Drug Courts Save Lives. That May Not Save Them From Trump. – The Bulwark

Report on the Role of Drug Treatment Courts in Advancing Sustainable Development Goals

Executive Summary

This report examines the function and efficacy of drug treatment courts within the United States as a critical mechanism for achieving several United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Through a case study and analysis of federal support structures, the report highlights how these specialized courts contribute to SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being), SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth), SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities), and SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions). It further assesses the significant risks posed to this progress by administrative and budgetary reductions at the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), the key federal agency supporting these initiatives.

Case Study: Individual Rehabilitation and Its Alignment with the SDGs

The experience of Daniel Oldham of Alabama provides a compelling example of the transformative impact of drug treatment courts. His journey from felony drug charges to successful community reintegration demonstrates the direct contributions of such programs to the SDG framework.

Outcomes and SDG Contributions

• SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being: By providing a structured path to recovery, the drug court enabled Oldham to overcome a long-term substance abuse disorder, directly addressing Target 3.5, which calls for strengthening the prevention and treatment of substance abuse.
• SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth: The program’s emphasis on finding stable employment led Oldham to establish a successful painting business, contributing to productive employment and economic stability as outlined in SDG 8.
• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions: Oldham’s transition from the criminal justice system to a certified recovery-support specialist exemplifies the program’s success in reducing recidivism and promoting social reintegration. He now actively contributes to building a more peaceful and inclusive society by helping others, reinforcing the goals of SDG 16.
• SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities: By securing stable housing and becoming an active, positive force in his community, Oldham’s story illustrates how such programs foster safer, more inclusive, and resilient communities.

Drug Treatment Courts: A Model for Justice and Institutional Innovation

Drug treatment courts represent an evolution in the justice system, shifting the focus from punitive measures to rehabilitation. This model is a prime example of an effective and accountable institution that advances multiple development goals.

Alignment with SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

These courts build stronger institutions by:

1. Providing an alternative to standard criminal proceedings for nonviolent offenders, ensuring more targeted and effective justice (Target 16.3).
2. Reducing recidivism rates, which alleviates pressure on the penal system and contributes to safer communities.
3. Emphasizing accountability and mentorship, fostering a system that addresses the root causes of crime, such as addiction and mental health challenges (Target 16.6).

The Critical Role of Federal Support and the Threat to SDG Progress

The success and expansion of drug treatment courts have been significantly supported by federal funding and oversight, primarily administered by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). This partnership between federal and local entities is crucial for achieving the SDGs (SDG 17).

SAMHSA’s Role and the Impact of Reductions

SAMHSA, established in 1992, is the primary federal body for advancing behavioral health. It provides essential grant funding to state and local programs, including drug treatment courts. Recent administrative actions, however, threaten this vital support system.

• Institutional Degradation: Reports indicate that SAMHSA has lost nearly half its employees due to firings and forced resignations. The office overseeing grants for drug treatment courts has been reduced from six career employees to two public health officers.
• Jeopardizing SDG Progress: The reduction in SAMHSA’s capacity and proposed budget cuts directly threaten the viability of programs that have proven effective in advancing SDGs 3, 8, 11, and 16. Without adequate federal funding and guidance, local programs may become less effective or accessible.
• Contradiction with Bipartisan Support: The administrative actions are notably at odds with the strong, bipartisan support that drug treatment courts have historically received from conservative and progressive leaders alike, who recognize their effectiveness in addressing crime and addiction.

Conclusion

Drug treatment courts are a proven, effective model for addressing substance abuse, reducing crime, and fostering community well-being, thereby making substantial contributions to multiple Sustainable Development Goals. The case of Daniel Oldham demonstrates the profound, positive impact these programs have on individuals and society. However, the ongoing dismantling of federal support structures like SAMHSA poses a direct and severe threat to this progress. Sustained investment and institutional support at the federal level are imperative to ensure that these vital programs can continue to build healthier, safer, and more just communities in alignment with global development objectives.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

The article discusses issues related to substance abuse, mental health, criminal justice reform, employment, and stable housing, which connect to several Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The primary SDGs addressed are:

• SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being: The core focus of the article is on drug addiction and recovery programs, which are central to public health and well-being.
• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions: The article details the functioning of drug treatment courts as an alternative judicial institution aimed at rehabilitation and reducing recidivism, thereby strengthening the justice system.
• SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth: The rehabilitation program emphasizes participants finding stable employment as a key part of their recovery and reintegration into society.
• SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities: The program’s requirement for participants to secure housing contributes to creating stable and inclusive communities.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

Based on the article’s narrative, several specific SDG targets can be identified:

1. Under SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being):
   • Target 3.5: Strengthen the prevention and treatment of substance abuse, including narcotic drug abuse and harmful use of alcohol. The entire article is a case study of a program designed to treat substance abuse. It describes how Daniel Oldham, a heroin user, was sent to a “drug treatment court” instead of prison, where he entered into recovery. The program’s requirements, such as regular drug tests, are direct measures to treat substance abuse.
2. Under SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions):
   • Target 16.3: Promote the rule of law at the national and international levels and ensure equal access to justice for all. The drug treatment court is presented as an innovative judicial mechanism that provides an alternative to standard criminal proceedings for “first-time, nonviolent drug offenders,” representing an evolution in access to justice that focuses on rehabilitation.
   • Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels. The article highlights the effectiveness of these courts, stating that “multiple, peer-reviewed analyses have found the courts reduce recidivism.” The program’s structure, with a judge serving as “mentor, nurturer, and enforcer,” emphasizes accountability for participants.
3. Under SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth):
   • Target 8.5: By 2030, achieve full and productive employment and decent work for all… A key component of the drug court program is that participants must “find work.” The article provides a concrete example of success with Daniel Oldham, who “landed work as a painter” and now runs a successful painting business.
4. Under SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities):
   • Target 11.1: By 2030, ensure access for all to adequate, safe and affordable housing… The program requires participants to “find… housing.” The success of this is demonstrated by Oldham, who, after completing the program, “bought a house in a quiet, middle-class Birmingham suburb.”

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

The article does not mention official SDG indicators, but it implies several qualitative and quantitative measures that could be used to track progress:

1. For Target 3.5 (Substance abuse treatment):
   • Implied Indicator: The number of individuals enrolled in and successfully graduating from drug treatment court programs. The article features Daniel Oldham and Brandon Stevens as two of the first participants to complete a specific program in Johnson County, Kansas.
   • Implied Indicator: Rates of sustained recovery post-program. Oldham’s story of being “six years out of the program” and leading a recovery group serves as an anecdotal measure of long-term success.
2. For Target 16.6 (Effective institutions):
   • Implied Indicator: Recidivism rates among program graduates compared to those in the traditional penal system. The article explicitly states that analyses “have found the courts reduce recidivism,” which is a direct measure of the program’s effectiveness.
3. For Target 8.5 (Full and productive employment):
   • Implied Indicator: The employment rate of individuals who have completed the drug court program. Oldham’s success in starting and maintaining his “painting business” is a specific example of this outcome.
4. For Target 11.1 (Access to housing):
   • Implied Indicator: The percentage of program graduates who secure stable housing. The article notes that Oldham and his wife “recently bought a house,” illustrating a positive outcome related to this target.

4. Summary Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: thebulwark.com