Specialized court programs grapple with budget cuts, uncertain future

Marion County Drug Court kick-started Carolyn Kaflik’s recovery from substance abuse.

The Hamilton County resident entered a drug court treatment program during the mid-2000s. She had been in and out of jail and wasn’t ready to give up using drugs until a judge ordered her to seek treatment.

“I was actually getting consequences for my actions,” she said. “Drug court really introduced me to treatment. I had no idea that recovery was available or what that really looked like.”

Problem-solving courts like the one that handled Kaflik’s case have been around for decades in Indiana and aim to address root causes of criminal behavior like drug use to keep people out of incarceration or prevent them from heading back to it. But their future is hazy due to funding challenges and some questions about their effectiveness.

A Marion County court has recently shut down, and state officials are looking for ways to keep the remaining courts funded.

Addressing issues linked to behavior

Aside from dealing with drug use, problem-solving courts also focus on mental health, veterans’ affairs, family recovery and domestic violence.

Individuals with felony or misdemeanor offenses can qualify for the courts, though some may need a prosecutor’s approval.

Problem-solving courts are presented as a way of avoiding incarceration, though, as with Kaflik, jail can be used as a sanction for violating court rules.

In Kaflik’s case, the drug court provided an example of what recovery could look like, giving her something to strive for. She graduated in about 2009.

Addiction “consumed my life,” she said. “Everything I did at the time involved using drugs. I was afraid to come off of drugs because I didn’t know what that would look like.”

Today, she serves as clinical manager for The Salvation Army Harbor Light Center of Indianapolis — the same addiction treatment facility she attended while in the program.

“I get to work in the place I had that first exposure to treatment due to drug court,” she said.

An uncertain future

The Indiana Department of Correction recently slashed its Community Corrections grant for problem-solving courts, reducing total funding from $73 million to $53 million, according to the Indiana Association of Community Corrections Act Counties, a statewide organization supporting counties with community corrections programs.

Elkhart County Director of Court Services Justin Minder said programs in his county remain intact for now.

“We have a plan to budget those positions in our drug court,” he explained. “As long as we remain steady and successful as we have been, we will be within that county budget if necessary after 2027.”

Marion County was less fortunate, shuttering its reentry court program after Sept. 11, according to Samira Haddad, an attorney overseeing several problem-solving courts. Haddad noted the future of the county’s drug court also is uncertain.

Dubois County is relying on local support to fund programs through 2027, which Community Corrections Director Wyatt Madden deemed “unsustainable.” He added that the county was affected by property tax cuts, as well.

“Our county is really in an unknown of what to expect for money being brought in,” Madden explained. “What should happen hopefully during the next budget session is the grant gets restored to the original (amount).”

In Rush County, grant funding was cut by $13,000, though Court Services Director Ashley Stevens said she’s surprised that the reduction was not larger.

“I believe the biggest reason we did not get cut more than (that) was because, according to the current funding formula, we are already underfunded significantly,” she said.

Stevens was referring to a formula used by the state to allocate Community Corrections funding based on county compliance data and demographics.

Stevens noted Rush County’s grant covers a case manager for the problem-solving court who also handles other community corrections responsibilities.

“Here in Rush County, we have many hats,” Stevens said.

If funding issues persist, programming and staffing cuts could follow, Madden warned, with long-term consequences.

“Even if funding were to be restored in 2028, a lot of people across the state don’t believe it’s going to be possible to restart those programs,” he said. “The staff you cut have moved on, so, you’re not going to have those individuals coming back.”

Madden said these programs take years to establish. He noted that Dubois County’s community corrections program began roughly 30 years ago.

“[We’ve had] drug court since the early 2000s,” he said. “It was ‘alcohol and drug court’ before that.

“I was really worried this year with the cuts because we didn’t have a backup plan.”

The budget cuts miss the big picture behind these programs, according to Wendy Noe, CEO of Dove Recovery House, a residential treatment program for women that has locations in Marion, Dubois and Bartholomew counties.

“We’re looking at this one small cost of what it takes to fund a person through drug treatment court,” she said. “We’re taking away the value of a human life by saying, ‘You’re not worth this. Your life is not of enough value to say, ‘We believe in you.’”

What’s the solution?

The funding shortfall has drawn attention from state officials. Rep. Wendy McNamara, R-Evansville, met last month with Gov. Mike Braun, Indiana Supreme Court Chief Justice Loretta Rush and other leaders.

They discussed options to maintain problem-solving court and community corrections programs through the July 1 end of the fiscal year.

“I think we’re trying to figure out where to get the money to fill these gaps,” McNamara said.

Fully funding the courts will require an estimated $7 million to $12 million to keep the current programs afloat through the fiscal year.

Are these courts worth saving?

Washington County Superior Court Judge Dustin Houchin argues problem-solving courts may not be as effective as advocates claim. They are frequently described as evidence-based, but Houchin questions the research behind them.

“The empirical — well-developed — research does not support the assertion that they work,” he said. “Of course, there are studies that show success … most of the studies aren’t very well done or they’re paid for by people who have an interest in providing resources to problem-
solving courts.”

Houchin pointed to a University of California, Davis Law Review article examining systemic issues in problem-solving courts, including the scarcity of rigorous empirical data.

Reducing recidivism is a key goal for the courts. The UC Davis article references a meta-analysis showing a “modest” 10% reduction in recidivism.

“In sum, drug court evaluations seem to demonstrate that some drug courts modestly reduce recidivism for some individuals, some of the time,” the authors state.

Houchin suggested that a university conduct a large-scale, randomized controlled trial to definitively evaluate the effectiveness of these courts in Indiana.

He also raised concerns about how these specialized dockets affect traditional judicial roles. He worries judges, instead of being a neutral party, are working to reach a consensus between the defendant and the case management team.

Houchin also suggested problem-solving initiatives might function better under an executive agency rather than the judiciary.

“The (Indiana) Department of Child Services is an executive agency, and judges have reviewed those cases,” Houchin said. “There’s no reason you couldn’t have a similar model for substance abuse.”

He hopes state leaders will adopt a more cautious approach to problem-solving courts moving forward.•