POTTER, RANDALL AND ARMSTRONG COUNTIES DRUG COURT: A VIABLE COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS RESOURCE

Transcription

1 POTTER, RANDALL AND ARMSTRONG COUNTIES DRUG COURT: A VIABLE COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS RESOURCE HON. JOHN B. BOARD Judge, 181 st District Court State Bar of Texas SEX, DRUGS & SURVEILLANCE January 10-11, 2013 Houston CHAPTER 5.1

2

3 TABLE OF CONTENTS POWER POINT PRESENTATION - POTTER, RANDALL AND ARMSTONG COUNTIES DRUG COURT: A VIABLE COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS RESOURCE... 1 i

4

5 Potter, Randall and Armstrong Counties Drug Court: A Viable Community Corrections Resource What is a Drug Court? Court docket that handles the cases of nonviolent, substance abusing indictees and probationers who are in violation and at risk of having their probation revoked. Drug Courts operate under a specialized model in which the judiciary, prosecution, defense bar, probation, law enforcement, mental health, social services and treatment providers work together. Huddleston, C. W. III., Marlowe, J.D., Ph.D., D., Casebolt, R. (2008, May). Painting the Current Picture: A National Report Card on Drug Courts and Other Problem-Solving Court Programs in the United States. Washington DC: National Drug Court Institute. 1

6 What is a Drug Court? Drug Courts use the coercive authority of the criminal justice system to provide treatment to addicts in lieu of incarceration. Drug Court Review, Volume VIII, Issue 1 Generally, a problem-solving court involves a single judge devoted to a single type of case who uses sanctions or other powerful incentive to compel a defendant s compliance with treatment over a period of time. Texas Courts Online, History Drug Court in Operation Miami in response to flood of cocaine 20 years later ,459 in Operation Other Speciality/Problem Solving Courts based on Drug Court Model have evolved. E.g. DWI, Family Violence, Veterans, Mental Health, Juvenile, Homeless, Prostitution, etc. By ,189 such courts Painting the Current Picture, National Drug Court Institute

7 Drug Court Goals To produce SOBER, PRODUCTIVE, LAW-ABIDING citizens and REDUCE RECIDIVISM The Drug Court Difference: A Non- Traditional Approach Criminal Court Drug Court Objective Punishment Rehabilitation Voluntary No Yes Procedures Adversarial Collaborative Offender monitored by Corrections agency Incentives for compliance Disposition determined by Public safety enhanced None Offense and criminal history During incarceration/ supervision Judges, case managers, counselors Vary by drug court but are available Compliance with treatment conditions During and after program completion Drug treatment Infrequently ordered Always ordered Table Source: CrimJustice/6 Links/drugcourt.pdf 3

8 Substantive Program Components Assessment Intervention and Service Delivery Monitoring Incentives and Sanctions Completion and Follow-up The specialized Drug Court Model: 10 Key Components 1. Integrate treatment services with justice system 2. Using non-adversarial approach 3. Identified eligible participants early 4. Provide access to a continuum of alcohol, drug, and related treatment and rehabilitation services. 5. Abstinence is monitored by frequent alcohol and other drug testing. 6. Team decision making strategy in response to compliance or violations 7. Ongoing judicial interaction with each participant is essential. 4

9 The specialized Drug Court Model: 10 Key Components 8. Independent evaluation measures the achievement of program goals and effectiveness. 9. Continuing interdisciplinary education promotes effective drug court planning, implementation and operations (team members educating each other). 10. Forge partnerships with public agencies, businesses and community based organizations to generate local support and enhance drug court effectiveness. US Department of Justice; Defining Drug Courts: The Key Components (1997) Why Drug Courts? 2/3 of all adult arrestees test positive for illicit drugs at time of arrest (Zhang, Z. (2004). Drug and alcohol use and related matters among arrestees 2003.Chicago, IL: National Opinion Research Center.) The national recidivism rate for drug offenses is 67% (Langan, P.A. & Levin, D.J. (2002). Recidivism of prisoners released in Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.) About 80% of child abuse cases are drug related (Child Welfare League of America. (2001). Alcohol, other drugs, and child welfare. Washington, DC.) About 50% of domestic violence cases are drug related (Catalano, S. (2006). Intimate partner violence in the United States. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics. Retrieved July 1, 2007 from 5

10 Why Do We Need Drug Court? Currently 135 State Jail and 3 rd Degree Felony drug cases pending for 5 Potter County District Courts Currently 34 State Jail and 3 rd Degree Felony drug cases pending for 3 Randall County District Courts Currently 1,450 individuals being supervised on Adult Probation for Possession of Controlled Substance, Possession of Marijuana and Attempt to Possess Controlled Substance charges Jail Overcrowding Diversion Numerous offenders not charged w/ drug offenses but are addicts/alcoholics Right Thing to Do* Our Mission Increase Public Safety Save Tax Dollars Break Cycle of Re-arrest Accountability via Judicial/CSCD Supervised Treatment 6

11 Executing the Mission: The Drug Court Team Judge Approve participants using team approach Foster non-adversarial atmosphere Preside over frequent court sessions Act as monitor and motivator Act quickly with rewards and sanctions Participate in team meetings Advocate the Program Represent the Program Where Judge spends 3 minutes or more with each participant, 153% greater reductions in Recidivism compared to programs where judge spent less time. 7

12 Community Supervision and Corrections Department Refer potential participants to prosecutors and drug court coordinator for screening Supervise Drug Court caseload up to 40 participants per CJAD standards Participate in team meetings Tailor supervision plans to meet needs of individual participants Conduct random drug/alcohol testing Collaborate with treatment providers Collaborate with community agencies Treatment Providers Assess for placement Provide treatment and continuum of care Participate in team meetings Maintain confidential participant records Update team on treatment progress Recommend services I.D. assessment/reassessment timelines Train team members re: assessment basics for substance abuse, impact of same, and potential for relapse 8

13 Defense Counsel Meet with participants to discuss paperwork answer legal questions and explain sanctions/incentives Participate in team meetings Appear in court Protect Due Process Review all paperwork to be signed by participant throughout process Review Treatment Supervision Reports Promote non-adversarial court environment Prosecutor Represent the State of Texas as advocate for public safety Conduct initial screening review charges, criminal history, liaison with police and CSCD File court documents Participate in team meetings Community and Peer Advocate 9

14 Program Director/ Grant Writer Overall project coordination and planning Provide personnel, administrative and logistical support from CSCD assets Provide quality control Oversee operating procedure development and implementation Supervise grant administration Participate in team meetings Liaison with law enforcement and govt. agencies Coordinate ongoing training Drug Court Coordinator Organize Team Meetings Primary liaison for community Distribute compliance info Assist with administrative tasks of the program 10

15 Executing the Mission: The Targets Target at-risk population: Probationers in jeopardy because of dependency SAFPF re-entry- probationers returning to Community Supervision following successful completion of lock down rehab Offenders at risk due to level of dependence Must meet Substance Dependence Disorder criteria as defined by DSM IV Prosecutors and CSCD officers make majority of referrals to the Drug Court Team which approves admission Executing the Mission: Prohibited Targets Ineligible Participants: Violent Offenders History of stalking/violations of protective orders Significant History of drug dealing Significant history of crimes against persons Poor potential e.g. gang affiliation, drug trafficking Those who place community at continued significant risk 11

16 Executing the Mission: The Strategy Weekly court hearings participants attend 1-4 times/month Judge metes out sanctions and rewards (examples) Participants called to bench in front of peers to discuss progress and are praised or admonished publically Atmosphere more relaxed applause or support of good conduct encouraged Cost-Benefit Analysis: Texas Costs Savings A study conducted by SMU evaluated the cost benefit analysis of the Dallas County DIVERT drug court: The analysis revealed that for every $1.00 spent on an offender s drug treatment through DIVERT, the community saved $9.43 over a forty month period. Source: Grits for Breakfast Blog Saturday, December 4, 2004 Senate Committee: Drug Courts Work, Other Suggestions? 12

17 Cost-Benefit Analysis: Cheaper than Jail? Cost of local incarceration (per inmate) Potter County Detention Center Capt. Haney, PCDC $40.73/day Randall County Jail Danny Alexander, Public Info. Officer $55.00/day City Jail Capt. Ken Ferguson average $27.50/day Criticisms of Drug Courts: Practical vs. Impractical Drug courts do not accommodate violent offenders Drug courts target only a small percentage of drug offenders Drug courts amount to a hug-a-thug practice towards drug offenders; soft on crime Confidentiality in Drug Court undermines open court system of justice Drug courts can monopolize scarce drug-treatment slots at the expense of other addicts seeking help 13

18 How Effective Are Drug Courts? 2005 Study of 6 N.Y. Drug Courts showed reduction of new arrests by 6-13% 2006 meta-analysis of 60 Drug Courts showed 10% recidivism reduction for post-adjudication drug courts and 13% for pre-adjudication 2011 study of 24 Oregon Drug Court programs reduced recidivism by 44%. Drug Court Review, Vol. VIII, Issue 1 October 2010 to present 76 total participants 46 participants discharged unsuccessfully 9 Graduates Currently 23 Participants: Phase 1 11 participants Phase 2 7 participants Phase 3 5 participants 14