Note: please note that this issue overview should (a) contain links to the issue briefs on this topic that are focused either the local, state, national, or global level, and (b) be neutrally presented, based on facts, and include footnotes for each of the items.  See the Research Guide and Information Sources to assist you. 

Goal Statement   one sentence that further defines the topic 

• To enable persons to become productive members of society by coordinating treatment for drug addiction, promoting healthy life choices and directing their pursuit of successful employment, thereby reducing drug related crime while enhancing the safety and productivity of our community.

Policy Options / Model Programs   specific policies or program models, grouped by type, that are profiled 

• Recommendations by the NADCP to the New Administration

• The National Association of Drug Court Professionals (NADCP) recommends that the Obama Administration put a Drug Court within reach of every American who needs it beginning with the 2010 budget, thereby providing the necessary guidance to the 111th Congressional appropriation process and report language.

• Ensure the following priorities are achieved within the $250 million annual funding:

• Dedicate 50% of the total funding to expand the capacity of existing adult Drug Courts;

• Dedicate 25% of the total funding to implement new adult Drug Courts in communities where they do not currently exist;
• Authorize the Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT) and the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) to utilize 15% of the total funding to continue to provide support to Family and Juvenile Drug Courts;
• Dedicate 10% of the total funding to provide the critical training and technical assistance needed to plan, implement, enhance and sustain Drug Courts;
• Enhance emphasis on Veterans Treatment Courts as defined by the Veterans (SERV) Act introduced in both the House and Senate in the 110th Congress.
• Ensure equity in sentencing and equal access for minorities to Drug Courts and other Problem-Solving Court programs. 
• Increase ONDCP funding for the National Drug Court Institute from $1 million to $5 million/year to support research, scholarship, training and technical assistance for Drug Courts;
• Convene an interagency Federal senior leadership group led by the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) to ensure collaboration, coordination, and communication between all of the impacted agencies (DOJ, DHHS, DOT, VA, DOD);
• Lead a public and private partnership to enhance public awareness and support for Drug Courts.
• Enhance emphasis on the full range of Problem-Solving Courts as defined by the Conference ofChief Justices and the Conference of State Court Administrators.
• Enhance emphasis on Reentry Drug Courts, Reentry Courts and other effective reentry models that help prisoners return as contributing members of their community as defined in the Second Chance Act of 2007. NADCP (cite NADCP

• Recommendations by The Pew Center on the States:

• Promoting the reduction of recidivism should be an explicit goal of state sentencing policy. Indeed, the failure of mainstream sentencing policies to address offender drug abuse and addiction, mental illness, domestic violence, and low-level “quality-of-life” crime has motivated many state judges, prosecutors, and corrections officials to establish specialized “problem solving” courts over the past 20 years to reduce recidivism. Legislative and executive branch policy makers and sentencing commissions should include recidivism reduction as a clearly stated purpose of state sentencing policy. State judiciaries should follow the lead of the Oregon Judicial Conference in requiring sentencing judges to consider the likely impact of potential sentences on reducing future criminal conduct. (The PEW Center on the States)

• The goal of recidivism reduction is to reduce crime, not just to rehabilitate offenders. It includes both effective treatment services— programs proven to reduce reoffending—and swift and  effective use of graduated sanctions. It highlights the importance of holding offenders more strictly accountable than we do now for compliance with court orders and conditions of supervision. It is not “soft” on crime. It is not an alternative to punishment. Every offender deserves to be fairly punished. At the same time, every sentence should also seek to reduce the risk of the offender’s re-offense and further victimizations. (The PEW Center on the States)
• Ten Specific PEW Center Recommendations: 

• Establish Recidivism Reduction as an Explicit Sentencing Goal

• Provide Sufficient Flexibility to Consider Recidivism Reduction Options

• Base Sentencing Decisions on Risk/Needs Assessment

• Require Community Corrections Programs to be Evidence-Based

• Integrate Services and Sanctions

• Ensure Courts Know About Available Sentencing Options

• Train Court Officers on Evidence-Based Practice (EBP)

• Encourage Swift and Certain Responses to Violations of Probation

• Use Court Hearings and Incentives to Motivate Offender Behavior Change

• Promote Effective Collaboration among Criminal Justice Agencies

• Policy Option Drug Courts - Topeka 

• Drug Courts - USA  

•  Drug Courts - Kansas

                         Drug Courts - Topeka 

Glossary of Terms   key words or phrases that the layperson needs to know to understand this issue 

• Drug Courts are judicially supervised court dockets that strike the proper balance between the need to protect community safety and the need to improve public health; between the need for treatment and the need to hold people accountable for their actions; between hope and redemption on the one hand and productive citizenship on the other. Drug Courts keep nonviolent, drug-addicted individuals in treatment for long periods of time, while supervising them closely. Drug Court participants receive the treatment and other services they require to stay clean and to lead constructive lives, yet they are also held accountable by a judge for meeting their obligations to society, themselves and their families. Participants are regularly and randomly tested for drug use, required to appear frequently in court for the judge to review their progress, and receive rewards for doing well and sanctions for not living up to their obligations.

• NADCP = National Association of Drug Court Professionals 

• NDCI = National Drug Court Institute promoting education, research, and scholarship for drug court and other court-based intervention programs.

• CSAT = Center for Substance Abuse Treatment of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), promotes the quality and availability of community-based substance abuse treatment services for individuals and families who need them. CSAT works with States and community-based groups to improve and expand existing substance abuse treatment services under the Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment Block Grant Program. CSAT also supports SAMHSA’s free treatment referral service to link people with the community-based substance abuse services they need.

• OJJDP = Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

  Juveniles in crisis—from serious, violent, and chronic offenders to victims of abuse and neglect—pose a challenge to the nation. Charged by Congress to meet this challenge, OJJDP collaborates with professionals from diverse disciplines to improve juvenile justice policies and practices.

Bibliography

•  Congressional Research Report  (Drug Courts: Background, Effectiveness, and Policy Issues for Congress) www.crs.gov

•  http://cjonline.com/stories/012207/loc_140482794.shtml

•  http://www.valeotopeka.org/services_recovery.cfm