Title: The Rebirth of Rehabilitation: Promise and Perils of Drug Courts.
Series: Sentencing & Corrections: Issues For the 21st Century (Research In
Brief)
Author: Richard S. Gebelein
Published: National Institute of Justice, May 2000
Subject: Drug courts; Drug offense sanctions and penalties; Drug abuse
prevention and education
20 pages
40,000 bytes

---------------------------

Figures, charts, forms, and tables are not included in this ASCII plain-text file.
To view this document in its entirety, download the Adobe Acrobat graphic file
available from this Web site or order a print copy from NCJRS at
800-851-3420 (877-712-9279 for TTY users).

---------------------------

U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
National Institute of Justice
Sentencing & Corrections: Issues For the 21st Century
Papers From the Executive Sessions on Sentencing and Corrections
May 2000
No. 6

The Rebirth of Rehabilitation: Promise and Perils of Drug Courts

by Richard S. Gebelein

The proliferation of drug courts in the past several years has been
extraordinary, as is the broad support they have won. Early evaluation results
are not definitive but are promising, and many judges, lawyers, treatment
providers, former offenders, and others believe drug courts are achieving many
of their aims. All these favorable developments do not necessarily mean that
drug courts will in the long term become core components of the criminal justice
system. There are different kinds of drug courts with different kinds of
caseloads. Not all will be successful. And, as with boot camps, there is the
danger that uncritical enthusiasm may not withstand the effects of unfavorable
evaluations.

Delaware's experience is described here to illustrate the development and
evolution of drug courts. The discussion is framed by an exploration of the
possibilities drug courts offer for improving public safety and the pitfalls they
may face. It is set in the context of the shift away from indeterminate sentencing,
which occurred about the same time strong, empirically based evidence of the
link between drugs and crime and the efficacy of treatment was coming to light.
Rehabilitation, all but abandoned as a sentencing goal, was revived for
drug-involved offenders through the institution of drug courts. They were
created in some cases to relieve dockets overcrowded by the rising number of
drug cases in the late 1980s and to reduce prison overcrowding. Most notably,
they offered a treatment-based alternative that also mandated judicially
supervised sanctions. For drug-involved offenders, drug courts replaced what
was lost when indeterminate sentencing was eclipsed as a means to
rehabilitation.

Shifting sentencing policies 

The rise of the drug court "movement" is best understood in the context of the
changing goals of sentencing policy in the United States in the past half century.
Several traditional core justifications or purposes for sanctions have been
recognized:[1]

o Retribution or punishment, sometimes called just deserts--the idea that the
offender should receive the punishment deserved for the crime committed.

o Deterrence--the notion that fear of punishment will deter people from crime.
It can be specific (geared to the offender) or general (geared to a type of
offending).

o Incapacitation--placing the offender in custody so that he or she cannot
commit additional crimes. 

o Rehabilitation--the idea that offenders should be reformed so they will not
commit crimes again. 

o Restoration--the use of criminal justice processes to rebuild the relationships
among the victim, community, and offender that were disrupted by the crime
and to repair the harm done. Restoration encompasses rehabilitation through
the accountability it requires of--offenders.

The rise of rehabilitation . . .

During the past 50 years, correctional philosophy in the United States has
swung widely toward and then away from rehabilitation as the dominant
rationale for sentencing. In the early 1950s, rehabilitation was widely accepted
as the primary goal.[2]

The dominance of rehabilitation led to the creation of numerous programs that
addressed offenders' needs. Many were based on a medical model designed
to diagnose the deficiencies that led to the crime and then offer treatment to
overcome them. Others aimed at skills development (through job training and
education, for example). The dominance of rehabilitation also explains the
support for indeterminate sentencing, in which judicial decisions are tailored to
individual offenders and release is determined by a parole board or
commission.

. . . And its demise

By the mid-1970s, the effectiveness of rehabilitative programs (and
consequently the rationale for indeterminate sentencing) began to be questioned
and, by the 1980s, they were widely considered a failure. Crime and recidivism
were increasing despite major rehabilitative efforts in most correctional systems.
All the reasons for the collapse cannot be presented, but a few may serve as a
cautionary tale. 

First, correctional systems tried to rehabilitate offenders without knowing why
people commit specific crimes. That lack of knowledge persists to a large
extent today. Second, the exuberance of the 1950s gave way to questioning
and self-doubt as the Vietnam War, racial issues, and economic slowdowns
demonstrated that serious social problems were not amenable to easy solutions.
Some faulted indeterminate sentencing for resulting in disparate sentences for
similar offenses. Unbridled discretion was seen to defeat fairness in sentencing.
The number of incoming prisoners overwhelmed the financial ability or
commitment of most jurisdictions to provide quality programs.

As the 1980s gave way to the 1990s, rehabilitation faded as a principal
sentencing goal. The change was expressed statutorily and in academic and
other professional literature. Punishment (retribution) and incapacitation became
dominant. Delaware was among the many States in which rehabilitation had
been statutorily identified as the primary sentencing aim. In 1984 that changed,
as incapacitation became the primary goal and rehabilitation the last.

In many other States the story was similar. Parole boards were abolished.
Mandatory minimum sentences multiplied. Truth-in-sentencing laws
proliferated. The "three strikes" analogy seemed best to characterize the
philosophy of policymakers and the public. It did not appear that rehabilitation
was alive or respected anywhere. But that perception was wrong. Particularly
for drug-involved offenders, the groundwork was being laid for reviving
rehabilitation.[3] One of the chief ways was by a growing understanding of the
drug-crime link and the effectiveness of drug treatment.

The drug-crime link and the efficacy of treatment 

Drug cases began to escalate dramatically in the 1980s. Petty drug offenders
were recycling through the justice system at an alarming rate. Delaware's
situation was typical. Overwhelmed with drug cases, the State's courts sought
ways to manage case flow and solve the "revolving door" problem. Courts
everywhere also sought sentencing alternatives for addicted offenders.

The situation brought to the fore questions about the link of substance abuse to
crime. About this time, research was shedding better light on the issue. A study
conducted in 1987 revealed that a large proportion of arrestees in several
major urban areas tested positive for illegal substances.[4] When the Delaware
drug court was in the design stage, a study of the State's prisoners revealed
that 80 percent needed substance abuse treatment.[5] Researchers were also
finding that when addicted offenders used drugs, they were among the most
active perpetrators of other crimes.[6] 

At the same time, it was becoming established that if treatment reduced drug
use by criminally involved addicts, it would also reduce their tendency to
commit crime.[7] Research was also proving that compelled treatment was as
effective as voluntary treatment.[8] Delaware would find, and other research
would confirm, that in-prison treatment based on the therapeutic community
(TC) model dramatically affects drug use and recidivism.[9]

The "movement" and why it grew 

All these factors converged to create a climate conducive to the growth of drug
courts. When the National Association of Drug Court Professionals (NADCP)
was established in 1994, the drug court judges who founded it numbered fewer
than 15. Only 5 years later, the NADCP's annual training meeting drew
3,000 participants. About 10 years after Miami created what was arguably the
first drug court, there were drug courts in almost every State and the District of
Columbia. The expansion to more than 400 by the end of 1999 is evidence
of the movement's popularity.[10]

The movement gained wide acceptance for many of the reasons rehabilitation
did in the 1950s. It offered hope of solving a grave problem. It is innovative,
leveraging the court's power to compel drug-involved offenders to use a
method that works--treatment. Its advantage over "plain old" rehabilitation is
the focus on one problem (addiction) that is causally related to crime committed
by one group of offenders (addicts). Treatment is reinforced with a healthy
dose of specific deterrence as a motivation to achieve a specific
result--abstinence. Federal legislation provided an added impetus, as the 1994
Crime Act provided funding to establish or expand drug courts. 

Key characteristics

The nature, structure, and jurisdiction of drug courts vary widely. Given the
many variations, it became important to achieve consensus on what is a "true"
drug court. The NADCP and the U.S. Department of Justice identified the
following key elements:[11]

o Integration of substance abuse treatment with justice system case
processing.

o Use of a nonadversarial approach, in which prosecution and defense
promote public safety while protecting the right of the accused to due process. 

o Early identification and prompt placement of eligible participants.

o Access to a continuum of treatment, rehabilitation, and related services.

o Frequent testing for alcohol and illicit drugs.

o A coordinated strategy among judge, prosecution, defense, and treatment
providers to govern offender compliance.

o Ongoing judicial interaction with each participant. 

o Monitoring and evaluation to measure achievement of program goals and
gauge effectiveness.

o Continuing interdisciplinary education to promote effective planning,
implementation, and operation.

o Partnerships with public agencies and community-based organizations to
generate local support and enhance drug court effectiveness.

Most drug courts attempt to integrate these components. One reason is that
Federal funding is contingent on a plan that incorporates them all.

Process and structure

In general, the offender enters the program through a plea, conditional plea,
contract with the court, or similar mechanism. The offender is assigned to a
treatment program and told when to report to court. Court appearances can be
as frequent as several times a week or can be once a month or less often.
Urinalysis is frequent and usually on a random basis. Urinalysis positives or
missed treatments or court appointments result in immediate sanctions. In
Delaware's diversionary court, requirements include 4 months of total
abstinence in addition to holding a steady job, successfully completing
treatment, earning a general equivalency diploma if applicable, participating in
12-step meetings, developing a support network, and maintaining a stable
residence.

The first drug courts dealt primarily with minor drug offenses, with offenders
placed on a diversionary or quasi-diversionary track. Newer designs include
postadjudicative drug courts (those in which the offender is sentenced to drug
court after conviction), juvenile drug courts, and family drug courts. In the
model most commonly used today, the population of substance-abusing
offenders is wider and more varied than that of the first drug courts. Drug
courts funded by the 1994 Crime Act may process only nonviolent offenders,
but many drug courts that are wholly State funded or locally funded accept
some violent offenders. 

The Delaware drug courts 

Delaware's drug courts in many respects typify drug courts in general. They
began with an effort to solve the problem of drugs and crime. The State's Drug
Involved Offender Coordination Committee, organized in 1991 to weigh
proposed solutions, discovered flaws in the State's approach to offender
substance abuse. Many court orders referring defendants to treatment were
ignored by corrections officials. Related problems came to light. Offenders
were more likely than non-court-referred participants to be discharged from
treatment programs. Jail- or prison-based treatment was limited; there was no
coordination between treatment in jail and the community; and treatment was
inefficiently delivered and inadequate in relation to the need.[12]

A treatment continuum did not exist. To create one, the Treatment Access
Committee (TAC) was established and charged with ensuring that
substance-abusing offenders did not "fall through the cracks."

The diversion model

Delaware's potential treatment population was so large that only two groups
could be targeted. Younger offenders, who are less criminally involved and who
can possibly be diverted from a life of crime, were selected as one group.

The diversion track calls for a modest "investment" of 6 months to a year in
drug court, with outpatient treatment and frequent urine tests. These offenders
are not under sentence, so they are not supervised by probation. This saves
resources, which can be used to supervise more serious offenders. However,
offenders on this track are more accountable than those on regular probation. If
the offender cannot stay drug free or otherwise fails, diversion is terminated, a
trial is held, and, if it results in conviction, the usual sentence is probation with
compelled treatment. If all conditions are met, the offender graduates and the
charge is dismissed.

The probation revocation model 

Offenders in jail or prison because of violating probation were another group
identified as needing substantial investment of treatment resources.[13] TAC
felt that a drug court model could work with them, although outpatient treatment
without probation supervision was unlikely to work with many. This group of
more serious offenders consists largely of people convicted of 6 to 10 felonies
and addicted for 12 to 20 years. 

The probation revocation model is for offenders charged with a new crime. The
prosecutor offers to resolve the new offense and the probation violation
simultaneously, through a plea and an "addiction sentence"[14] that always
includes drug court-supervised treatment. If the defendant accepts the offer, he
or she is immediately sentenced on both counts. If the defendant is sentenced to
jail or prison, he or she enters a treatment program in the correctional facility.
Successful completion means the remaining prison time is suspended and
replaced with supervision and treatment in the community. The addiction
sentence allows the court to require this treatment continuum through the
in-prison "Key" program, followed by work release and continued treatment in
the "Crest" program and aftercare in the community.[15] In effect, the model
provides for indeterminate sentencing--tailored to the offender, with the goal of
rehabilitation--in a truth-in-sentencing State.[16]

All addiction sentences require frequent court appearances, and the assignment
of a Treatment Alternatives to Street Crime (TASC) case manager,[17] to
ensure continuum of treatment in the transition from jail to halfway house to
community. Failure in this track usually results in a prison sentence with an
order to participate in a long-term therapeutic community while incarcerated,
followed again by treatment in the community, with reentry monitored by the
drug court.

Preliminary results

Scientifically based evaluations of Delaware's drug courts are not completed,
but initial studies are encouraging.[18] The figures on numbers of diversion
track graduates are a rough estimate: By the end of 1999, charges were
dismissed for 2,670 people--about half of those who entered the program.
Case studies demonstrate that the lives of people once considered total criminal
justice failures have been saved. The widespread belief among judges,
prosecutors, defense attorneys, and others that the Delaware drug courts are
working and turning lives around cannot easily be discounted. 

Treatment providers indicated 18 months into the program that their drug court
clients are more likely to complete treatment than are their other clients, and
that they stay in treatment longer.[19] Preliminary evaluation results suggest
that Delaware drug court graduates reoffend less often than other sentenced
offenders and, when they do, their crimes are on average far less serious.[20]
Studies of drug courts in other jurisdictions offer similarly encouraging
findings.[21] The past 3 years' experience in Delaware indicates that offenders
adjudicated through the probation revocation track spend less time in prison
than do other offenders sentenced for similar crimes.[22] This is because
drug court offenders can earn early release by completing treatment.

The promise of drug courts

Drug courts will not solve the drug problem or eliminate crime in Delaware or
anywhere else. But if they offer a comprehensive treatment continuum, solid
case management, and meaningful immediate sanctions, they can have a major
effect on public safety. They are a powerful tool for addressing the criminal
behavior of people who commit disproportionately large numbers of crimes.

Simple math suggests their crime-reduction potential. An individual who has an
out-of-control addiction commits about 63 crimes a year.[23] Assuming this
could be reduced to 10 for someone who is in or has completed treatment,
and multiplying it by the 200 offenders in Delaware's probation revocation
track who comply with all requirements, a single drug court may prevent more
than 10,000 crimes each year. 

Even offenders who do not succeed in drug court appear to be less criminally
active than they were previously. This may be due to the benefits of treatment
or the supervision, sanctions, intensive surveillance, and specific deterrence of
the drug court. 

The results of drug courts are partially tallied outside the criminal justice column,
beyond reduced recidivism and drug use. For example, in the Delaware
revocation track's first 2 years, 11 drug-free babies were born to former
crack-addicted women who had been brought before the court. Drug court
graduates become gainfully employed, tax-paying members of the community,
at least for a time. Drug courts save lives--a function that appeals to all political
philosophies and goes far to refute the notion that "nothing works." 

The perils of drug courts

The drug court movement is currently riding a wave of success. Initial
evaluations are favorable. New courts are being established everywhere. The
movement is supported by both major political parties and the news media.
Even more important, it has captured the imagination of the public. Ironically,
success is perhaps the biggest peril drug courts face. 

Success

Success with a narrowly defined offender population does not translate into a
universal solution to drug crime. 

As the results of more sophisticated evaluations become available, preliminary
success rates will not be sustained. As less tractable groups participate, rates of
compliance and graduation will decline and recidivism will rise. Support may
fade as success appears to diminish. The movement cannot afford to claim too
much and so must define success realistically. 

Client and treatment differences 

Differences in treatment options and in groups that participate will affect
outcomes. Some drug courts, such as Delaware's probation revocation track,
include a full spectrum of treatment options. Others, such as Delaware's
diversion track, rely primarily on outpatient treatment, drug education, and
urine tests. Success is likely to vary with the treatment available. 

In Delaware's probation revocation track, the participants are far more
involved with drugs and other crime than those on the diversion track, who are
younger, are less severely addicted, and have less extensive criminal histories.
Different success rates can be expected from the different populations.

In identifying target populations, drug courts need to be sensitive to class and
race bias, real or apparent. Unless care is taken, diversion courts may tend
disproportionately to work with white and middle-class substance abusers. In
Delaware, the client demographics of the diversion and probation revocation
tracks were at first virtual opposites. Participants in the latter were
disproportionately minority group members from disadvantaged backgrounds;
those in the former were more likely to be white and middle class. Delaware
has aggressively addressed this imbalance. 

Differences in populations and treatments can lead to the same problems that
came to light in research on boot camps. Initially, boot camps were highly
popular (perhaps for all the wrong reasons). They proliferated quickly, and
claims of success abounded. However, evaluations generally revealed that boot
camps do little to reduce recidivism. As a result, funding eroded, fewer
resources were allocated, and support all but evaporated. The same fate could
befall drug courts if evaluations of individual courts that offer incomplete
treatment or no real treatment at all reveal low success rates.

Availability of resources

Generally, as the type and number of offenders treated increases, appropriate
treatment becomes less available. For serious, violent offenders, weekly or
twice-weekly outpatient treatment is not viable. They need more supervision
and structure, but many localities cannot offer this. 

As the number of clients grows, the tendency is to make do with the same
amount of resources as offered for fewer clients. The usual result is
deterioration of treatment quality as programs are shortened and more people
are crowded into each group. This can only decrease effectiveness. 

Structural impediments

The structure of health care provision in this country may threaten program
success. The premise of managed care, increasingly the norm, is that the least
treatment required should be provided. This is at odds with research on
substance abuse treatment, which has shown that the longer a person remains in
treatment, the more successful treatment will be. Furthermore, managed care
assumes the patient will aggressively pursue the treatment he or she deems
necessary. Because most drug court clients initially prefer not to be treated,
they are likely to welcome a ruling by the health care provider or the managed
care insurer that treatment is not needed. Finally, drug court clients frequently
encounter delays in obtaining treatment funding or must cobble together bits and
pieces of various programs because the "exhaustion" rules of health care plans
limit treatment. 

The judge is an integral part of the drug court structure. Many judges are
already experiencing burnout, a situation not uncommon among treatment
professionals. When a drug court judge steps down, it is not always possible to
find a sufficiently motivated replacement. Without a highly motivated judge, the
drug court approach simply does not work well.

Unrealistic expectations 

Americans want quick, decisive solutions. This is evident in the very
terminology used for this national propensity: We wage a "War on Drugs." Yet
as General Barry McCaffrey, head of the Office of National Drug Control
Policy, has noted, the problem cannot be solved this way. War requires
concentrated maximum force at a critical point. For the drug problem, there is
no silver bullet, nor is there a single program, model, or method that will
eliminate either addiction or crime.

Because drug courts are effective in helping address one correlate of crime,
they may also serve as a model to help address others. Research may reveal
whether this expectation is realistic by demonstrating why drug courts work and
whether similar principles are likely to work for groups other than drug-involved
offenders. Delaware's proposed reentry court for nonaddicted offenders is an
example of the extension of the model. 

Judges tend to deal more often with failure than success. Many drug court
judges, enthusiastic about their perceived successes, may yield to the
temptation to claim they have the key to winning the war on drugs and criminal
behavior. That claim will surely fail to be sustained. Instances of failure of the
drug court method will become more widely reported. The movement's claims
will be tested against results. If the claims of judges and others are unreasonably
optimistic and not based in reality, backlash is inevitable.

The future

The drug court movement focused initially on adult drug offenders who had
histories of nonviolent offenses. Depending on the site, the movement now
encompasses offenders convicted of several felonies, many of whom have
criminal histories that qualify them for habitual offender status. The movement
also extends to specialty courts dedicated to juvenile offending, domestic
violence, and family issues and has fostered establishment of treatment courts
for DUI cases.

There are other areas where the drug court approach may be useful. An
example is "therapeutic jurisprudence," a new, problem-solving orientation
adopted by some judges, courts, and court systems.[24] Participants in the
drug court movement believe that success is due in large part to direct judicial
involvement with offenders, provided on a regular basis. It is likely that judges
who have been successful with the approach will want to apply it to other
areas.
 
In expanding the drug court model to clients other than drug users, care must be
taken until more is known about why the process works and with what types of
offenders it might be effective. That means first designing pilot programs,
implementing them, and evaluating them. Drug courts hold great promise as a
tool to prevent crime in the long term. For that to become reality, every effort
must be taken to avoid the many perils that could make the movement just
another failed criminal justice fad.

---------------------------

Notes

1. Silverman, Ira J., and Manuel Vega, Corrections: A Comprehensive View,
St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Company, 1996.

2. In the 1950s, the American Correctional Association called for using
individualized treatment to the greatest extent possible to rehabilitate the
offender. American Correctional Association, Manual of Correctional
Standards, College Park, MD: American Correctional Association, Committee
for the Revision of the 1954 Manual, 1959. 

3. Rehabilitation was also being revived as a sentencing goal through restorative
and community justice, new approaches to sentencing. 

4. National Institute of Justice, Attorney General Announces NIJ Drug Use
Forecasting System, Research in Action, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Justice, National Institute of Justice, 1988, NCJ 109957. 

5. Delaware Sentencing Accountability Commission, Coordinated Approach to
Managing the Drug Involved Offender, Wilmington, DE: Delaware Sentencing
Accountability Commission, Treatment Access Committee, 1994.

6. See, for example, Wish, E.D., and B.D. Johnson, "Impact of Substance
Abuse on Criminal Careers," in Criminal Careers and "Career Criminals," vol.
II, ed. Alfred Blumstein et al., Washington, DC: National Academy Press,
1986: 52-88.

7. One study revealed that, on average, offenders ordered to treatment had
committed more than 63 predatory criminal acts in the year before sentencing;
once in treatment, there was a decrease to an average of 6 per year. See
Hubbard, Robert L., et al., "Criminal Justice Client in Drug Abuse Treatment,"
in Compulsory Treatment of Drug Abuse: Research and Clinical Practice
(NIDA Research Monograph 86), ed. C.G. Leukefeld and F.M. Tims,
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National
Institute on Drug Abuse, 1988: 66. With funding from the 1994 Crime Act,
several States created substance abuse treatment programs in correctional
facilities. Evaluations of these Residential Substance Abuse Treatment
programs, sponsored by the Justice Department's Corrections Program Office
and the National Institute of Justice, are now under way. 

8. See Farabee, D., M. Prendergast, and M.D. Anglin, "Effectiveness of
Coerced Treatment of Drug-Abusing Offenders," Federal Probation 62 (1)
(June 1998): 3-10.

9. For a history of Delaware's experience with the Key and Crest TC
programs, and evaluation results, see Martin, Steven S., Clifford A. Butzin,
Christine A. Saum, and James A. Inciardi, "Three-Year Outcomes of
Therapeutic Community Treatment for Drug-Involved Offenders in Delaware:
From Prison to Work Release to Aftercare," Prison Journal 79 (3) (September
1999): 294-320.

10. According to the Drug Courts Program Office of the U.S. Department of
Justice, there were 425 drug courts at the end of 1999.

11. National Association of Drug Court Professionals, Defining Drug Courts:
The Key Components, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Drug
Courts Program Office, 1997, NCJ 165478.

12. Drug Involved Offender Coordination Committee, Effective Management
of Drug Involved Offenders--A Report to Governor Michael Castle,
Wilmington, DE: Drug Involved Offender Coordination Committee, 1992.

13. About 70 percent of offenders in Delaware who violated probation,
compared with 50 percent of all prisoners in the State, were found to need
residential treatment (Coordinated Approach to Managing the Drug Involved
Offender).

14. An "addiction sentence" is one conditioned on treatment results.

15. Delaware's Key-Crest is a three-stage treatment program for
drug-involved offenders. Based on the TC model, it offers a self-contained,
24-hour-a-day, structured treatment environment in a setting apart from the rest
of the prison population. The "Key," the primary stage, consists of
prison-based treatment for men in a 12-month, intensive program. In the
"Crest" transitional stage, a work-release program for women as well as men,
offenders enter 6 months of treatment and job training. In the aftercare stage,
released inmates, receive outpatient counseling and the opportunity to return to
the transitional therapeutic setting. 

16. The legality of this process has not been challenged in Delaware, and its
effect on Federal funding that is contingent on offenders serving 85 percent of
their sentence in prison is unclear.

17. The Treatment Alternatives to Street Crime (TASC) program offers
diversion from prison for drug-involved offenders who do not pose a serious
risk to the community. Offenders are assessed and referred to community
treatment services as an alternative or supplement to justice system sanctions
and procedures. For a description, see Inciardi, James A., and D.C. McBride,
"Reviewing the 'TASC' (Treatment Alternatives to Street Crime) Experience,"
Journal of Crime and Justice 15 (1) (1992): 45-62; and Inciardi, James A.,
D.C. McBride, and J.E. Rivers, Drug Control and the Courts, Drugs, Health,
and Social Policy Series, vol. 3, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1996:
35-60. In Delaware, the TASC case manager who works with the drug court is
based in the Department of Health and Social Services. 

18. Statistical Analysis Center and Anova Associates, The Delaware Drug
Court: A Baseline Evaluation, Wilmington, DE: Delaware Statistical Analysis
Center and Anova Associates, 1998; Statistical Analysis Center, Evaluation of
the Juvenile Drug Court Diversion Program, Wilmington, DE: Delaware
Statistical Analysis Center, 1998; and Reed, Emily, Drug Court Diversion
Program Annual Report, Wilmington, DE: SODAT-Delaware, Inc., 1995. 

19. Delaware Sentencing Accountability Commission, SENTAC Annual
Report, Wilmington, DE: Delaware Sentencing Accountability Commission,
1997.

20. Statistical Analysis Center and Anova Associates, The Delaware Drug
Court: A Baseline Evaluation.

21. Belenko, Steven, "Research on Drug Courts: A Critical Review," National
Drug Court Institute Review 1 (1) (Summer 1998): 1-42; and Harrell, Adele,
"Understanding the Impact of Drug Courts," unpublished draft report,
Washington, DC: The Urban Institute, 1999.

22. Delaware Statistical Analysis Center, Addiction Sentences, draft report,
Wilmington, DE: Delaware Statistical Analysis Center, 1999.

23. Hubbard et al., "Criminal Justice Client in Drug Abuse Treatment."

24. It is beginning to attract attention in academic circles. See, for example,
Rottman, David, and Pamela Casey, "Therapeutic Jurisprudence and the
Emergence of Problem-Solving Courts," National Institute of Justice Journal
240 (July 1999): 12-19.

---------------------------

The Executive Sessions on Sentencing and Corrections 
Convened the following distinguished panel of leaders in the fields:

Neal Bryant
Senator
Oregon State Senate

Harold Clarke
Director
Department of Correctional Services
State of Nevada

Cheryl Crawford
Deputy Director, Office of Development and Communications
National Institute of Justice
U.S. Department of Justice

Barbara Damchik-Dykes
Project Coordinator
Executive Sessions on Sentencing and Corrections

Walter Dickey
Evjue-Bascom Professor of Law
University of Wisconsin 

Ronald Earle
District Attorney
Austin, Texas

Tony Fabelo
Director
Texas Criminal Justice Policy Council

Richard S. Gebelein
Superior Court Judge
Wilmington, Delaware

John Gorczyk
Commissioner
Department of Corrections
State of Vermont

Kathleen Hawk Sawyer
Director
Federal Bureau of Prisons
U.S. Department of Justice

Sally T. Hillsman
Deputy Director
National Institute of Justice
U.S. Department of Justice

Martin Horn
Secretary
Department of Corrections
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

Susan M. Hunter
Chief, Prisons Division
National Institute of Corrections
U.S. Department of Justice 

Leena Kurki
Research Associate 
Law School
University of Minnesota
Project Associate
Executive Sessions on Sentencing and Corrections 

John J. Larivee
Chief Executive Officer
Community Resources for Justice

Joe Lehman
Secretary
Department of Corrections
State of Washington

Dennis Maloney
Director
Deschutes County (Oregon) Department of Community Justice

Larry Meachum
Director
Corrections Program Office
Office of Justice Programs
U.S. Department of Justice

Mark H. Moore
Guggenheim Professor of Criminal Justice Policy and Management
John F. Kennedy School of Government
Harvard University

Norval Morris
Emeritus Professor of Law and Criminology
University of Chicago

Joan Petersilia
Professor of Criminology, Law and Society
School of Social Ecology
University of California, Irvine

Kay Pranis
Restorative Justice Planner
Department of Corrections
State of Minnesota

Michael Quinlan
Former Director
Federal Bureau of Prisons 
U.S. Department of Justice 

Chase Riveland
Principal
Riveland Associates

Thomas W. Ross
Superior Court Judge, 18th Judicial District
Chair, North Carolina Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission

Dora Schriro
Director
Department of Corrections
State of Missouri

Michael Smith
Professor of Law
University of Wisconsin 

Morris Thigpen
Director
National Institute of Corrections
U.S. Department of Justice

Michael Tonry
Director
Institute of Criminology
University of Cambridge
Sonosky Professor of Law and Public Policy
University of Minnesota 
Project Director
Executive Sessions on Sentencing and Corrections

Jeremy Travis
Senior Fellow
The Urban Institute
Former Director
National Institute of Justice
U.S. Department of Justice

Reginald A. Wilkinson
Director
Department of Rehabilitation and Correction
State of Ohio

---------------------------

Directors' Message

It is by now a commonplace that the number of people under criminal justice
supervision in this country has reached a record high. As a result, the sentencing
policies driving that number, and the field of corrections, where the
consequences are felt, have acquired an unprecedented salience. It is a
salience defined more by issues of magnitude, complexity, and expense than by
any consensus about future directions. 

Are sentencing policies, as implemented through correctional programs and
practices, achieving their intended purposes? As expressed in the movement to
eliminate indeterminate sentencing and limit judicial discretion, on the one hand,
and to radically restructure our retributive system of justice, on the other, the
purposes seem contradictory, rooted in conflicting values. The lack of
consensus on where sentencing and corrections should be headed is thus no
surprise. 

Because sentencing and corrections policies have such major consequences--
for the allocation of government resources and, more fundamentally and
profoundly, for the quality of justice in this country and the safety of its 
citizens--the National Institute of Justice and the Corrections Program Office
(CPO) of the Office of Justice Programs felt it opportune to explore them in
depth. Through a series of Executive Sessions on Sentencing and Corrections,
begun in 1998 and continuing through the year 2000, practitioners and scholars
foremost in their field, representing a broad cross-section of points of view,
were brought together to find out if there is a better way to think about the
purposes, functions, and interdependence of sentencing and corrections
policies. 

We are fortunate in having secured the assistance of Michael Tonry, Sonosky
Professor of Law and Public Policy at the University of Minnesota Law School,
and Director, Institute of Criminology, University of Cambridge, as project
director. 

One product of the sessions is this series of papers, commissioned by NIJ and
the CPO as the basis for the discussions. Drawing on the research and
experience of the session participants, the papers are intended to distill their
judgments about the strengths and weaknesses of current practices and about
the most promising ideas for future developments. 

The sessions were modeled on the executive sessions on policing held in the
1980s and 1990s under the sponsorship of NIJ and Harvard's Kennedy
School of Government. Those sessions played a role in conceptualizing
community policing and spreading it. Whether the current sessions and the
papers based on them will be instrumental in developing a new paradigm for
sentencing and corrections, or even whether they will generate broad-based
support for a particular model or strategy for change, remains to be seen. It is
our hope that in the current environment of openness to new ideas, the session
papers will provoke comment, promote further discussion and, taken together,
will constitute a basic resource document on sentencing and corrections policy
issues that will prove useful to State and local policymakers.

Julie E. Samuels
Acting Director
National Institute of Justice
U.S. Department of Justice 

Larry Meachum
Director
Corrections Program Office
U.S. Department of Justice

---------------------------

Richard S. Gebelein is a judge in the Superior Court of Delaware. He founded
Delaware's statewide Drug Court, where he serves as a judge, responsible for
postadjudicated offenders.

This study was supported by cooperative agreement 97-MUMU-K006
between the National Institute of Justice and the University of Minnesota.

Findings and conclusions of the research reported here are those of the authors
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.
Department of Justice. 

The National Institute of Justice is a component of the Office of Justice
Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Bureau of
Justice Statistics, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, and
the Office for Victims of Crime.

This and other NIJ publications can be found at and downloaded from the NIJ
Web site (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij).

NCJ 181412