Acknowledgments Executive Summary Introduction Participant Histories Neighborhood Problems Drug Court Knowledge The Courtroom Experience Commitment to Treatment The Treatment Experience Participant Drug Use Court Responses Recommendations for Improving Drug Courts')" onMouseOut="hidetip()">Participant Recommendations Policy Implications Conclusion References

X. Participant Recommendations for Improving Drug Courts

In concluding each focus group, we asked participants for suggestions they might have to improve drug court procedures. Each group produced a number of useful recommendations.

Brooklyn

Due to the wide variety of treatment providers associated with the Brooklyn Treatment Court, it had the least cohesive group of participants of the visited drug courts, and as such, its participants’ recommendations for what the court could do to improve itself were more limited than elsewhere. The majority of the recommendations from Brooklyn Treatment Court participants suggested expanding the court in different ways, with more staff, different locations, and more open admission criteria to include a wider variety of individuals:

• I think they could use a little more staff. . . .

• More groups . . . open up more places where people can go to talk to one another.

• I think that there should be more volunteers, people that’s coming out of treatment to give the people coming in help.

A few participants also suggested that better communication with case managers is needed, and that treatment programs need to be custom tailored:

• I feel if you have 18 months and after 13 or 14 months you feel like that particular program is stagnating, you could leave and go to another program that would help without being penalized as long as you’re clean and doing the right thing. The case manager could help you by saying, “Is everything going all right? If not, we could switch you to something more convenient as long as you comply by staying clean and participate.”

• Needs to be custom tailored to you, rather than having everybody do the same thing whether it fits or not.

Las Vegas

Las Vegas participants spoke about the emphasis in the drug court on payment of fees. Although they understood the necessity for requiring payment, they expressed dissatisfaction with both the amounts required and the consequences for late payment. Some participants told of a number of instances in which circumstances had prevented them from paying on time, causing them to risk penalties. Sometimes, they reported, this fear of penalty was a powerful motivation to avoid going to court. Las Vegas focus group participants recommended more flexibility in the payment and collection of fees.

Las Vegas focus group participants also spoke about the importance of securing and maintaining employment while meeting the treatment schedule. Some suggested that alternative treatment schedules or added sessions could be developed to accommodate the work schedules of those participating in treatment.

Las Vegas participants discussed the need for a telephone hotline to assist drug court participants during the hours when the treatment program and court were closed—the hours during which they were most likely to be having problems at home or tempted by drugs:

• I felt suicidal at times. Well, it may not be used by everybody but it would help when you’re thinking about it. They shouldn’t have to know your name and your case number and this for you to have to talk to them, you know, when I’m thinking about using.

• Whatever, just somebody, you know.

• Maybe somebody to say, “Nah, don’t do that, don’t do that,” you know.

• When you have a crisis line or hotline, a 24-hour line, or something that anybody who is going to slip like, you know, 2 or 3 o’clock in the morning can’t sleep, f*** it, I’m going out and get hit. Pick up the phone and say, “Look, I’m having a problem. I really want to go get high, what can I do to not, you know. . . . Help me.”

Other Las Vegas focus group participants stressed how difficult it was to be successful in treatment when those around them continued to use drugs, and asked for group sessions for couples. Some participants believed that there had been such a program, but that for some reason it had been discontinued. Many agreed that it would provide needed extra support.

Miami

Miami focus group participants made a variety of recommendations for improving the drug court experience, including the following:

• Inpatient treatment, rather than incarceration, for clients who test “dirty.”

• Addition of 12-step programs (Debtors Anonymous, Alcoholics Anonymous, Narcotics Anonymous).

• More treatment locations so people do not have to travel so far (or reimbursement for travel).
  • I think that it’s kinda too long and I think for the fact that they doin’ this for us, they should have this located in different areas and more other places. I drive a good 25 miles to get here.

• Use of successful graduates of the program as speakers.

• Shortened programs for those who do not require 12 months of treatment.

• Eliminate the requirement to have participants pay for their urine testing.
  • I was wondering, we have to pay for our urine being tested, $5 a week, and plus we on probation, we have to pay for that. . . . It’s like, why isn’t it all included in probation?

• Elimination of fees generally.
  • Very complicated, pay here, pay here, pay here.

• Reduced time spent in court.

• Telephone hotline to help people when the treatment clinics are closed.

• No second chances in drug court.

• Better rewards for making progress and taking the program seriously.

Portland

When Portland focus group participants were asked for suggestions on improving the drug court program, they made a variety of recommendations. Most of their comments involved expanding certain aspects of the treatment program, making the program more widely available, and linking the program to other support systems. Recommendations for expanding the program included the following:

• Increased linkage to other support systems.

• More African-American and Spanish-speaking counselors.

• Increased access to drug courts outside of Portland.

• Increased availability of treatment and more money for treatment.

• Increased support for and focus on the first phase of the treatment process.

• More freedom in the final phases of treatment.

• More support at alumni meetings.

• Movement beyond the physical aspects of drug addiction in the treatment process.

One Portland participant concluded the discussion by saying, “For a recommendation, I would basically just say the availability, open it up, you know, take some of that prison money and start putting it into the programs. Prisons aren’t changing anybody.”

Several participants also suggested that less emphasis should be placed on fees and that the judge should show more leniency and be flexible with clients who are struggling to make payments. All participants agreed that there should be more consistency in the courtroom. Participants who commit the same transgressions often receive very different sanctions; this inconsistency is at least partly due to the rotation of judges and the use of referees.

San Bernardino

San Bernardino participants had the following suggestions:

• More counselors.

• Provision of child care. (The drug court has a contract with a child care provider; however, a few of the participants felt that it was still difficult to obtain child care when they needed it.)
  • Child care. Well, supposedly they do have a contract with . . . but they give a really hard time of it.

  • I have a 2-year-old son; I live with my mother but she’s disabled and she can’t take care of him for too long periods of time. But if they had some place down here where I could take my child while I went to class, that would help greatly.

  • ’Cause you can’t do treatment if you have four kids.

• Help with transportation. (Some participants travel a distance to get to drug court.)
  • They give you bus passes.

  • But it cost 35 cents.

  • Everybody don’t have 35 cents. I’m not saying me in particular.

• Mental health assistance.
  • A lot of people have low self-esteem, low self-confidence . . . some kind of trauma in your life.

  • Because our counselors have a lot of training but it’s more in a group setting. We need more individual, ’cause when you’re in a group you end up seeing a lot of things you haven’t looked at in a long time, things that you’ve stuffed; bad things or whatever you know; things that have caused you to go on and do what you’ve done and the counselors really don’t have the training to really help with this.

• More leniency with fees.
  • Let’s say you just getting out of jail, ain’t got not job, I mean how they expect you to pay the fees just right up? . . . And you ain’t got no job, you looking for a job, . . . you doin’ all you can to get a job but at the same time they expecting you to pay this fee. I mean, what are you gonna do to pay the fees? I mean, what they want you to do? . . . You know you gotta do something to pay that fee . . . and if you don’t do that or if you do that too many times, you go to jail.

Seattle

Seattle focus group participants made the following recommendations to improve the drug court:

• Better funding for residential treatment.
  • There are no more inpatients [beds] that I know of. The drug court participants now have no option of inpatient treatment.

• Reduced group size.
  • The groups are so huge, there is not enough people to handle the group ’cause the size is so big. They need to make it smaller.

• More counselors.
  • I think they understaffed—I think they could use more staff to help out with their caseloads.

• More help finding jobs and housing and more educational opportunities.
  • I think they should have more housing and job possibilities, ’cause lots of people go right back to where they lived.

• More specialized medical services.
  • I think they should have more access for doctors, like mental health doctors. I want to go see a doctor, but I gotta wait 2 months to see a mental health doctor.