Washington, D.C. – The Government Accountability Office last week released a report, in which it finds that only 18 of 32 drug courts – or just over 50% – showed statistically significant reductions in recidivism among participants. That is, almost half of drug courts do not reduce re-arrest rates of their participants below the rates of people who went through the normal criminal justice process.
“The message here is: enter a drug court at your own risk. The chance that you’ll enter a drug court that might help you avoid getting arrested again is about 50-50, the equivalent of a coin toss,” said Margaret Dooley-Sammuli, deputy state director in Southern California for the Drug Policy Alliance. “Clearly, the popularity that drug courts enjoy is not supported by the evidence.”
The GAO’s findings echo those of the Multi-Site Adult Drug Court Evaluation (MADCE), the longest and largest ever study of drug courts. Funded by the National Institute of Justice, MADCE recently reported a re-arrest rate for drug court participants that was 10 percentage points below that of the comparison group, but that the difference was not statistically significant. This means that the study effectively found no difference in re-arrest rates between the groups, as the decrease may be the result of chance.
“Drug courts have actually helped to increase, not decrease, the criminal justice entanglement of people who struggle with drugs and have failed to provide quality treatment,” said Daniel Abrahamson, Drug Policy Alliance’s Director of Legal Affairs. “Only sentencing reform and expanded investment in health approaches to drug use will stem the flow of drug arrests and incarceration. The feel-good nature of drug courts hasn’t translated into results. U.S. drug policy must be based not on good intentions, but on robust, reliable research.”
The Drug Policy Alliance this year released Drug Courts are Not the Answer: Toward a Health-Centered Approach to Drug Use, which found that drug courts have not demonstrated cost savings, reduced incarceration, or improved public safety; leave many people worse off for trying; and have actually made the criminal justice system more punitive toward addiction – not less. For example, people who struggle the most with a drug problem are more likely to be kicked out of a drug court and incarcerated. Although relapse is a common and predictable occurrence during treatment, drug courts often punish relapse with jail time.
The GAO’s study is available at: http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-53. Results from MADCE are available at: http://www.urban.org/publications/412353.html.
Tony Newman 646-335-5384 or Margaret Dooley-Sammuli 213-291 4190
SMART Recovery’s Winter Newsletter just came out.They have a special article about the promoting courts to offer choice in treatment on page 7. It also has a link to the different case laws on the topic of mandating Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous. SMART Recovery is Science based therapies in addiction treatment. SMART is growing in popularity around the world.They offer free meetings including online meetings that courts are starting to accept.
The First Amendment And Choice In Recovery
by Claire Johnson Saénz, Esquire, SMART Recovery ®
Board of Directors and Court Team member
SMART Recovery® says there is no right or wrong path to recovery. Individuals have the highest chance of successful recovery when they can choose their path. We’re committed to getting the word out about recovery options. We want judicial system personnel to know about different recovery paths, and to be aware of their legal obligation to offer options to those they serve.
An important development in this area is the growing number of courts that declare mandated attendance at a 12-step program violates the First Amendment.
http://www.smartrecovery.org/resources/library/Newsletters/Newsletters/winter-2012-news-and-views.pdf
Very Tough Love Indeed! This judge is crazy and should be thrown off the bench! This Drug Court in Geogia is out of control.
PART ONE.
Ira reports from Glynn County Georgia on Superior Court Judge Amanda Williams and how she runs the drug courts in Glynn, Camden and Wayne counties. We hear the story of Lindsey Dills, who forges two checks on her parents’ checking account when she’s 17, one for $40 and one for $60, and ends up in drug court for five and a half years, including 14 months behind bars, and then she serves another five years after that—six months of it in Arrendale State Prison, the other four and a half on probation. The average drug court program in the U.S. lasts 15 months. But one main way that Judge Williams’ drug court is different from most is how punitive it is. Such long jail sentences are contrary to the philosophy of drug court, as well as the guidelines of the National Association of Drug Court Professionals. For violating drug court rules, Lindsey not only does jail terms of 51 days, 90 days and 104 days, Judge Williams sends her on what she calls an “indefinite sentence,” where she did not specify when Lindsey would get out. (30 minutes)
PART TWO.
We hear about how Brandi Byrd and many other offenders end up in Judge Williams’ drug court. One reason drug courts were created was to save money by incarcerating fewer people. But in Judge Williams’ program, people like Brandi end up in drug court—at a cost of $350 per month—who would’ve simply gotten probation in most other Georgia counties. When offenders like Brandi are kicked out of the program—and half of participants in Judge Williams’ drug court program don’t successfully complete it—they go into detention, at a cost of $17,000 per year. Brandi did two years.
We also hear how one model drug court participant, Charlie McCullough, was treated by Judge Williams. (25 minutes)
Song: “Care of Cell 44”, The Zombies
http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/430/very-tough-love
Good post. Judge Amanda WIlliams is insane and needs to be dis barred. SHe also needs to be told that just because her hubby is in AA 17 years that doesn’t make her special. Get real woman.