Impact on Crime
Drug abuse and crime are closely intertwined in Washington, D.C. The majority of arrestees in the District test positive for illicit drugs at the time of arrest. Alcohol and other drugs are significant factors in many homicides in the city. Drug offenders comprise nearly 30 percent of the D.C. prison population and serve twice as much prison time as drug offenders nationwide.
Criminal justice partnerships providing drug treatment to offenders are known to reduce recidivism and drug use among offenders. However, both in prison and in the community, treatment historically has been inadequate in the District. Indeed, while nearly 70 percent of all arrestees test positive for illicit drugs at the time of arrest, fewer than 10 percent of criminal offenders receive drug treatment.
To remedy this problem, the District has launched innovative efforts such as a drug court and pretrial testing with graduated sanctions. Results are very promising, and efforts are now underway to expand access to quality services.
|
Key Findings
|
The
Metropolitan Police Department has made nearly 72,000 arrests for drug
offenses since 1990, an average of 150 drug arrests every week.(48)
Trends in Adult Drug Arrests. Between 1990 and 1997, adult arrests
for drug offenses in Washington, D.C. dropped 23 percent, from 8,849 to
6,799.(49/50)
Eighty-seven percent of these arrests were for drug possession. Drug arrests
made in1997 were predominantly for cocaine and heroin (57 percent) and
marijuana (42 percent). Adults between ages 18 and 24 accounted for about
half of marijuana arrests, one-quarter of arrests for cocaine or heroin
possession, and 29 percent of cocaine or heroin sales arrests.
Juvenile Drug Arrests Reveal Risks to Youth. In 1997, 617 youth were
arrested for drug offenses, a 37 percent increase over 1992.(51)As
with adults, most juvenile drug arrests are for possession (89 percent),
not sales. In 1997 cocaine and heroin arrests comprised 52 percent of
juvenile drug arrests, and marijuana 47 percent. Boys aged 14 to 19 comprise
just 3 percent of the District's population but account for 19 percent
of all drug arrests in the city.
|
Stemming Youth Drug Sales According to a 1990 RAND study, at least half of teenage drug dealers in the District at the height of the crack cocaine epidemic also had drug habits. Fewer than one in five had a high school diploma. The report concluded that the best way to reduce drug sales by youth would be to reduce the demand for drugs through prevention and treatment.(52) |
Drug
Use Among Arrestees. In 1997,more adult males arrested
in the District tested positive for an illicit drug than did male arrestees
nationwide (69 percent vs. 67 percent), and the same was true of juvenile
male arrestees (66 percent vs. 59 percent). But among women, the rate
was lower than average (57 percent vs. 67 percent).
Cocaine use has decreased significantly among offenders. In 1997, 39 percent of women arrested in the city tested positive for cocaine, compared to 74 percent in 1989. The pattern holds true for adult men and juvenile boys. However, in 1997, more than 64 percent of Washington's juvenile arrestees tested positive for marijuana, compared to just 6 percent in 1990.
Drinking
and Driving. In 1996, 2,788 people were arrested in the District
for driving while intoxicated (DWI) or driving under the influence (DUI)
-- a 23 percent drop from 1993. [FOOTNOTE:Effective
March 1999, drivers in the District with a blood alcohol concentration
(BAC) level of .08 grams per deciliter or more are, by law, driving while
intoxicated (DWI). Drivers with a BAC level higher than zero but less
than.08 can be charged with driving under the influence (DUI). Drunk driving
charges in the District can include alcohol and other drug use, and offenders
commonly use both.] Between 1992 and 1996, drunk driving arrests
in the city involved more nonresidents (63 percent) than residents (37
percent). Of the nonresident arrestees, three in five were from Maryland
or Virginia.(53)
Forty-seven percent of residents placed on probation for DUI/DWI in 1997 tested positive for an illicit drug while on probation; almost half also had prior drug or alcohol arrests in the city.
Approximately 75 percent of Washington's drunk driving offenders are eligible for diversion rather than prosecution. Those who complete the program (which includes education on drunk driving hazards, relapse and family patterns of alcohol abuse) can avoid a conviction and its consequences, such as higher auto insurance premiums. In 1998, 891 people enrolled in the diversion program, 729 of whom completed it.
|
Making the Grade? In 1993 Washington received a "C" in a national report card published by Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), which evaluates DUI laws and policies across the country.(54) While MADD's evaluation highlighted the city's strengths in record-keeping and activities for youth, it called for improvement in enforcement, prevention, legislative action and regulatory control. MADD was unable to evaluate several aspects of the city's DUI response, due to lack of data or unresponsiveness from city officials. D.C. will be included in MADD's year 2000 report card. |
Alcohol- and Other Drug Related Violence. The District's homicide rate has fallen by a third since 1996 but remains among the highest of any U.S. city. Since 1985, murders in the District have occurred at triple the rate in 17 comparably sized cities. (55)[FOOTNOTE: Young African American men have borne the brunt of D.C.'s violence. In 1993, black men aged 18 to 24 comprised 33 percent of all murder victims in D.C., even though they made up only 3 percent of the city's population. The homicide victimization rate for this group peaked in 1991 at nearly 800 per 100,000 -- higher than the casualty rate of U.S. military personnel serving during the Vietnam War (665 per 100,000).]
Alcohol abuse, illicit drug trafficking and drug use are often linked to homicides. Between 1992 and 1997, the Metropolitan Police Department classified one-third of city murders with known motives as "drug-related." (56) Data on the number of alcohol-related homicides in the District are not available, but other indicators suggest that the incidence in D.C. is at least as high as the national rate. Nationwide,45 percent of imprisoned murderers report having been drinking heavily at the time of their offense,(57/58) and heavy drinking is 50 percent more prevalent among District adults than among adults nationwide. Therefore, conservatively estimated, at least two-thirds of District homicides appear related to alcohol and other drugs.(59)
The crack cocaine epidemic which began in the mid-1980s was a key factor in the rising homicide rate. Adult-run heroin markets were destabilized by younger, more violent crack dealers. Homicides more than tripled as the epidemic unfolded, rising from 148 in 1985 to 482 in 1991. Although cocaine use has declined, the District's 260 murders in 1998 still exceeded by 75 percent the number of murders in 1985, before crack hit the streets.
|
Key Findings Although Washington tests arrestees for drugs as a condition of pretrial release, the test-result database is a largely untapped source of information, including data on which offenders with chronic drug problems received treatment. The proportion of felons imprisoned for drug offenses in Washington substantially exceeds the average among the 50 states, and convicted drug offenders in Washington serve twice as much prison time as the national average. |
Pretrial Drug Testing. Washington was the first city in the country to test arrestees for drugs as a condition of pretrial release. Since 1983,(60) defendants testing positive for drugs upon arrest also have had regularly scheduled drug tests prior to their court dates, with results forwarded to the judge. Juvenile offenders and parents charged in child abuse and neglect cases are also subject to court-ordered drug testing.
However, the pretrial release database is a largely untapped source of information. Despite inadequacies in the data, Drug Strategies was able to study some recidivism patterns and addiction treatment needs among some defendants on pretrial release in 1996. [FOOTNOTE: Analysis included arrestees who were drug tested at the time of initial lock-up (voluntarily, prior to any court-ordered test). Between 60 and 80 percent of offenders generally are tested. In working with pretrial release data from the first half of 1996, Drug Strategies discovered that treatment information was not recorded consistently, and sentence length was recorded in general rather than specific terms (e.g., offenders with sentences ranging from one to five years all received the same code). These limitations made it impossible to explore many of the research questions such a data set could potentially illuminate.] Thirty-seven percent of defendants charged with drug offenses had previous drug convictions, as did 31 percent of those charged with property offenses, 25 percent of those charged with public order offenses and 11 percent of those charged with violent offenses. Among those with previous convictions for any offense, drug use was common prior to their 1996 arrest: 66 percent had tested positive for cocaine, 23 percent tested positive for opiates, and 35 percent tested positive for PCP at least once. Two-thirds of these repeat offenders tested positive in at least half of their drug tests.
Pretrial release defendants who know they are being monitored for drug use by the court have strong incentives to stop using. Judges can use positive drug tests to revoke a defendant's pretrial release or to impose a tougher sentence. Under these conditions, a defendant's continuing drug use is a good indicator of a chronic drug habit which the defendant cannot control.
Among defendants given at least five drug tests while on pretrial release, two-thirds tested positive at least half the time. These defendants have drug habits they cannot stop even with powerful incentives to do so. (Only one in four defendants on pretrial release never tested positive for illicit drugs).
Providing court-supervised treatment to defendants with chronic drug problems would be a cost-effective strategy for reducing recidivism and drug use. [FOOTNOTE: The link between drug abuse and crime is not new, and the District's own history has shown that increasing drug treatment capacity can reduce crime. Beginning in 1970, the Nixon administration-- in search of quick reduction in crime -- sponsored a rapid expansion in the availability of drug treatment in the District. By the end of 1970, the District's new Narcotics Treatment Administration (NTA) was treating more than 2,500 people. That year, the national crime rate rose 11 percent, but crime in the District fell 5 percent, with most of the reduction occurring after the NTA had become fully operational. The success in Washington spurred the Nixon administration to increase treatment capacity in other cities. In 1972, the national crime rate fell 3 percent -- the first decline in 17 years -- and the District's crime rate dropped 27 percent.] Unfortunately, the pretrial database does not indicate how many of this group received reatment.
Tough Sentences for Drug Trafficking.
Of the 7,687 imprisoned felons in Washington in 1997, 29 percent were
convicted of drug offenses, compared to 21 percent of prisoners in the
50 states.(61/62/63)
Convicted drug offenders in Washington serve an average of four years
in prison --twice as long as the average time served in the states.(64)In
the District, incarcerating drug offenders costs $164 million annually.(65)
Unlike
most states, the District does not mandate minimum sentences for nonviolent
drug offenses.(66)Since mandatory minimum
drug laws were repealed by the D.C. Council in 1994, the number of D.C.
inmates serving mandatory minimum sentences has dropped from 973 to 180.(67)
For a first offense for selling heroin or cocaine, the maximum prison
sentence in the District is 30 years, the same as the states' average.
By comparison, D.C. penalties for marijuana sales are fairly light; 42
states impose longer sentences than the District's one year maximum.(68)
Sentencing provisions in the 1997 Revitalization Act will result in stiffer penalties for drug offenders. Under the 1997 Act, sentences for second and subsequent drug offenses committed after August 2000 must follow the "truth-in-sentencing" standard enacted in the federal Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. The law requires that prisoners serve at least 85 percent of the sentence imposed without parole. For repeat cocaine or heroin dealers in the District, application of the 85 percent rule to the maximum allowable penalty would result in 51 to 60 years in prison. A repeat conviction for selling cocaine or heroin to a minor could result in life in prison if the maximum penalty is applied (153 to 180 years).
Sentencing for Drug Possession. The city's penalties for drug
possession are lighter than in most states. Cocaine or heroin possession
carries a maximum penalty of six months in jail in the District, compared
to the states' average of 82 years.(69)
Marijuana possession also carries a maximum penalty of six months in jail,
compared to the states' average of more than two years.
In November 1998, District residents voted on a ballot initiative that would legalize marijuana use by seriously ill residents if recommended by a physician. However, the results remain unknown because Congress has barred the city from spending any FY 1999 money on activities related to the initiative, including counting the vote. The District government has filed suit in federal court to override the congressional action and permit the results to be released, arguing that Congress has violated the free speech rights guaranteed to District residents by the First Amendment. The court's decision was still pending in March 1999. If the court has not ruled by October 1, 1999, and if Congress does not extend the ban, the District will be free to count and certify the medical marijuana vote using FY 2000 funds.
Offender Supervision and Treatment
|
Key Findings
|
Sentenced Offenders. Drug treatment is currently available only for prisoners held at the facility in Southeast D.C. run by the private Corrections Corporation of America (CCA). CCA provides therapeutic community (TC) programs that serve 256 inmates, with a waiting list of 50 to 75 inmates for the adult male program. [FOOTNOTE: Until 1997, the D.C. Department of Corrections provided TC treatment at its medium security Central Facility in Lorton, Virginia. The contract for this program, which served 236 inmates, expired in August 1997 and has not been renewed.]
By the end of 2001, all of the District's sentenced felons will be in the custody of the federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP), which is required to provide treatment to addicted prisoners on demand. (70)[FOOTNOTE: In 1997, fewer than 10 percent of federa linmates nationwide participated in BOP's 42 residential treatment programs, which provide a minimum of 500 hours of treatment.] Interim data from a 1998 evaluation of BOP's residential programs show that six months after release, inmates who completed treatment were 73 percent less likely to be rearrested and 44 percent less likely to use drugs than those who were eligible for treatment but did not participate.(71)
In about half of probation sentences the court requires participation in drug treatment. Judges base their sentencing decisions on an offender's pretrial drug tests, drug use history and a formal assessment of treatment need (using the Addiction Severity Index). Limited treatment availability, however, prevents the majority of offenders who are referred for treatment from receiving services. Currently, only 17 percent of the 4,600 offenders referred for drug treatment actually receive it. Some offenders mandated into treatment must remain in jail while waiting for beds to become available.[FOOTNOTE: At mid-year 1998, for example, 159 D.C. residents on probation or parole were on waiting lists for court-mandated drug treatment, and another 45 inmates remained incarcerated awaiting inpatient placement or treatment assessment. Keeping this group of inmates in jail rather than in treatment costs taxpayers an additional $41,850 for one month; added costs for a full year exceed $500,000.] New contracts to provide 120 residential treatment beds and 200 outpatient slots for offenders were awarded in August 1998; now operational, these new slots may help alleviate the long waits.
The Promise of D.C.'s Drug Court. Drug courts send nonviolent
drug abusing offenders to intensive court-supervised treatment instead
of probation or prison. Research has shown that drug courts can substantially
reduce drug use and criminal behavior while offenders participate in the
program and reduce recidivism by one-third to one-half after completion.(72/73)
The D.C. Superior Court Drug Intervention Program (or drug court) was established in 1993 as a collaborative effort among criminal justice agencies. The demonstration project included a treatment track (providing treatment closely supervised by the court), a sanctions track (providing graduated sanctions for pretrial release violations such as positive drug tests), and a standard court docket, with random assignment of eligible offenders to each track.
Preliminary results from a 1997 evaluation by the Urban Institute found that offenders in the treatment and sanctions tracks were more likely to be drug-free the month before sentencing (20 percent and 32 percent, respectively) than those in a standard court docket (13 percent).(74)
Moreover, participants in the graduated sanctions docket had significantly fewer arrests in the year following sentencing than those in the standard docket. Urban Institute researchers anticipate that the final report will confirm the positive findings of the preliminary study.(75)
Building on lessons learned from this demonstration project, the D.C. drug court has now combined the treatment and sanctions tracks. The program is available to misdemeanor and nonviolent felony defendants. The District of Columbia Superior Court also has a federal grant to start a juvenile drug court, which is expected to open in 1999.
The District's Treatment HIDTA. Established in 1994, the Washington-Baltimore
High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA) program is one of only four
"treatment" HIDTAs in the country. In addition to law enforcement
activities to reduce drug trafficking, the program funds a variety of
drug abuse treatment programs for offenders; about one-third of the funds
support direct treatment services.(76)
Like the drug court, the HIDTA program uses frequent drug testing and immediate court-imposed jail sanctions to discourage offenders from resuming drug use. Although the average HIDTA client has a history of frequent arrests, an evaluation of 1,700 participants in drug treatment during 15 months in 1996-1997 found that during treatment only 12 percent of participating offenders were arrested for new crimes, compared to a national rearrest rate of 50 percent for comparable offenders.(77)
In FY 1998, the HIDTA program provided $1.2 million to place 120 offenders in residential treatment and nearly 500 offenders in outpatient treatment in the District. However, as part of the October 1998 reauthorization legislation for the federal Office of National Drug Control Policy, Congress prohibited the use of HIDTA funds to establish new treatment programs or expand existing ones.
Expanding Testing and Treatment for Criminal Offenders. According
to the Trustee for the District's Court Services and Offender Supervision
Agency (CSOSA), each year about 3,000 felons return to the community with
minimal transition assistance or supervision. In FY 1998 almost half of
parolees and probationers tested positive for drug use at least once.(78)
Yet less than 5 percent of the District's 11,000 probationers and less
than 2 percent of the 7,000 parolees are currently subject to regular
drug testing.
Historically, effective offender supervision has been impeded by the lack of intermediate responses. Offenders typically come before the court only after multiple violations, when full revocation of pretrial release or probation often results. Based on the drug court model, CSOSA plans to institute a graduated sanctions for specific violations and to expand treatment capacity significantly. Currently, offenders on probation or parole compete with members of the general public for limited treatment capacity.
Implementation of CSOSA's plans will depend on congressional funding. For FY 1999 Congress appropriated only $3.4 million of the $9.2 million requested for the city's drug court and drug testing, and none of the $5.6 million requested for offender treatment. Of the $102 million appropriated for CSOSA for FY 1998-99, Congress provided no funding specifically for treatment. The Trustee, however, allocated $876,000 for treatment in 1998 and $750,000 in 1999.
The 1994
California Drug and Alcohol Treatment Assessment (CALDATA) found that
every dollar invested in treatment yielded $7 in taxpayer savings, primarily
due to reduced crime and criminal justicecosts.(79)
Related Data Tables |
Next Section
FACING FACTS
Profile of D.C. | Drug
Abuse in D.C. | Impact on Crime
| Impact on Health | Prevention
and Treatment | Looking to the Future
| Data Tables | Endnotes
Programs | Prevention
Programs | Criminal Justice
Programs
Workplace Programs| Treatment
Programs
Copyright 1999 by Drug Strategies
Publication Design by Levine & Associates | Web Translation
by Chris Kalb