Establishing Drug Treatment Courts

Establishing Drug Treatment Courts: Strategies, Experiences and Preliminary Outcomes VOLUME ONE: OVERVIEW AND SURVEY RESULTS November 2010 (Rev.) Justice Programs Office, School of Public Affairs, American University Caroline S. Cooper Brent Franklin Tiffany Mease Prepared for the Drugs Summit: European, Latin American and Caribbean Mayors and Cities April 21 -23, 2010 (Updated November 3, 2010) Lugo, Spain1 This publication was drafted by the Inter-American Drug Abuse Control Commission (CICAD), Secretariat for Multidimensional Security of the Organization of American States (OAS); the Justice Programs Office, School of Public Affairs, American University; the Institute for International Research on Criminal Policy (IRCP), Universiteit Gent; the Ministerio Público of Chile (General Prosecutor’s Office); and the International Association of Drug Treatment Courts (IADTC). It was developed in the framework of the EU-LAC Drug Treatment City Partnerships, an initiative coordinated by CICAD/SMS/OAS and funded by the European Commission. The content of this publication does not necessarily reflect the position of the EU or the OAS. 1 Lugo City Summit. April 2010. www.lugosummit.org OAS Cataloging-in-Publication Data Cooper, Caroline S. Establishing drug treatment courts : strategies, experiences and preliminary outcomes / Caroline S. Cooper, Brent Franklin, [and] Tiffany Mease ; prepared for the Drugs Summit: European, Latin American and Caribbean Mayors and Cities, April 21-23, 2010, Lugo Spain. p. ; cm. ISBN 978-0-8270-5448-6 (v.1) ISBN 978-0-8270-5449-3 (v.2) 1. Drug courts--Research--Evaluation. 2. Drug abusers--Treatment--Law and legislation. 3. Drug addicts--Rehabilitation. 4. Drug abusers--Services for--Evaluation. 5. Recidivism--Research-- Evaluation. 6. Substance abuse--Treatment--Law and legislation. I. Franklin, Brent. II. Mease, Tiffany. III. Drugs Summit: European, Latin American and Caribbean Mayors and Cities (April, 2010 : Lugo, Spain) IV. Title. K5112.A72 E88 2010 Editorial Committee From the Justice Programs Office, School of Public Affairs, American University: Caroline S. Cooper. Brent Franklin, and Tiffany Mease; from Inter-American Drug Abuse Control Commission (CICAD), Secretariat for Multidimensional Security of the Organization of American States (OAS): Anna McG. Chisman, and Antonio Lomba ISBN 978-0-8270-5448-6 (v.1) © Organization of American States, 2010. All rights reserved. This publication may be reproduced provided credit is given to the source. This publication was drafted by the Inter-American Drug Abuse Control Commission (CICAD), Secretariat for Multidimensional Security of the Organization of American States (OAS); the Justice Programs Office, School of Public Affairs, American University; the Institute for International Research on Criminal Policy (IRCP), Universiteit Gent; the Ministerio Público of Chile (General Prosecutor’s Office); and the International Association of Drug Treatment Courts (IADTC). It was developed in the framework of the EU-LAC Drug Treatment City Partnerships, an initiative coordinated by CICAD/SMS/OAS and funded by the European Commission. The content of this publication does not necessarily reflect the position of the EU or the OAS. In Memory of Michael B. Sullivan (1943 – 2009) Whose Initial Insights and Effort Provided a Foundation for this Document PREFACE Drug courts, the experience and the hopes This is a moment when all over the world the question of drug production, consumption, addiction and trafficking is being discussed, as the traditional way of dealing with it, emphasizing law enforcement, has not helped to solve it. The discussion is taking place also in the Americas. In Latin America, the former presidents of the three largest countries in terms of population, Brazil, Mexico and Colombia, proposed in 2007 a program called “Drugs and Democracy”, the objective of which is to stress the public health aspect of the problem, decriminalize/depenalize consumption of softer drugs and give the issue a global perspective linked to questions of socioeconomic development and democratic legitimacy in governance, at the same time as the fight against drug trafficking should continue, as a central activity against transnational organized crime. In the United States, where policies have a global outreach for economic (market size), financial, political and cultural reasons (its condition as the superpower and the reach of its cultural production, mostly audiovisual), priorities are also changing. The idea of a war led by a “drug czar” is being abandoned for a more balanced approach. It is curious politically and linguistically that a word expressing the past ruler of the enemy country in the 1970’s should have been chosen, when historically czars were not necessarily very good military leaders; but the idea was precisely to suggest that this public servant (as a Roman Caesar, or the German Kaiser) would have sweeping global power in this war. Secretary of State Clinton has stressed several times the idea of shared responsibility and the new drug “czar” for the Obama administration, Gil Kerlikowske, in his speech to the 53rd meeting of the UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs in March 2010, presented his assessment: “The results from long-standing initiatives, such as drug courts, and newer alternatives to incarceration, including “smart” programs which incorporate swift, certain, but modest sanctions, have been extremely encouraging. We must now expand such initiatives so all those for whom diversion from prison is appropriate, can participate. These innovative programs break the cycle of drug use, arrest, release and re-arrest and are much more cost-effective than long-term incarceration.” In the Americas as a whole, the member states of the OAS, under the coordination of Brazil, have been discussing a new hemispheric drug strategy to replace the one officially adopted at the end of the last century. One of the leading aspects of this review, proposed a year ago by OAS Secretary General Insulza, would be to take into account all recent scientific evidence. After decades of an approach that favored repression as its main component and that prevailed in many countries, it has become clear that it is an oversimplification. Even if it did not totally disregard the public health aspects of drug dependence, it emphasized the criminal aspect of drug use, resulting in the incarceration of hundreds of thousands of non-violent people all over the world; and, worse, with no indication whatsoever of any improvement in chemically- and psychologically dependent people, and no evidence that the roots of the phenomenon were being addressed. In addition, in those countries in which the prison system has been partially privatized, there may be a strong economic motive behind sending people to jail. Drug courts, or drug treatment courts, the first practice of which started in Florida over 20 years ago, represent thus an alternative to incarceration with advantages in critical aspects. First, they establish the commitment of addicts to work on getting rid of their dependence; second, the approach avoids incarceration of drug users and could, depending on the legislation, be applied to petty, non-violence drug dealers, which would avoid their making contacts inside the prison system that often increase the tendency of first offenders to become more deeply involved in illegal activities, as they meet hardened criminals who no longer harbor any hope of being recovered as law-abiding citizens; third, it avoids or reduces the stigma of danger and unreliability often associated with incarcerated people, thus helping reinsertion and recovery; fourth--and this is also becoming more and more critical--it helps reduce the spiraling rise in costs that countries bear to imprison a large portion of their population, sometimes hopeless and helpless poor youngsters, whose possibilities of a decent life decline even more as they are sent to prison. Drug courts are so far a practice that has set deeper roots in English-speaking parts of the world, but that is gaining much broader support as it extends to several other countries. This publication covers the experience in twelve countries. Although the experience is fairly recent, it seems clear that the results achieved are strong enough to recommend that it should be adopted more or less universally. Statistics vary from country to country, but certain features are common: many prison systems are bordering on bankruptcy; a vast majority of those in jail come from groups that are economically and socially vulnerable; a large portion of all those incarcerated are in prison for non-violent drug-related crimes. In the first third of the 20th century the United States adopted a prohibition policy for alcohol, with a 1919 constitutional amendment which was repealed by another one in 1933. Overall consumption of alcohol went down, as most citizens were not willing to commit a crime to drink, but it did not eliminate alcoholism and led to increased smuggling and corruption in law enforcement and other state agents. That is why the efforts to reduce demand have become so important, and have already been recognized in the expression "shared responsibility", aiming at reducing both demand and supply. It is not only unfair, but also inefficient to put the blame--and the corresponding responsibility-- mostly on the countries that are/were commonly seen as producers, particularly of cocaine, since chemical drugs are produced in a very wide range of countries. As the assessment of the efficiency and usefulness of drug courts advances--and I am sure the current trend will assert itself more and more--perhaps a suggestion to be considered would be to apply this approach to the hundreds of thousands of prisoners sent to jail as drug users or as non- violent petty drug dealers. If carefully applied, such a move would reduce the financial and other burdens of incarceration to society as a whole and might give people now in prisons some hope of leading a normal and productive life. Drug courts should be one of the elements of a global and multidimensional strategy to fight drug addiction and non-violent drug crime.

Load more