Pubdate: Sun, 21 Jan 2007
Source: Rocky Mountain News (Denver, CO)
Copyright: 2007, Denver Publishing Co.
Contact:  http://www.rockymountainnews.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/371
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?159 (Drug Courts)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/rehab.htm (Treatment)

CAN DRUG COURTS FIGHT RECIDIVISM?

Denver Court Will Be Watched

As Colorado's new governor, Bill Ritter has set reducing recidivism -
the rate at which criminals return to prison - as a top priority. In
his State of the State address, he mentioned drug courts as one
possible tool. Coincidentally, Denver is creating a new drug court
after abandoning one in 2002. If the court works, it could be a model.
 From Denver's perspective, the drug court will be worthwhile even if
it only results in the speedier disposition of cases and thus a
reduction in jail overcrowding. As it is, drug cases represent 42
percent of the Denver district attorney's filings, and it can take up
to three months to process a case.

Cutting the time to a maximum of 10 days would free up 130 beds every
day, not to mention help addicts get into treatment sooner.

As for the longer-term positive results claimed for drug courts,
particularly reducing recidivism, we'll wait and see. Although drug
courts are popular and they come strongly recommended by the National
Drug Court Institute, which is sponsored by the federal Office of
National Drug Control Policy and other agencies, some of their claims
are in dispute. Also, critics charge that negative effects - such as
large increases in the number of cases filed - don't get the attention
they should.

One observation that shouldn't be controversial, though, is that the
results depend in crucial ways on the precise details of the program.

Denver's drug court was established in 1994, with the strong support
of then-DA Ritter. But the program planned for Denver starting in
February differs from that earlier one. There will be two magistrates,
instead of one judge.

The new court will take only cases where defendants are eligible for
probation, and mental health treatment will be available.

It's reasonable to assume those differences will affect whether the
court works well, but impossible to predict how.

To see why, consider a major study of drug courts in six jurisdictions
in New York state. On average, recidivism was reduced by 29 percent up
to three years after the initial arrest, and at least one year after
completing the program, compared with similar populations that did not
enter drug court. But the reductions ranged from 13 percent to 47
percent, and in one of the six the reduction was not statistically
significant.

The same study found that completing a treatment program was a good
predictor of success in staying out of trouble. But starting a program
and dropping out before completing it was no better than never
starting, and sometimes worse. The study also warned that the upfront
costs are considerable, because effective treatment programs usually
last more than a year.

Will the new court succumb to the same problems that led to the
decision to dismantle it before? It is essential that any program the
city adopts include a carefully designed procedure for evaluating
results - not only on the defendants who come through the court, but
on the working of the system as a whole.