Problem-Solving Justice: Build a BRIDGE

Drug courts first developed in the state systems and, after more than 25 years of success, the federal system took note. In 2010, the Charleston Division¹ of the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina launched a pilot federal drug court initiative, known as the BRIDGE program. Over-incarceration is an indisputable problem,² and “front-end,” pretrial drug courts only address a small part of that challenge. BRIDGE was created because federal judges in South Carolina felt they had inadequate tools for sentencing a particular category of cases: low-level, nonviolent drug offenders whose criminal behavior was motivated by a substance addiction or substance use disorder. To this end, “BRIDGE” is not an acronym; it’s a symbol — for the path to recovery — and the court team often walks the iconic Ravenel Bridge in Charleston with participants in order to signify and embody their transition.

The theory is, if addiction is motivating the crime, you can stop the crime by treating the addiction.³ And, sadly, in this country we have a growing addiction crisis — in particular, an opioid epidemic.⁴ BRIDGE’s key purposes are threefold: (1) to provide alternative sentencing tools for this class of cases, (2) to ensure public safety, and (3) to achieve these first two goals with an eye toward fiscal responsibility.

How Does the BRIDGE Federal Drug Court Work?

The BRIDGE team is composed of a judge, a federal prosecutor, a public defender, a drug treatment provider, a U.S. probation officer, and a clerk of court. The team screens cases⁵ using criteria designed to ensure that only participants who can be safely managed in the community and whose crime is connected to addiction are accepted.⁶

BRIDGE was designed to maintain maximum flexibility to accommodate individuals at various stages of a judicial proceeding. Most participants are pre-trial,⁷ making BRIDGE primarily a front-end program, but some participants are posttrial, having been released from incarceration to supervision,⁸ and some participants are both (e.g., where BRIDGE participation is made a condition of a probationary sentence). Participation is voluntary, but of course there is a substantial incentive to participate: Those who successfully graduate from BRIDGE may receive a noncustodial sentence, have their charges reduced to a lesser offense, have their charges dismissed entirely, or, in the case of post-conviction defendants, may receive a one-year reduction or more in their term of supervised release or probation.

Once admitted,⁹ a BRIDGE participant must: (1) participate in substance abuse treatment; (2) regularly attend self-help meetings, such as Narcotics Anonymous; (3) obtain a sponsor or mentor; (4) seek employment and/or pursue education; (5) submit to random drug testing; and, of course, (6) avoid drugs and alcohol. To ensure these requirements are adhered to, participants and the BRIDGE team assemble at regularly scheduled, semimonthly court hearings. At these hearings, participants report on their progress, team members comment on participants’ successes and/or failures, and the judge speaks with each participant and addresses successes and/or failures through rewards¹⁰ or sanctions,¹¹ as deemed appropriate by the presiding judge.

You might think this carrot-and-stick approach sounds kind of hokey — you get a prize for following the law and a night in jail for breaking it? However, research and evidence tells us¹² that small rewards and small sanctions — consistently, reliably, and immediately applied — are more effective than big rewards or harsh punishments that are remote or uncertain.¹³ One hundred and twenty nights in prison is just a number when it’s six months away and uncertain. But a night in jail is a big deal when it’s tonight and you are immediately placed in handcuffs. Thus, it is key to the success of a drug court that the sanction quickly follows the conduct and is an appropriate response to the conduct (i.e., not too harsh nor too lenient).

The general expectation is that participants complete the program in 12 to 18 months.¹⁴ Within this timeframe, they are expected to move through the BRIDGE program’s three phrases: (1) Early Recovery, lasting approximately four months; (2) Primary Treatment & Continued Care, lasting approximately five months; and (3) Relapse Prevention Planning, lasting approximately three months.

So, Does the BRIDGE Drug Court Actually Work?

The answer is a resounding yes! Since the program’s inception in 2010, we have had more than 158 graduates and seen incredible results. To highlight just a few:

• One graduate of our program had been described as “the worst heroin addict” our treatment providers had ever seen. The participant was in his 30s and had been addicted to heroin for more than half of his life. His family could not keep him in treatment; they were on the brink of giving up on him. He faced a long, hard road through the program, including being locked up for a few nights on more than one occasion. He spent several months in an inpatient treatment facility, but he hung in there because he knew where he was going if he quit working on his recovery. He secured a job while in the program. At one point, he suffered a somewhat serious injury, but refused pain medication so he would not compromise his recovery — and kept working so he would not lose his job. When he graduated, his father stood up and spoke — quietly but powerfully. The father described how he and his family used to wait, terrified, for the inevitable knock on the door that would bring them the news that their son was dead. He said that getting indicted on federal charges was the best thing that ever happened to his son, to which the son agreed. Then the son turned and thanked the entire BRIDGE team for not giving up on him.
• Another graduate was arrested on drug charges. While on bond, she was unable to comply with the conditions placed upon her due to her substance use. She had tested positive for cocaine and methamphetamine, used various prescription medications without valid prescriptions, and overdosed on heroin. She was admitted into the BRIDGE program, but her struggles continued. She relapsed and was briefly sanctioned for dishonesty. But the BRIDGE team continued to support and encourage her, and she persevered. In fact, she was able to regain custody of her children whom she had previously been unable to care for due to her substance use disorder. She successfully completed the program and remains an active alumna, serving as a mentor and as a beacon of hope to others.

Beyond these personal stories, here are some impactful statistics on the effectiveness of drug courts as gathered by the Addiction Group, a data-based organization promoting recovery:¹⁵

• Studies have shown that drug court graduates have lower recidivism rates compared to those who go through traditional criminal justice processes.
• A national study found that the average recidivism rate for drug court graduates was 27.5 percent within the first two years after graduation, which is generally lower than the recidivism rates for those processed through traditional criminal justice systems.¹⁶
• Studies have shown that drug court participants demonstrate lower rates of substance use post-program compared to nonparticipants.¹⁷
• On average, drug courts save $1,392 per participant in treatment and other costs compared to traditional court processing.¹⁸
• Drug courts provide significant public savings, with one study reporting an average of $6,744 saved per participant or $12,218 when victimization costs are included.¹⁹
• Another analysis found that drug courts provided $2.21 in benefits to the criminal justice system for every dollar invested, with potential savings increasing to $3.36 for every dollar spent when expanded to all at-risk arrestees.
• Because federal sentences can be longer due to the lack of discretionary parole, strict mandatory minimum laws, and guidelines for drug weight or financial loss, federal drug court programs have potential to save more than state court programs.²⁰
• Treatment costs are minimal compared to the cost to incarcerate,²¹ and, in most cases, probation is paying for drug treatment anyway.²²

In sum, drug court programs work and save money. However, we must not become hyperfocused on statistical success, as benefits can be and are often measured in other ways. Noteworthy here is the fact that addiction and substance use disorder is a lifelong struggle with far-reaching effects, well beyond relapse or recidivism. Of course, we hope these things do not happen. But as far as measuring success of a drug court, it is important to look at success in a holistic sense.

Here are just a few successes I have seen over the last decade: (1) participation in drug court changes a person’s perception of the court, assistant U.S. attorneys, and U.S. probation officers. In turn, participants are more willing to welcome advice, feedback, and assistance prior to engaging in further criminal conduct, relapsing, or both. Participants learn that people who are part of the justice system are willing to help them; (2) participation in drug court provides critical life and recovery skills that participants will use throughout their life; and (3) participation in drug court builds important and sometimes lifesaving relationships and connections, so participants have a supportive team while in the program and post-graduation.

How Does the BRIDGE Drug Court Keep On Working?

Of course, the BRIDGE program has faced and continues to face various challenges. Like many, if not most, government-run programs, limited resources are top of that list. So what is the one thing that has been absolutely critical to the success of BRIDGE despite such challenges? Community engagement.

This is vital to running a successful drug court. During BRIDGE’s infancy, people in the community volunteered to mentor participants; help them find jobs, housing, and transportation; and donate reward items. We even had one attorney who was so moved by the story of a young participant who had graduated from the program that he donated funds to help pay for that person to attend college. But, perhaps most significantly, we have had and continue to have community members present to encourage the participants, to remind them that they are not defined by their mistakes or labels given to them by the system, and to speak hope to them. “What is said about men often has as much influence upon their lives, and especially upon their destinies, as what they do.”²³ We have seen this to be true, time and time again.

How Does the REAL Federal Supervision Program Work?

In addition to the BRIDGE program, the District of South Carolina established a two-year reentry program in 2017 for high-risk defendants who are serving a period of supervision upon their release from prison.²⁴ This program is known as Re-Entering Able to Lead (REAL). The REAL program’s mission is to help participants improve their chances of avoiding re-offending, while at the same time increasing the likelihood of successfully completing supervised release. The team for the REAL program mirrors the BRIDGE team. REAL combines regular supervision strategies with structured cognitive behavioral therapy, targeted treatment services, and monthly informal interaction with the supervising judge. In sum and substance, it is what we call, “souped-up supervision.”

Participants may enter the program voluntarily, by a court order, or by referral after committing a violation while on supervision. Participants who successfully complete the REAL program may receive early termination from supervision or dismissal of pending supervised release violations. Of note, we insist on calling it the REAL program — not REAL court — because, for this population, historically nothing good has ever happened to them in a courtroom. This is precisely why we also insist on keeping our interactions between participants and the presiding judge and probation informal. Our goal is to hear from these folks, and we find that an informal, nonjudgmental setting increases the chances of participants sharing the issues they are facing so we can, in turn, target resources for the particular issue(s) they have identified. Put simply, without their honest input, we cannot best help them.

The REAL program provides a great resource for judges in cases where the presiding judge is on the fence with regard to revoking a supervision term. Participation in the program provides an alternative to further incarceration. REAL also provides a landing place for the growing population of individuals who are being released from prison due to retroactive sentencing amendments (e.g., compassionate release, First Step Act) and are unprepared for life outside of prison.

In sum, I hope I have expressed my passion for problem-solving courts and have inspired others to support innovative approaches to justice. It has been an honor to facilitate these problem-solving programs here in South Carolina. In the administration of both programs, I have seen the power of interagency and community cooperation to the financial efficiency of our law enforcement and to the real betterment of people’s lives. It is success built on hope and commitment that shows we can do something extraordinary in the administration of justice, that the adversarial process also has space for a complementary one, that ingenuity can overcome fiscal constraints, that a courtroom can both punish and heal, and that judges can be both judicial and human.

Bruce Howe Hendricks is a U.S. District Court judge for the District of South Carolina. She has been the supervising judge for the BRIDGE program since its inception in 2010.

Piper Reiff Byzet is a 2011 graduate of the Charleston School of Law and a law clerk for Judge Hendricks. She helped with the launch and growth of the BRIDGE program during its infancy.

1. To date, the BRIDGE program also operates in the Columbia Division, Florence Division, and Greenville Division. See generally Federal Drug Court, United States Probation and Pretrial Services District of South Carolina, https://www.scp.uscourts.gov/federal-drug-court.
2. As of November 2024, the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) reported a total of 158,005 federal inmates, with 143,817 of those inmates in BOP custody. Population Statistics, Federal Bureau of Prisons, https://www.bop.gov/mobile/about/population_statistics.jsp. See also Ashley Nellis, Mass Incarceration Trends, The Sentencing Project (May 21, 2024), https://www.sentencingproject.org/reports/mass-incarceration-trends/ (highlighting the growth in state and federal prison populations and its impact on society).
3. Society Of Addiction Recovery Residences, How Treating Addiction Can Prevent Crime (Jul. 31, 2023), https://soarr.org/treating-addiction-prevents-crime/.
4. I must digress a moment here. Like many states, South Carolina has been and continues to be hit hard by opioid overdoses. In an effort to reduce the incidence of overdose injury and death in the greater Charleston region, I had the privilege of joining forces with Gil Kerlikowske, former director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy (i.e., drug czar), to spearhead the creation of the Addiction Crisis Task Force (ACT Force) in Charleston in spring 2019. ACT Force is an assembly of the highest-ranking local law enforcement officials and their supervisory staff, drug treatment providers, mental health professionals, first responders, physicians, education experts, drug intelligence analysts, drug and family court judges, and citizen volunteers who work collectively to formulate strategies to address the addiction crisis and drug overdose epidemic. Central to the ACT Force mission is bringing together the unique strengths and capabilities of organizations and individuals with vastly different skill sets and approaches to combating addiction and overdose. You’ve heard the parable of the blind men and an elephant, in which the blind men — who have never come across an elephant before — stumble into one and learn to conceptualize what an elephant is like by touching it, only to then each describe with certainty that they know what an “elephant” is like based on the particular part they happen to have grabbed ahold of — the trunk, a leg, a tusk, etc. While typically used in the context of theology and philosophy, the metaphor works in the context of addiction and overdose as well. Each ACT Force member sees and understands the relevant issues from their specific point of view and experience — i.e., an emergency room doctor has a different outlook than a police officer or psychologist or recovery coach, etc., and our goal is to leverage these diverse perspectives by synthesizing them and building new strategies based on collective information. Thus, when it comes to the ACT Force, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Since its creation, ACT Force has become a force to be reckoned with, and this is, without a doubt, due to the persistent diligence, unwavering dedication, and synergistic communication between people of diverse knowledge, skills, and abilities unified around a common goal: to end this opioid crisis. The fight continues.
5. Judges, defense attorneys, probation officers, assistant U.S. attorneys, and members of the BRIDGE team may refer criminal defendants to BRIDGE.
6. Criminal defendants with a history of violent crime, sex offenses, or severe mental health conditions are not eligible for the BRIDGE program. Juvenile defendants are also ineligible.
7. Pretrial defendants may be admitted to the program after they have pleaded guilty to federal charges but before they are sentenced on those charges.
8. Post-conviction defendants may be admitted to the program after they have been charged with a violation of their supervised release but before they have been sentenced on that violation.
9. All criminal defendants admitted to BRIDGE must review the participant overview and sign the participant agreement before beginning the program. The agreement outlines the program’s rules and expectations. It must be signed by the participant and his or her attorney, the supervising probation officer, and the presiding judge. When completing the agreement, the criminal defendant also acknowledges whether he or she consents to the appointment of the assistant federal public defender as his or her attorney solely for the purposes of the BRIDGE program.
10. Rewards may include but are not limited to: applause and verbal praise; written recognition or certificates of achievement; reduced frequency of court appearances; reduced drug testing; elimination of curfew, home detention, or location monitoring; token gifts such as neckties and snacks; vouchers or gift cards; promotion to next phase; recovery materials; and a graduation certificate upon program completion.
11. Sanctions may include but are not limited to: verbal or written reprimands; increased frequency of attendance at drug court hearings; increased length of phase; increased drug and alcohol testing; curfew or home confinement with or without location monitoring; placement in a sober house or an inpatient or outpatient addiction treatment program; incarceration of varying length, generally no more than seven days; revocation of bond; and termination from the program.
12. See Douglas B. Marlowe, National Ass’n of Drug Ct. Pros., Behavior Modification 101 for Drug Courts: Making the Most of Incentives and Sanctions 2 (2012) (“The most influential factor in behavior modification is certainty. The more consistently participants receive rewards for accomplishments and sanctions for infractions, the more effective the program will be.”).
13. Indeed, from its inception, the BRIDGE program has been committed to evidence-based practices and has followed the best practice standards developed by the National Association of Drug Court Professionals. See generally U.S. Dist. Ct. for the Dist. of S.C., BRIDGE program Mission Statement & Policies (2018).
14. The length of the program depends, in great part, on each participant’s ability to succeed in it. Individuals who struggle in treatment but remain dedicated to recovery may be given an extension of time to complete the program.
15. Addiction Group is an informational website maintained by journalists, researchers, doctors, and medical professionals to provide updated, fact-based data and content on nationwide addiction treatment trends. Who We Are, Addiction Group, https://www.addictiongroup.org/about-us/. Addiction Group compiles statistics on trends and publishes regular reports on trends, outcomes, and challenges related to the effectiveness of drug courts, and the following statistics stem from one such report. Nicko Estrellado & Annamarie Coy, National Drug Court Statistics: Trends, Outcomes, & Challenges, Addiction Group (Aug. 7, 2024), https://www.addictiongroup.org/resources/drug-court-statistics/#:~:text=Effectiveness%20of%20Drug%20Courts%201%20Recidivism%20Rates%20Drug,justice%20methods.%20…%204%20Factors%20Influencing%20Effectiveness%20.
16. John Roman et al., U.S. Dep’t of Just., Nat’l Inst. of Just., Recidivism Rates for Drug Court Graduates: Nationally Based Estimates, Final Report 5 (2003), https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/201229.pdf.
17. Estrellado & Coy, supra note 15. See also U.S. Gov’t Accountability Off., GAO-12-53, Adult Drug Courts: Studies Show Courts Reduce Recidivism, but DOJ Could Enhance Future Performance Measure Revision Efforts 24 (2011) (cataloging GAO-reviewed studies of drug court effectiveness in reducing post-program substance use).
18. See Finigan et al., U.S. Dep’t of Just., Nat’l Inst. of Just., Impact of a Mature Drug Court Over 10 Years of Operation: Recidivism and Costs (Final Report) 44–45 (2007), https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/219225.pdf (finding a Drug Court costs $1,392 per person less to operate than a traditional court).
19. Id. at 47.
20. See Mark Motivans, BJS Statistician, U.S. Dep’t of Just., Off. Just. Programs, Bureau of Just. Stats., Federal Justice Statistics, 2021 18 (2022) (noting the median time served by persons released from the Federal Bureau of Prisons in FY 2021 was 36.7 months ); Danielle Kaeble, BJS Statistician, U.S. Dep’t of Just., Off. Just. Programs, Bureau of Just. Stats., Time Served in State Prison, 2018 (2021) (finding the median amount of time served by state prisoners released in 2018 was 1.3 years).
21. Typical treatment cost per person is $1,581; the annual cost to house an inmate with the BOP is $49,770. Memorandum from John J. Fitzgerald, Prob. and Pretrial Servs. Off. Chief, Admin. Off. U.S. Cts., Re: Costs of Community Supervision, Detention, and Imprisonment (Information) (2023). See also Annual Determination of Average Cost of Incarceration Fee (COIF), 88 Fed. Reg. 65405 (Sep. 22, 2023) (finding the average cost of incarceration to be $43,836 in FY2021 and $42,672 in FY2022).
22. U.S. Cts., Chapter 3: Mental Health Treatment (Probation and Supervised Release Conditions), https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/probation-and-pretrial-services/post-conviction-supervision/overview-probation-and-supervised-release-conditions/chapter-3-mental-health-treatment-probation-and-supervised-release (noting that under 18 U.S.C. § 3563(b)(9), the court may require a defendant on probation to undergo available alcohol or drug dependency treatment as specified the court).
23. Victor Hugo, Les Misérables 3 (Charles E. Wilbour trans., Modern Library 1992) (1884).
24. See generally U.S. Prob. Off., Dist. of S.C., S.C. Reentry Program Re Entering Able to Lead (2018).