The resolution on problem-solving courts adopted by the CCJ and COSCA is one of several
developments since the May 2000 focus group meeting that are relevant to the topic of
institutionalizing drug courts. In New York, for example, a special commission on drugs and the
courts submitted a report to New York’s chief judge in June 2000 that called for the State’s
office of court administration to take the lead in launching a systematic statewide approach to the
delivery of “coerced” treatment to nonviolent addicts in every jurisdiction. In November 2000,
California voters overwhelmingly approved Proposition 36, a measure that mandates people
convicted of a first or second offense of drug possession or use to be sentenced to probation and
drug treatment instead of prison.
In several States, legislatures are reexamining statutes that impose harsh mandatory
punishment for possession of small amounts of illegal substances. This movement received
further impetus in August 2001, when the American Bar Association (ABA) House of Delegates
adopted two resolutions—one endorsing the principles and methods used by problem-solving
courts, the other establishing a new ABA standard (part of the ABA’s Trial Court Standards) on
procedures in drug treatment courts—that explicitly acknowledged the accomplishments of drug
courts and their effectiveness in reducing substance abuse and criminal behavior.
Together, these developments suggest a major shift in the thinking of leading policymakers,
criminal justice practitioners, the legal community, and the general public concerning the appropriate societal response to drug-abusing behavior. Treatment is increasingly being regarded
as a desirable (and much less expensive) alternative to incarceration, with drug courts recognized
as a model for effectively handling cases involving nonviolent substance abusers.
Drug courts have clearly played a major role in catalyzing these shifts in thought and policy
by demonstrating that a significant percentage of people who come into the justice system
because of their drug-abusing behavior can—with appropriate supervision, testing and treatment
services, and judicious use of sanctions and incentives—change their lifestyles and become
productive and law-abiding citizens. In a sense, these shifts themselves represent a kind of
institutionalizing of drug courts.
In the future, however, the challenges for drug courts may be even greater. If movement
away from incarceration as a response to drug abuse continues, there may be pressure to further
expand the scope of drug courts to handle more substance-involved offenders. Alternatively (and
perhaps simultaneously), there may be greater reliance on treatment alone and movement away
from reliance on criminal justice processes and the drug court model as a preferred response to
nonviolent substance abuse, at least for those who have little or no previous criminal record. The
developments since May 2000 suggest that either or both of these directions could be taken by
jurisdictions as they reconsider their policies in this area.
In any event, neither treatment nor justice system resources are unlimited. Differentiating
cases more carefully when they first enter the justice system, and using the limited resources more effectively will be increasingly important. To facilitate more effective targeting of available
resources, drug court practitioners need information early on about the nature and seriousness of
an individual’s substance abuse problem and about the individual’s prior record and other factors
relevant to gauging risk and need.
The precise direction that policy and practice will take in future years is
difficult—perhaps impossible—to predict and will probably vary across jurisdictions. However, the basic concepts and techniques developed in drug courts will provide a foundation for various
approaches to addressing the issues of cases that involve people with substance abuse problems.
Considering the progress of the past decade, much has been accomplished by drug courts, both
for the individuals whose lives have been reclaimed and for the communities in which these
courts function. Drug courts have also changed public attitudes and justice system practices with
respect to cases involving people with substance abuse problems.
Drug courts have accomplished a great deal in a short period, yet much remains to be
done and new obstacles will arise. In light of the accomplishments to date and the issues still
ahead, institutionalization can perhaps best be viewed not as an end in itself, but as an ongoing
process replete with new challenges.
