What is Drug Court Based on a National Model Non- Integration of - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

What is Drug Court

Drug Court

Based on a National Model

Integration of Substance Abuse Treatment 10 Key Components

Non- Adversarial team approach

Meet Jane

First arrested at age 14 Convicted of possession almost four years ago Sentenced to probation three different times Unemployed for the year before entering into drug court 3 children; none in her custody because of her drug use

Victim of physical abuse Diagnosed with bipolar but not taking medication Injecting meth for the past 14 years 3 times a day Previously served a year in prison for other convictions Currently facing another probation revocation

Meet Jane Continued

• Jane’s PO identifies her as a candidate for drug

court as her use increases and she is non- compliant with treatment

• PO submits a motion to revoke her probation
• Defense attorney talks to Jane about the pros

and cons of entering into drug court

Key Component #3: Eligible participants are identified early and promptly placed in the drug court

What’s the Difference

Standard Court Process

Event

• riented

Offense- specific

Drug Court

Process

• riented

Behavior- specific

Role of the Defense Attorney

Represents client during criminal proceedings Acts as a partisan advocate for the client’s interest Protect the client’s interest Maintain strict secrecy about information learned from/about client Is present during drug court hearings as part of treatment team Advices client before entering into program about the benefits and drawbacks Considers treatment needs of client Client shares information directly with the judge and treatment team

Key Component #1: Drug courts integrate alcohol and other drug treatment services with justice system case

• Jane reluctantly decides to try drug court
• Enters a guilty plea to the probation

revocation

• Sentenced to drug court
• Meets treatment provider at sentencing

hearing and sets appointment for substance abuse evaluation

• Meets drug court PO and schedules first office

visit

Determination of guilt and sentencing is the end of the criminal law process

Post adjudication monitoring done by probation and only brought back to court if there are violations

The beginning

• f the process

is the determination

• f dependency

Extensive post adjudication monitoring and treatment

The defendant's family is rarely considered in this process Punishment is mandated to be based on the crime Process is designed to be identical for all equally accused persons

Defendant’s family is considered in treatment decisions Treatment is individualized The defendant is central to the process

Key Component #4: Drug courts provide access to a continuum of alcohol, drug, and other related treatment and rehabilitation services

• Jane’s substance evaluation indicates she

needs:

– Enhanced outpatient treatment – A mental health and medication eval to address previous bi-polar diagnosis – Treatment to address past trauma

• Given referrals and resources to follow up

with recommendations

Role of Treatment Provider

Provide substance abuse treatment Peripheral role in court process Little or no direct interaction between courts and provider

Provide substance abuse treatment Integral role

• n

treatment team Direct interaction with the courts on a weekly basis

Role of the Probation Officer

Meets with client initially to explain terms and conditions of probation Refers to any court ordered treatment Meets with client monthly to monitor compliance

Imposes sanctions/Incentives

• r revokes client based on non-

compliance Meets with client initially to explain program Communicates almost daily with treatment providers Meets with client weekly to monitor compliance Makes recommendations for sanctions and incentives Part of treatment team

Key Component #5: Abstinence is monitored by frequent alcohol and other drug testing

• Jane must comply with random drug testing

– Urinalysis up to 3 times a week – Calls daily to UA hotline – Could require other types of monitoring such as hair follicle testing, SCRAM or breathalyzers

• Jane starts treatment and is compliant first

couple weeks but misses some appointments

• Still using but is showing up to all

appointments and appears in court for her review hearing Key Component #7: Ongoing judicial interaction with each drug court participant is essential

Role of the Judge

Judicial interaction is with representatives of the parties only The judge is neutral agent among various competitors Judicial interaction exists directly with the defendant.

The judge is an active participant in a partnership with the defendant and treatment team

• Defense Council and Prosecutor are members
• f the drug court team
• Work together to reduce litigation
• Prosecutor balances need for community

safety with the recovery process

• Defense attorney balances protecting

individual rights with the recovery process

Key Component #2: Using a non-adversarial approach, prosecution and defense counsel promote public safety while protecting participants’ due process rights

Role of Prosecuting Attorney

Respon sponsi sibl ble f e for presen senting eviden dence a e against st a a defen enda dant

Makes s the i initi tial d deci cisi sion to pursu sue prose secuti tion of a case se

Act on behalf

• f public good

and public safety

Will not u t use se sta statements in court t t to pursu sue crimin inal prose secuti tion

Is a a m memb mber of the t treatme ment te team

Consi sider p public s c safety y when looki king at treati ting individuals i s in the community ty

Key Component #6: A coordinated strategy governs drug court responses to participants’ compliance

Based on the Science of Behavior Modification Imposed immediately

• r shortly

after a targeted behavior Honesty and attendance at all required services are ALWAYS expected

Sanctions Incentives

Ten Key Components: Program Components

• Key Component #8: Monitoring and evaluation

measure the achievement of program goals to gauge effectiveness

• Key Component #9: Continuing interdisciplinary

education promotes effective drug court planning, implementation, and operations

• Key Component #10: Forging partnerships among

drug courts, public agencies, and community- based organizations generates local support and enhances drug court effectiveness

Why a Drug Court?

• Dr

Drug offenders make up up abo bout 20% 20% of the inmate po popu pulation in Co Colorado¹

• More pe

peopl ple ar are serving pr prison terms for dr drug

• ffens

enses es than n any other type pe

• f crime

me¹

• In 198

987 7 19 192 dr drug offend nders we were in pr prison

• n in

n Co Colorado do compa pared t d to 4, 4,000 000 in 2008. 2008.¹

1Przybylski, Roger. (2008 February) What Works: Effective Recidivism Reduction and Risk-Focused Prevention Programs, prepared for the Colorado Division of Criminal Justice and the Colorado Department

• f Public Safety

1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 1987 1997 2006 Number

• f

inmates

Mental Health Courts

• What are Mental Health Courts?

– A “Mental Heath Court” is a program based in a court room and lead by a judge that brings together members of the criminal justice system and the behavioral health system, among others, to work with individuals with mental illnesses who face criminal charges.

• Why a Mental Health Court?

– Over representation in jails and prisons – Poor Performance under correctional supervision – Those with a mental health diagnosis tend to stay incarcerated for longer periods of time compared to other similar individuals with similar charges – Higher risk for committing new crimes

Why Drug Courts Make Sense: The Use of Drugs is Involved in…

More than 50% of Violent Crimes 60-80% of Child Abuse and Neglect Cases 50-70% of Theft and Property Crimes 75% of Drug Dealing Belenko and Peugh, 1998; National Institute of Justice, 1999.

Why a Drug Court?

65% of prison inmates meet diagnostic criteria for chemical dependence₁ 60 to 80 percent of substance abusers commit a new crime after being released from prison.²

1 National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University (2010). Behind Bars II 2 Rhodes, W., King, R., & Shively, M. (2006) Suffolk County Court Evaluation. Cambridge, MA: Abt Associates.

Mental Illness in detention

Research on MHC’s

• Fewer bookings into jail
• Greater number of treatment episodes
• Greater number of treatment services
• Significantly less likely to incur new charges
• r be arrested
• Improved their independent functioning

and decreased their substance use

• Spent fewer days in jail
• Reported more favorable interactions with

the Judge and they were treated with greater fairness

Meta Analyses

Compiled by Doug Marlow, J.D., PhD of the National Association of Drug Court Professionals

Citatio ion Ins Insti titute Numbe ber of

• f

Drug Cou Courts Crime R e Reduced ed

• n a

aver erage e Wils ilson e et al. l. (2006 2006) Campbell ll Colla laborativ ive 55 55 14 t 4 to 2 26% 6% Latim imer e et al. l. (2006 2006) Canada De Dept.

• f
• f J

Just stice 66 66 14 14% Sh Shaf affer ( (2006 2006) Univer ersi sity o

• f

Neva vada 76 76 9% 9% Lowenkamp et p et. al

• al. (

. (2005) 2005) Univer ersi sity o

• f

Cincinnati 22 22 8% 8% Ao Aos et a al. l. (2006 2006)

Washi hingt gton n State e

• Inst. For P

Public c Policy cy

57 57 8% 8%

Cost Effectiveness

Compiled by Doug Marlow, J.D., PhD of the National Association of Drug Court Professionals

Citation

• No. of Drug

Courts

• Avg. Benefit

per $1 invested

• Avg. Cost

savings Per Client

Loman (2004) 1 (St. Louis)

$2.80 to $6.32 $2,615 to $7,707

Finigan et al. (2007) 1 (Portland, OR)

$2.63 $11,000

Carey et al. 9 (California)

$3.50

$6,744 to $12, 218 Barnoski & Aos (2003) 5 (Washington St.)

$1.74 $2, 888

Aos et al. (2006) National Data

N/A $4, 767

Bhati et al. (2008) National Data

$2.21 N/A

Difference between MHC and DC

Drug Courts

– Focus on Offenders charges with drug/alcohol motivated crimes – Rely on drug testing to monitor program adherence – Behavioral management grid that includes sanctions and incentives. Graduated sanctions culminate in a brief jail sentences. – Feature only minimal involvement from substance abuse advocacy groups. – Establish independent treatment programs for participants. – Require sobriety, education, employment, self- sufficiency, payment of court fees and stabilization

• f co-occurring disorders.

Mental Health Courts

– Wider array of charges because mental health is not a crime. – No reliable test to verify clients are adhering to treatment conditions. – Adjust treatment plans and apply sanctions in response to non-adherence; rely more heavily on incentives; use jail less frequently. – Heavily promoted by advocacy groups, who are

• ften involved in the operation of programs.

– Contract with community agencies; more resources to coordinate services for clients. – Participants are often unable to work or take classes and may require on-going case management and/or supports

In other words…

We can slow the R Revolv

• lvin

ing D g Door Hold d indiv ividu iduals ls p person

• nally

lly accountable ble Save t taxp xpayer’s mo money Give p e partic icipa ipants the o

• ppor
• rtunit

ity y to becom

• me c

e contribu ributin ing m g member ers to our c commu mmunity

Recovery of the whole person

Graduated program in 15 months 410 days of sobriety No new law violations Employed for the last 10 months at the same job Attending college for associates degree Building a relationship with her children Getting mental health treatment and taking medication

Problem Solving Court State Profile

 75 Operational Problem Solving Courts  15 Problem Solving Courts in Planning  Now serving over 3,000 Defendants/Clients  Most Commonly used drugs: Alcohol, Marijuana, Amphetamines and Cocaine with heroine and prescription drug use growing

2/19/2013

Problem Solving Courts In Colorado

Adult Drug Court 33% Juvenile Drug Court 17% Juvenile Mental Health Court 3% DUI Courts 17% Family D&N Drug Court 17% Veterans Trauma 4% CR/DUI Hybrid 1% Adult Mental Health 8%

2/19/2013

Colorado Mental Health Courts

Operational Courts Courts in Planning

Growth In Problem Solving Courts

2 4 6 8 10 12 14 1994-1997 1998-2000 2001-2003 2004-2007 2008-2013 Adult DUI Courts Family Mental Health Juvenile Veterans

2/19/2013

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 1994 1997 2000 2003 2007 2010 2013

Total Problem Solving Courts

Total Problem Solving Courts

Growth In Problem Solving Courts

Colorado Evaluation

“The results of the outcome analysis for Colorado’s adult drug courts and DUI courts are overwhelmingly positive.”

 Evaluation included a total of 33 Adult (24) and DUI (9) Courts  Programs have graduation rates that are equivalent to, or

better than, the national average. (47% for adult drug courts and 61%)

 Participants are graduating within the intended time frame  24 months after drug court entry program participants

(regardless of whether they graduated from the program) had significantly lower recidivism, including:

 significantly fewer drug charges and DUI charges  significantly fewer person charges  significantly fewer misdemeanor and felony charges

Adult Drug Court Impact

1.7 1.5 1.8 0.52 0.19 0.77 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 ADC All Participants (N = 1207) ADC Graduates (N = 527) ADC Non-Graduates (N = 594) Average # of Re-Arrests 24 Months Prior to Program Entry 24 Months After Program Entry

DUI Court Impact

1.5 1.4 1.6 0.4 0.2 0.5 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 DUI All Participants (N = 100) DUI Graduates (N = 54) DUI Non-Graduates (N = 35) Average # of Re-Arrests 24 Months Prior to Program Entry

Outcome Evaluation Results

 Our DUI Court participants were found to be different from our Adult Drug court participants: More likely to be older, more educated, employed and with higher incomes, and scored out substantially lower on the Risk Assessment  70% of adult drug court participants scored as medium to high risk on the LSI and ASUS  Identified key difference in graduates and non- graduates

Chief Justice Charge PSC Statewide Advisory Committee Training and Education Subcommittee Technical Assistance and Program Support Subcommittee