Expanding drug courts to all 1.5 million drug-involved offenders would cost more than $13 billion annually, but would return more than $40 billion in benefits, John Roman told a House of Representatives subcommittee. The criminal justice system can maximize the use of drug courts without adding billions in new costs by calling on less expensive strategies, such as Hawaii's Project HOPE, to identify defendants who can be encouraged to desist from offending, allowing drug courts to focus on those who cannot.
The text below is an excerpt from the complete document. Read the full oral testimony in PDF format.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
Thank you for the opportunity to speak today about drug courts
and pre-trial diversion. I am a senior researcher at the Urban
Institute's Justice Policy Center, where, for more than a decade, we
have engaged in extensive research on the effects of drug courts and
other pre-trial interventions on crime and public safety. However, the
views expressed are my own and should not be attributed to the
Urban Institute, its board, or its funders.
The U.S. criminal court system has two broad mechanisms to
protect citizens from crime by drug-involved offenders. Offenders
can be closely supervised and imprisoned. Or, public safety could
be improved by employing more sophisticated interventions that
both rehabilitate and deter. For two decades, decisions have been
made as if this is a zero-sum game—a choice between protecting
the public or helping offenders onto a better path. We have
consistently chosen detection and punishment, but there is growing
evidence that this choice has led to more spending and more crime
than would have been the case via a more balanced approach.
The challenge is to identify the right mix of interventions.
To address this, I will briefly discuss three issues today.
First, do those who enter drug court do better than if they were
subject to more routine case processing? Despite dozens of studies,
research has not yet definitively answered whether drug courts
reduce crime and drug use. To answer this question, in 2004, the
Urban Institute, RTI International, and the Center for Court Innovation
received funding from the National Institute of Justice to conduct a
rigorous, multisite evaluation of adult drug courts. In this study, we
interviewed over 5,000 offenders, conducted more than 1,000 drug
tests, and collected data on drug court clients in 23 drug courts in
eight states and drug-involved offenders going through regular court
processing in four of the eight states.
We found that drug court participants self-report significantly
less criminal behavior than the comparison group. During the 18-
month tracking period, for instance, the total number of criminal acts
was reduced by 52 percent. The reductions in offending persisted
throughout the observation period, even after most in the treatment
group had left drug court.
We also found that significantly fewer drug-court participants
self-reported drug use than in the comparison group. Finally, we
found that drug courts are cost-effective. The average net benefit to
society is about $4,000 per drug-court participant, regardless of how
well that participant did in drug court.
(End of excerpt. The full oral testimony is available in PDF format.)
Usage and reprints: Most publications may be downloaded free of charge from the web site and may be used and copies made for research, academic, policy or other non-commercial purposes. Proper attribution is required. Posting UI research papers on other websites is permitted subject to prior approval from the Urban Institute—contact firstname.lastname@example.org.
If you are unable to access or print the PDF document please contact us or call the Publications Office at (202) 261-5687.
Disclaimer: The nonpartisan Urban Institute publishes studies, reports, and books on timely topics worthy of public consideration. The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders. Copyright of the written materials contained within the Urban Institute website is owned or controlled by the Urban Institute.