The drug problem in the United States has grown exponentially to be considered a national pandemic. Recent statistics show that more than 22 million US citizens have a drug and substance abuse problem ( Kelly, 2018) . Additional studies show that adverse effects of the drug problem range from crime, loss of productivity, and health care costs. The public health consequences of the drug problem are also alarming because it leads to thousands of deaths in the country. For instance, estimates show that about 70,000 Americans died from a drug overdose in 2018, especially due to opioids ( Kelly, 2018) . As a result, the United States government has, for a century, instituted several measures to wage war on drugs for over a century. One of the measures the government has put in place is the use of to eradicate the use and supply of drugs is through the use of drug courts. However, developing an understanding of how the federal and state judicial systems are similar and different in their approach to criminal behavior is essential in gaining insight into how drug courts work. A discussion of the effectiveness of the drug courts as it pertains to keeping drugs off the streets and ways through which the courts could be more effective in their stated purpose will also be provided.
The Approach of the Federal and State Judicial System
The approaches formulated by the federal and state judicial systems have succeeded in addressing the drug use and addiction problem in the United States. Both the judicial systems have instituted measures that strive to ensure that prisoners convicted for drug abuse (including alcoholism) receive treatment while incarcerated. Drug abuse treatment is initiated not only in prison but continue upon release of an individual. The treatment ensures the recovery of drug addicts and enhances public health safety ( Christie et al., 2017) . Another mechanism that the justice systems at the federal and state level use to deter criminal behavior of those abusing drugs is combining prison and community-based treatment. The approach involves developing an integrated model of treatment that provides a continuum of care through detoxification (Christie et al., 2017) . The judicial systems strive to give strong support to the families of drug use offenders and the community to address drug and alcohol abuse problems to reinforce long-term desirable behavior. Studies show that combining prison-and community-based treatment for addicted drug use offenders has been effective in reducing the risk of recidivism.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Both the federal and state judicial systems have also shifted their drug policies from a punishment focus model to one that focuses on prevention and enforcement (Soelberg et al., 2017) . Through the use of specialized programs in judicial courts, the federal and state judicial systems aim to divert non- violent offenders like those abusing drugs away from traditional criminal justice sanctions. The aim of the adult and juvenile drug courts is to reduce substance abuse and criminal behavior among those using drugs. The drug court programs most often employ postarrest to act as an alternative to criminal justice processing adopted in traditional institutions (Compton, Boyle, & Wargo, 2015) . The judicial systems also strive to offer specially designed supportive programs for drug offenders that they transition back to society whenever they complete their treatment. The programs aim at ensuring that the offenders have access to social services and have assistance in obtaining housing. The support services also provide employment counseling to the treated drug use offenders to ensure they find meaningful work to improve their living conditions and desist from their criminal behaviors.
The difference between the approaches used by the federal and state judicial systems in addressing the criminal behaviors for those using drugs is the criminal justice supervision planning requirements. The federal laws on drug abuse are uniform and cut across all states. The laws and penalties enacted by federal judicial systems to drug use also tend to be tougher and are meant to combat hard drugs like cocaine and heroin. The federal judicial system also formulates criminal thinking policies that address criminality. Using institutions such as the National Institute of Corrections, the federal justice system enforces the use of cognitive-behavioral methods such as helping offenders learn to change criminal behaviors. The state judicial system, however, strives to handle drug problems emanating from the use of less hard drugs like marijuana and alcohol.
Furthermore, states have varied policies for handling criminal cases relating to drug abuse. The differing policies among states in integrating treatment of drug abuse into the criminal justice system are because states have a varied definition of what institutes an illegal drug. For instance, some states have legalized marijuana, while others still consider the drug as illegal. Therefore, the needs of offenders of drug abuse vary depending on issues such as their legal status and functional capacities.
Effectiveness of Drug Courts
With the increased number of drug courts within the states, the number of drug offenders processed annually has exponentially increased. Statistics show that drug courts are partly effective in helping drug offenders in breaking the cycles of addictions and the crime that accompanies it. The efficacy of drug courts attributes to its ability to adopt measures correctional measures that largely concentrate on the self-efficacy of offenders ( Thombs & Osborn, 2019) . That is, instead of heavily concentrating on the punitive measure, drug courts take into consideration the capability of offenders to execute the corrective course of actions designed to deal with the addiction problem. Most drug courts strive to integrate intensive judicial supervision with other treatment services to treat drug abuse-related problems.
A recent evaluation of drug courts shows that drug offenders that pass through the process have lower recidivism compared to those in traditional justice systems. The reduction of recidivism is, however, not uniform; reduction is larger in adult drug courts, and lower in juvenile drug courts. The non-adversarial approach, prosecution, and defense approach used in drug courts have also been found to promote public safety, thereby keeping off drugs off the streets ( Haskin, 2019) . By waiving their due process rights, drug offenders are in a position to a speedy trial that guarantees they are promptly and systematically in a correction program. The drug court program enables drug offenders to have access to a continuum of alcohol, drug-related treatment, and rehabilitation services that ensure that drug offenders have a smooth transition back to the community once they have healed.
The ongoing court interaction and follow up with the participants of the program ensures that offenders are closely monitored and evaluated, thus deterring them from slipping back into their old ways. A study conducted in the Baltimore City Drug Treatment Court shows that participants in the process had fewer arrests, convictions across a 15-year follow-up period. The impact of drug courts on recidivism, however, varies with time and year because of changes in programming and judge assignments. Most drug courts use outcome expectancy and efficacy expectancy constructs to develop cognitive models of substance abuse. Counselors in community rehabilitation centers usually use outcome expectancy to predict and explain drinking behavior and other drugs abused by offenders (Thombs & Osborn, 2019). Outcome expectancy involves the anticipation of a systematic relationship between events such as drug abuse in some anticipated outcomes like relaxation.
Study findings also show that drug courts lead to lower treatment and other investment costs. Research shows that the cost lowered per drug participant averages to about $1,392 ( Haskin, P. (2019) . The long-term improvement programs implemented by the drug courts also lead to an average national saving of about $7,000 on average per participant ( Haskin, 2019) . Even though the drug courts have attained massive success since they were instituted, several factors inhibit the effectiveness of the program. For instance, it is challenging to institute proper assessment and treatment of offenders. The rigidity of the drug courts programs also makes it suffer from influences such as drug use trends, staff turnover, and resource allocation. The roles assumed by judges in the drug courts and the nature of interactions they have with offenders also influence the efficacy of the program.
Ways Drug Courts Could Be More Effective
Drug courts can be more effective in reducing substance use and to reduce recidivism, especially for drug offenders with co-occurring disorders is by increasing the federal funding given to the drug courts, expanding treatment options, and expanding mechanisms for collaborations. Increasing funding through competitive federal grant programs will enable the drug courts to expand the scope of their operations effectively. For instance, permanently employ staff to cater to the treatment needs of drug abuse offenders, thereby reducing the high turnover problem in the process (Collins, 2016) . Expansion of the federal grant program to solve state, local, and tribal governments will enhance the ability of drug courts to cater for the diverse needs of non-violent, substance-using offenders ( Sacco, 2018). The resources provided under the program would help provide additional services to drug offenders, including the implementation of an automated data collection system for the courts. The grants can cater to the special needs of certain categories of drug court participants, such as those coping with severe traumatic experiences.
Expanding treatment options will enable the courts to ways of handling mental illness or co-occurring disorders. Studies show that mental illnesses and co-occurring disorders lead to complicating the treatment of substance disorders because it leads to higher rates of participant dropouts in the programs and poor outcomes. Expanding treatment options will enhance the capability of drug courts to actively involve participants in their treatment, reduce health symptoms and substance relapse of the disorders, and increase independent living skills (Steadman et al., 2013) . The drug courts have to develop the treatment options to be individualized to cater to the specific needs of drug abuse offenders to be effective. That is sett individualized goals instead of striving to find one right way to handle different problems faced by drug offenders.
Expanding mechanisms for collaboration will enable drug courts to foster the recovery of drug offenders and prosocial integration into the community ( Steadman et al., 2013) . Collaboration can be enhanced by developing a coordinated strategy that will direct the efforts of all relevant stakeholders toward a common goal. Interdisciplinary training will promote team responsibility, thus making it possible to easily identify and solve problems experienced by drug offenders in the drug court program (Sacco, 2018). Developing a common understanding is the will also enable drug court coordinators and judges to develop team training and knowledge sharing that makes it easy for counselors to be attentive to the needs of drug offenders with mental and co-occurring disorders.
Conclusion
The drug courts have made a stride in controlling drug abuse cases and developing treatment options that have helped reduce recidivism and relapse. Drug abuse is, however, a national problem, and the burden to get drug abuse off the streets should not be left to the drug courts alone. Community members, including families of drug offenders, should join hands and help drug abuse have a smooth transition back to society.
References
Christie, C., Baker, C., Cooper, R., Kennedy, P. J., Madras, B., & Bondi, P. (2017). The president’s commission on combating drug addiction and the opioid crisis. Washington, DC, US Government Printing Office, Nov , 1 .
Collins, J. A. (2016). The Effectiveness of the Implementation of Drug Courts on the Opioid Epidemic in the State of Vermont.
Compton, W. M., Boyle, M., & Wargo, E. (2015). Prescription opioid abuse: problems and responses. Preventive medicine , 80 , 5-9.
Haskin, P. (2019). Problem-Solving Courts: Fighting Crime by Treating the Offender . National Institute of Justice. Retrieved 4 May 2020, from https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/problem-solving-courts-fighting-crime-treating-offender .
Kelly, W. (2018). The Drug Problem in the US Is Not What We Think It Is . Psychology Today. Retrieved 4 May 2020, from https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/crime-and-punishment/201809/the-drug-problem-in-the-us-is-not-what-we-think-it-is .
Sacco, L. N. (2018). Federal support for drug courts: in brief. Criminal justice: government, policies, and programs. US: SNOVA , 5-22.
Soelberg, C. D., Brown, R. E., Du Vivier, D., Meyer, J. E., & Ramachandran, B. K. (2017). The US opioid crisis: current federal and state legal issues. Anesthesia & Analgesia , 125 (5), 1675-1681.
Steadman, J., Peters, R. H., Carpenter, C., Mueser, K. T., Jaeger, N. D., Gordon, R. B., ... & Noether, C. D. (2013). Six steps to improve your drug court outcomes for adults with co-occurring disorders.
Thombs, D. L., & Osborn, C. J. (2019). Introduction to addictive behaviors . Guilford Publications.
