• As reported in the 1999 Federal Criminal Case Processing, drug prosecutions have comprised an increasing proportion of the federal criminal caseload - from 21% of defendants during 1982 to 36% during 1999. (BJS, 1999)

• In 1996, drug offenders comprised a third of all persons convicted of a felony in state courts. (BJS, 1996)

• Juveniles under age 16 were responsible for 40% (73,500) of drug law violation cases but almost 60% of delinquency cases in 1997. (BJS, 1997)

• Drug-using offenders spend an average of three months in jail and 24 months on probation living in our communities. (Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), US Department of Justice, 1995)

• Drug testing of arrestees at numerous jails across the nation establishes that 66% of all arrestees test positive for illegal drugs. (Drug Use Forecasting Study, US Department of Justice, 1996)

·        Most drug court participants have at least a 15-year history of drug use. (American University’s (AU) Drug Court Program Survey, 1997)

·        The first national survey of adults on probation, conducted in 1995, reported that 14% of probationers were on drugs when they committed their offenses. (BJS, 1995)

·        In 1997 19% of state prisoners and 16% of federal inmates said they committed their current offense to obtain money for drugs. (BJS, 1997)

·        In 1998 an estimated 138,000 convicted jail inmates (36%) were under the influence of drugs at the time of the offense. (BJS, 2000)

·        In 1998 an estimated 61,000 convicted jail inmates said they had committed their offense to get money for drugs. Of convicted property and drug offenders, about 1 in 4 had committed their crimes to get money for drugs. A higher percentage of drug offenders in 1996 (24%) than in 1989 (14%) were in jail for a crime committed to raise money for drugs. (BJS, 1997)

·        Eighty-seven percent (87%) of drug court programs target individuals with moderate to severe drug abuse problems. (AU Drug Court Survey, 1997)

• Drug offenders accounted for 72% of the overall increase in the federal prison population between 1990 and 1996.  The traditional adversarial system of justice was ineffective at addressing the drug abuse and in some cases actually contributed to drug problems.  Extensive research confirms that treatment is the most cost effective way to combat drug abuse and drug-related crime.  (Drug Court: A Revolution in Criminal Justice, Drug Strategies, 1999)

• Drug courts typically require:

1.      Weekly drug testing;

2.      At least, bi-weekly personal appearances before a drug court judge; and

3.      Personal supervision and treatment contacts at least three times each week.

• The recently updated study from Columbia University’s prestigious National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) is the first to look at the effectiveness of the drug court model on offenders while in a program, as compared to other forms of community supervision. (Research on Drug Courts: A Critical Review, 2001 Update, The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University, June, 2001)

• The study concludes that drug courts provide closer, more comprehensive supervision and much more frequent drug testing and monitoring during the program, than other forms of community supervision.  In addition, it found that drug use and criminal behavior are substantially reduced while offenders are participating in drug court. (CASA, 2001)

·        Over 70% of all drug-using offenders who have entered drug court programs since their inception in 1989 have either successfully completed or are currently participating in a drug court program. (General Accounting Office, 1997)

• Less than ½ of those on probation have ever been drug tested during their probation term. (BJS, 1995)

• Less than ¼ of all probationers currently are being drug tested. (BJS, 1995)

• Only 45% of those probationers reporting prior drug use are being drug tested during their first year of probation.  (BJS, 1995)

• Less than 5% of probationers are in intensive supervision programs. (BJS, 1995)

• Overall, about 2/3 of probationers, approximately 2 million persons, may be characterized as alcohol or drug-involved offenders. (BJS, 1995) 

• Probationers account for 58% of adults under correctional supervision, including persons held in jails and prisons and also on parole. (BJS, 1995)

• Less than 1/3 of those placed on probation have a drug testing condition as part of their probation. (BJS, 1995)

• Seventy percent (70%) of drug court programs already have probation and post-plea based programs that work with offenders with more extensive drug usage and criminal histories (AU Drug Court Survey, 1997)

• The research literature confirms the importance of program retention and completion for positive outcomes – participants “who stay in treatment longer and who complete the program regime are more likely to have better outcomes (reductions in drug use and criminal behavior) than clients who drop-out of services." (National Drug Court Institute Review, “Drug Treatment: The Case for Coercion,” Sally Satel, MD, Vol. III, Issue I, Winter, 2000)

• "In a study comprising two models of residential services . . . , researchers found that completion of the treatment regime, regardless of the type of services, was the factor affecting the reduced positive urines and arrests." (Satel, 2000).

• "...during even brief exposures to treatment almost all addicts will use fewer drugs and commit fewer crimes than they otherwise would, which means that almost any treatment produces benefits in excess to cost." (Satel, 2000)

• "Beyond a 90 day threshold, treatment outcomes improved in direct relationship to the length of time spent in treatment, with one year generally found to be the minimum effective duration of treatment." (Satel, 2000)

• "The second major finding was that coerced patients tended to stay in treatment longer." (Satel, 2000)

• Drug courts generate savings in jail costs, especially for pretrial detention.  In addition, cost savings were noted in probation, supervision, police overtime and other criminal justice costs.  (National Drug Court Institute Review, “Research on Drug Courts: A Critical Review – 1999 Update,” Steven Belenko, Ph.D., Vol. II, Issue II, Winter, 1999)

• In Washington, DC, a year of drug court costs $1,800 to $4,400 per participant  This compares to at least $20,000 per year to jail an offender.  (Notre Dame Law Review, “Therapeutic Jurisprudence and the Drug Treatment Court Movement: Revolutionizing the Criminal Justice System’s Response to Drug Abuse and Crime in America,” Vol. 72, Issue 2, January, 1999)

• The Conference of Chief Justices and the Congress of State Court Administrators passed a joint resolution endorsing drug courts in 1999.

• Prior to that endorsement, the National District Attorneys’ Association and the National Sheriffs’ Association passed resolutions in favor of drug courts.

• Researchers estimate that more than 50% of defendants convicted of a drug possession will recidivate within 2 to 3 years. Recidivism among all drug court participants has ranged from 5 to 28% and less than 4% for drug court graduates. (Looking at a Decade of Drug Courts, 1999)

• An individual who has a severe addiction commits nearly 63 crimes a year. (The Rebirth of Rehabilitation: Promises and Perils of Drug Courts, 2000)

• By December 2000, more than 1,000 drug-free babies had been born to adult female drug court participants enrolled in drug court programs. (Drug Court Clearinghouse and Technical Assistance Project, 2000)

• From 1988 to 1997, the number of juvenile drug violation cases increased 125%. (Juvenile Court Statistics, 1997)

• An estimated 61,000 (16%) convicted jail inmates committed their offenses to get money for drugs. (Drug Use, Testing, and Treatment in Jails, 2000)

• President Bush stated the following:

Drug courts are an effective and cost efficient way to keep non-violent drug offenders commit to a rigorous drug treatment program in lieu of prison.  By leveraging the coercive power of the criminal justice system, drug courts can alter the behavior of non-violent, low-level drug offenders through a combination of judicial supervision, case management, mandatory drug testing, and treatment to ensure abstinence from drugs, and escalating sanctions. (Blueprint for New Beginnings, February 28, 2001)