Problem
Solving Courts Are Effective But Limited Due To Underfunded Treatment
Resources.
In the Sayra and Neil Meyerhoff Center
for Families, Children, and the Courts Student Fellows Program class, we have
learned about a variety of problem solving courts in Maryland. One recent creation are drug treatment courts,
which in Maryland began under former Chief
Judge Robert M. Bell’s administration. The
court was created from the perspective that a collaborative, problem solving
effort between departments, with oversight for accountability, would help
reduce addiction-driven crime and drug use.
Drug treatment courts throughout Maryland now assist criminal defendants
charged with non-violent crimes through rehabilitative methods instead of
punishment.
One of the many experiential learning
opportunities offered through the Student Fellows Program class was ability to observe the collaboration in a drug treatment court. As a clinical
social worker, my prior professional experience fostered preconceived
notions of drug treatment courts that were relatively accurate. I believed courts were not likely to order
evaluations without a defendant’s prior consent to treatment, as this would be
deemed expending unnecessary resources without commitment to follow
through. Yet, defendants who are
entangled in the disease of addiction and the reality of current criminal
charges can feel pressure to commit to treatment without specifics on type,
duration, location, or treatment expectations, only later to decide the
punitive option is more suitable for them.
Further, treatment resources are limited, resulting in treatment history
and funding being a priority over an individual’s needs. This can be very frustrating for case workers,
individuals, and families attempting to deal with the disease of addiction,
where the potential for relapse is known to be part of managing treatment
expectations. At the same time, courts
do not have the authority to order private treatment facilities to
contractually accept an individual, and state funded residential treatment
resources are extremely limited. Thus,
individuals desperate for help frequently find themselves in limbo. It often takes time to find a drug treatment
program that will accept an individual who has a long history of treatment,
limited personal funding, and a negative outlook or attitude toward treatment. This
leaves courts to constantly balance complex individual needs with resource demands,
availability, and policies.
Specifically noteworthy to me during my
observation of a Baltimore City drug treatment court were two defendants. One who was sitting in front of me had made remarkable
progress but with great struggles. He
appeared to be invested in the drug treatment court model and concerned with
other defendants who were currently facing adversity in their treatment
progress. It was obvious the drug
treatment court model had paid dividends in his life. Then, more specifically,
I vividly recall a defendant who appeared before the court with a “recommendation”
“requiring” residential treatment, yet the planning quickly shifted to an
outpatient treatment plan when a lack of funding for inpatient treatment was
revealed. What were the court’s options
for this defendant? Should he remain
detained awaiting necessary, available, residential treatment, or for should he
be released to an outpatient program and try to manage this option? Neither plan seemed viable, but the court
ultimately discharged this defendant to outpatient treatment.
These complicating
factors can easily turn a collaborative effort into finger pointing, especially
if the plan in place results in individual or community harm. In reality courts, departments, agencies, and staff generally are doing the
best they can with resources available.
Accordingly, my drug treatment court observation confirmed for me the
immediate need for legislative action to significantly increase funding for mental
health treatment, encompassing substance abuse, as a top priority. Underfunding results in insufficient treatment
resources and often leads to increased recidivism, resulting in a higher cost
to society. Funding for
preventive measures has always been more cost-effective in the long term than
reactive measures. Yet, as a nation, we
still let crises trigger change. Why? When
sufficient funding is available to advances more effective resources for
individuals in need, such as drug treatment courts and other problems solving court
models, the outcomes for individuals and families are greater, all to the
betterment of our communities and our nation.
Posts
