DRUG COURT SEES EARLY SUCCESS

Study: UMD Professor, Three Others Examined Program's Progress In Its First
Two Years

The Duluth drug court appears to be accomplishing what it was designed to
do, according to the first study of the 2-year-old program.

The study, led by a University of Minnesota Duluth professor, was designed
to determine whether the drug court is doing what it set out to do:
increase public safety, reduce illicit drug use by nonviolent,
drug-addicted offenders, restore participants to law-abiding productivity
and lessen the financial effect on society.

"For the most part, the answer is yes," said lead investigator Jeff Maahs.
"They are enrolling the right people, supervising and getting them
treatment like they said they were going to do. It's a small sample size,
but so far the results as far as outcomes are promising."

Maahs, an assistant professor in UMD's Department of Sociology and
Anthropology, worked with three investigators on the study, titled "Process
Evaluation of the South St. Louis County Adult Drug Court Program."

The research was made possible by a grant from the Center for Community and
Regional Research at UMD.

The study sample included the first 62 participants in drug court between
its inception in April 2002 and June 2004.

An outcome-based evaluation will be done when more people have graduated
from drug court.

According to the study, all Duluth drug court graduates had a period of at
least nine months -- most had a full year -- without a urinalysis showing
drug use. The study suggests there is evidence that the drug court is
reducing the risk that participants will engage in future criminal behavior.

The study indicates that the highest portion of arrests leading to drug
court involved marijuana, 44 percent, followed by methamphetamine, 22
percent, and cocaine, 10 percent.

The report said that because marijuana isn't physiologically addictive, it
doesn't have a clear link with nondrug-related crime.

Drug Court co-coordinator Jen Wright, a supervisor with Arrowhead Regional
Corrections, said marijuana is a gateway drug to other drugs and that the
statistics may be misleading because those arrested on marijuana charges
might also be users of other drugs.

Assistant St. Louis County Attorney John DeSanto, supervisor of the
criminal division, is a member of the drug court team. DeSanto said he was
skeptical at first of the drug court concept. He thought it would require
too much work with minimal results.

"However, I can honestly and unequivocally say that after seeing and being
in drug court every week for over 30 months now, it works in motivating the
drug-addicted to quit using drugs," DeSanto said.

"I have seen amazing results in the faces of the offenders, their family
members and their friends when these offenders in drug court are no longer
using, abusing drugs. There's better physical, emotional and spiritual
health for people that would not -- absolutely would not -- make it in the
old way of doing things."

The drug court has a $200,000 annual budget. Participants pay $400 or
provide community service.

The National Drug Court Institute in Alexandria, Va., reports that drug
courts generate savings from reduced jail and prison use, reduced
criminality and lower criminal justice costs. There's a $10 savings for
every $1 spent in drug court, according to the institute.

The institute also reports that drug use and criminal behavior are
substantially reduced while offenders are participating in drug court, and
that drug courts outperform virtually all other strategies that have been
attempted in rehabilitating drug-involved offenders.

A 2003 study released by the National Institute of Justice concluded that
completing a drug court program reduces the likelihood of future arrest.
According to the study, from a sample of 17,000 drug court graduates
nationwide, within one year of program graduation only 16.4 percent had
been re-arrested and charged with a felony offense.

"In my opinion, what is so unique about this process is the individual
relationships between the judge and client, P.O. (probation officer) and
client, and treatment provider and client," Wright said.

"They just really build a relationship and work from that," she said. "They
all say it's all so individual. They feel cared about. No one is going to
let them get away with anything or fail."