Baltimore City Drug Treatment Court Case Study

from the program. Since 1992 when the local adult drug court was funded, it has successfully graduated about 4,500 people in total.
In addition, the Baltimore City Drug Treatment Court (BCDTC) is a jurisdiction of interest whose success will be examined. The Baltimore City Drug Treatment Court was established in 1994 prior to a response by a report presented by the Bar Association of Baltimore city in 1990. There was a rough estimate of about 85% of crimes committed in Baltimore city were related to addiction. The BCDTC are consistent in intensive supervision, a minimum of three meeting with probation officers per month, two home visits and verification of employment status per month. The experimental research design began in February 1997 with 235 clients randomly assigned to either control for circuit courts or control for district court and all the data were

collected from correctional services, the Baltimore substance Abuse services (BSAS) as well as from Maryland Department of Public safety.

The BCDTC experienced a great achievement as the program is reduced criminal offending in a population of drug-addicted chronic offenders. What is more? The program appears to have been successful at establishing a credible threat of future punishment for the drug court clients, and sanctions for noncompliance. Gottfredson and Exum Claim that “BCDTC received harsher sentences as a result of their initial arrest than did the control study participants, both in terms of incarceration and probation sentences” (2002). Both circuit and district court especially the circuit court are found to be successful at imposing a threat of future incarceration. On the other side of the coin, the Program fails to differentiate between in-program recidivism and post-program recidivism. Post program client’s behavior might be different from client behavior during intensive supervision and this might cause an overlap in behavior. Reducing criminal activity is clearly a

priority of the drug court system. However, drug courts are expected to impact other outcomes as well such as drug use and employment.
In conclusion, while the criteria of drug court program differ widely, they all tend to share one goal which is to focus on the rehabilitation as opposed to punishment. In my opinion, drug courts are the most effective justice system that focuses on long team treatment under intensive supervisions for one year. While looking at three drug courts in different jurisdictions, I realized that most of the courts system actually accomplishes their goals in providing supervision and other services that is required to get and stay away from drug abuse behaviors. Moreover, the individuals are held accountable by the drug court for completing and meeting their various obligations to the courts, themselves, family and society. In other for the court to see that the imposed criteria are met by the individuals, the court regularly and randomly test them for drug use. In addition, the court also requires them to report to court for a review of their progress in if necessary some or rewarded for doing well and some are sanctioned when they do not live up to their obligation. Again, The BCDTC experienced a great achievement as the program reduced criminal offending in a population of drug-addicted chronic offenders. Meanwhile, the Las Vegas drug court in Clark County is another jurisdiction that has experienced some degree of success and has successfully graduated 4,500 people from its program since 1992.finally, The Chester County (PA) Drug Court Program experienced major success rates as there were decreased cases of legal involvement (re-arrest and incarceration rates). This is to show how successful the various drug courts in my three jurisdictions have establish a system in which the re-arrest and incarceration rate decreases as a result of intensive supervision under drug court system.