjoy nationally. Preliminary New Jersey trends closely track these statistics.

The average retention rate of the first 100,000 participants exceeds 70%. Of these, 75% of those successfully in or graduated from the programs had been previously incarcerated. Over 750 drug-free babies were born to participating mothers. More than 3,500 participating parents regained custody of their children. Over 4,500 participating parents resumed making child support payments. 73% obtained or kept jobs.

Drug Courts not only perform well, they save money, compared to the cost of incarceration, health care, police overtime, victim compensation and public assistance. It costs from $20,000 to $50,000 per year to maintain an offender in prison. The annual cost for the Drug Court treatment program is less than $10,000. That cost-effectiveness can produce a savings of at least $1 million a year for each 100 offenders diverted to a Drug Court.

Funding Drug Courts

Despite these impressive savings, finding the funds for Drug Courts remains a challenge to broader implementation. While participants are usually asked to pay what they can afford for treatment, few can meet all those costs. Jurisdictions have displayed great creativity in finding long-term funding for the courts, support staff, and treatments required.

Most jurisdictions with Drug Courts have received federal OJP grant money. Many have established dedicated long-term funding, either as a portion of judiciary budgets, as separate appropriations, or by taking a portion of sales taxes, such as those on tobacco or alcohol. Links with related community resources can pay for important ancillary services such as childcare.

OJP grants alone will not fully support Drug Courts, and cannot be counted on for the future. The budgets and personnel of the judiciary, probation and county prosecutors' offices must be relied upon to maintain the programs. In New Jersey, agencies such as the Office of the Public Defender have allocated attorney time to staffing Drug Courts without any budgetary support.

Family and Municipal Drug Courts

Now is the time to embrace, carefully implement, and sustain the Drug Court approach.

Drug dependency is at the root of much of the anti-social behavior that finds its way to Family and Municipal Courts as well as in Criminal Courts, and the model can also be adapted to these other forums. The matters that come before Family Court and Municipal Court have become more complex and involve escalating degrees of substance abuse.

A Family Drug Court which can deal effectively with cases involving some restriction of parental rights due to parental substance use can safeguard children more effectively while making family reunification more likely. Parents' motivation to participate in Family Court is usually tied to their goal of regaining custody of their children. The shorter deadlines now surrounding permanency resolution for children pursuant to the federal Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 (AFSA) has turned the wisdom of the Drug Court approach in child welfare matters into a virtual mandate.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The report makes 23 recommendations, including:

• Fund fully, staff and allocate needed resources to every existing Drug Court pilot.
• Establish a Supreme Court Task Force on Drug Courts
• Identify funding sources to pay for all necessary components of Drug Courts.
• Gain a public endorsement as a "Best Practice" by The Conference of Presiding Criminal Judges.
• Study through the Municipal Court Divisions and Committees what Municipal Drug Court prototypes and Best Practices might be adopted.
• Pilot Juvenile Drug Courts and Family Drug Courts widely. If they achieve success, the Conference of Presiding Family Court Judges should consider adopting them as "Best Practices."
• Gain the agreement of more County Prosecutors to have Drug Court pilots in their counties.
• Create a hybrid type of parole that uses a Drug Court approach with drug-driven offenders re-entering the community.
• Establish more drug and alcohol treatment programs that work to provide the treatment capacity that an expanding network of Drug Courts will demand.
• Form a new civic coalition, "Citizens for a Sane Drug Policy in New Jersey" to advocate further measures to help drug dependent New Jersey residents - court-involved or not.

CONCLUSION
Now is the time to act

New Jersey is at a critical moment in the implementation of Drug Courts. Now is the time to secure long-term infrastructure and funding to expand the system and make it a permanent part of our criminal justice apparatus. But some remain concerned that it is still too early to tell if Drug Courts work well enough to merit unqualified support. The full report of our research demonstrates that, properly institutionalized, Drug Courts can engender significant cost-savings and improve the quality of life for all citizens of New Jersey.

Now is the time to embrace, carefully implement, and sustain the Drug Court approach. Rather than defining its criminal justice policies by whether they are "tough" or "soft", New Jersey should ensure that they are smart and effective.

The state can no longer afford business as usual. The accelerating cost of incarceration consumes resources that are badly needed to improve education, expand the availability of health care, and meet other urgent priorities. Scarce prison space should be reserved for violent offenders. Non-violent offenders whose crimes were driven by their addiction should be punished, but also treated to prevent future crime. Drug Courts, nationally and in New Jersey, have shown they can do that. Now is the time to increase their capacity to meet needs throughout the state.

The complete report is available online here.