Post-Adjudication Drug Court, Capstone Project Example

A Report and Recommendation for Duval County, Florida

A 2004 report by the Florida Supreme Court Task Force on Treatment-Based Drug Courts states that “over 60% of all persons arrested are either under the influence of, or have committed the crime to gain access to, drugs and alcohol” (Report on Florida’s Drug Courts, 2004). The staggering numbers of people arrested for drug- and alcohol-related criminal offenses has placed an enormous burden on both the Florida court system and on county and state jails and prisons. Moreover, numerous reports have demonstrated that a significantly high recidivism rate for persons who are prosecuted in the Florida judicial system. In an effort to confront the rising costs associated with the prosecution and incarceration of individuals charged and convicted of drug- and alcohol-related crimes, the city of Miami, Florida took the initiative of establishing the nation’s first drug court system in 1989. The first drug courts were structured to handle pre-adjudication cases, and provided a system by which first-time offenders and others who qualified for drug court could avoid jail time upon successful completion of the program. Beginning in 2009, the state of Florida provided grants to several Florida counties to establish a pilot program of post-adjudication drug court systems. While Duval County, Florida was among the counties that received such an offer, the county rejected the grant proposal. Evidence shows that such post-adjudication programs have helped to keep costs down and to reduce recidivism rates in those counties with post-adjudication drug courts; with this in mind, it is the recommendation of this report that Duval County renews its consideration of establishing a comparable post-adjudication drug court system.

Background and Overview

As communities across the country have faced the daunting task of using the criminal justice system to combat the social effects of drug abuse and associated crimes, the costs of waging this battle have continued to mount. Over half of all individuals incarcerated in Florida’s state prison system have been identified as having substance abuse problems, and the majority of crimes committed are related in some way to the use or abuse of alcohol and drugs (King &Pasquarella, 2014). The rising costs and other burdens this has placed on the Florida judicial system prompted a philosophical shit in the late 1980s, as legislators, prosecutors, and other stakeholders in the court system and community began to call for a different approach to dealing with the problems of drugs and drug-related crimes (Report on Florida’s Drug Courts, 2004). While the emphasis on deterrence and eliminating drug supplies in the community was not abandoned, the decision to focus on drug treatment and rehabilitation from within the court system led to the development of the first drug courts.

It has long been within the purview of the judicial system to handle individual drug-related cases by using probation, treatment, and other diversions as a means of allowing some first-time offenders and others who qualify to avoid incarceration. Until the advent of drug courts, however, such diversions typically happened on a case-by-case basis, without firmly-established guidelines or sentencing criteria. In this ad hoc framework, the availability of such diversionary approaches to individuals charged with drug-related offenses was often inconsistent and the potential positive outcomes were not monitored and codified to ensure that such diversions were effective either from a cost-basis analysis or in terms of recidivism rates(Report on Florida’s Drug Courts, 2004). The development of the first drug court system established a clear, consistent framework for responding to drug-related offenders and provided a set of standard criteria for determining eligibility, monitoring progress, and measuring outcomes. The first drug court systems were deemed successful both as measured in cost savings and in lowered rates of recidivism, and by the early 21^st century drug courts at local, country, and state levels were established in all 50 states (Fl-counties.com, 2014).

Legal Framework

The first drug courts were established as pre-adjudication systems. Offenders had to meet certain criteria for eligibility; these included such considerations as the nature of the offense, the criminal record of the accused, and the absence of charges related to violent crimes(Report on Florida’s Drug Courts, 2004). Drug courts function as separate systems from the main court system, and individuals who qualify for dug court diversion are closely monitored for compliance with the programs. The specific details of such programs can vary from one court system to another, but each includes some form of regular drug testing and attendance or participation in treatment or rehabilitation programs. Individuals who successfully complete pre-adjudication programs are able to avoid having a criminal record related to their offenses. Beginning in 2010 the state of Florida established a grant system to establish post-adjudication drug courts in several Florida counties. Individuals enrolled in these programs must plead guilty to their charges in order to qualify, but are able to avoid incarceration by successfully completing the program. The offenses associated with post-adjudication drug court are typically more serious than those associated with pre-adjudication drug court, but eligibility is still primarily limited to individuals who have not been charged with violent crimes (Report on Florida’s Drug Courts, 2004).

Evidence for the Positive Effects of the Drug Court System

According to a report from the state of Florida, 75% of those convicted of drug-related offenses will eventually be charged with crimes in the future, while 80% of those who successfully graduate from drug courts will avoid future incarceration (OPPAGA, 2009). The financial savings of diversion to drug court are also significant; the costs of individuals enrolled in drug courts is less than half that of incarceration (OPPAGA, 2010). Evidence for post-adjudication drug courts is not as broad as that for pre-adjudication drug courts, largely due because there are fewer post-adjudication courts and because the program has only been in place for a few years. Despite this disparity, evidence for the success of post-adjudication drug courts in those counties that have established them has been deemed positive overall in lowering costs and reducing recidivism.

Recommendation for Duval County

The first grants from the state of Florida for the development of post-adjudication drug courts –referred to as “expansion drug courts” in the grant legislation- were offered in 2010 (Fl-counties.com, 2014). The Duval County Prosecutor’s office was among the bodies within the county judicial system that opposed the implementation of expansion drug courts (jacksonville.com, 2010). Among the factors that are deemed crucial to the success of drug courts are the backing and cooperation of prosecutors, and the lack of support at this level was one of the primary factors prompting county legislators to decline the grant (jacksonville.com, 2010). State grants were renewed in 2013 for the expansion drug courts already in place at the county level, but no new counties have implemented post-adjudication drug courts since they were first established in 2010. Given the serious financial burdens on the Florida judicial system and the state prison system, the implementation of more expansion drug courts would appear to be a positive means by which such burdens could be eased. It is the recommendation of this report that the Duval County District Attorney’s Office reconsider its opposition to expansion drug courts and that it petitions the state of Florida for renewed consideration for funding to implement expansion courts in Duval County.

References

Fl-counties.com. (2014). Post-adjudicatory drug courts. [online] Retrieved from: http://www.fl-counties.com/member-services/publications/news-notes/2014/01/10/post-adjudicatory-drug-courts [Accessed: 17 Jan 2014].

Flcourts.org. (2014). Post adjudicatory expansion drug courts. [online] Retrieved from: http://www.flcourts.org/gen_public/family/dc_expansion.shtml [Accessed: 17 Jan 2014].

jacksonville.com. (2014). Duval county’s drug court: work it out, please. [online] Retrieved from: http://members.jacksonville.com/opinion/editorials/2010-05-28/story/drug-court-work-it-out-please [Accessed: 17 Jan 2014].

King, R. S. &Pasquarella, J. (2014). Drug courts: a review of the evidence. [e-book] Washington, D.C.: The Sentencing Project. http://www.sentencingproject.org/doc/dp_drugcourts.pdf [Accessed: 17 Jan 2014].

OPPAGA (2009). State’s Drug Courts Could Expand to Target Prison-Bound Adult Offenders. Tallahassee, FL: Office of Program Policy Analysis & Government Accountability (OPPAGA). http://www.oppaga.state.fl.us/MonitorDocs/Reports/pdf/0913rpt.pdf [Accessed: 15 Jan 2014].

OPAGGA (2010). Without Changes, Expansion Drug Courts Unlikely to Realize Expected Cost Savings. Tallahassee, FL: Office of Program Policy Analysis & Government Accountability (OPPAGA). http://www.oppaga.state.fl.us/MonitorDocs/Reports/pdf/1054rpt.pdf [Accessed: 15 Jan 2014].

Report on Florida’s Drug Courts. (2004). Tallahassee, Florida: Supreme Court Task Force on Treatment-Based Drug Courts.  http://www.flcourts.org/gen_public/family/bin/dcreport.pdf [Accessed: 15 Jan 2014].

Rothman, C. (2014). Duval drug court graduates testify about its impact | jacksonville.com. [online] Retrieved from: http://jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/073005/met_19376942.shtml [Accessed: 17 Jan 2014].