Drug courts integrate alcohol and other drug treatment services with justice system case processing. Specialty Courts 101

Transcription

1 Specialty Courts 101 Developed by: National Drug Court Institute (NDCI) Presented by: Carolyn Hardin, Senior Director NDCI, March1, 2011 The following presentation may not be copied in whole or in part without the written permission of the author or the National Drug Court Institute. Written permission will generally be given without cost, upon request. Defining Drug Courts: The Ten Key Components What are the Ten Key Components of Drug Court? How can you incorporate them into your Drug Court Procedure? Do you have to incorporate all Ten Key Components into your Drug Court Procedures? Drug Court Key Component # 1 Drug courts integrate alcohol and other drug treatment services with justice system case processing. What team members should attend the drug court staffing/meetings?

2 Percent Increase in Cost Savings Percent increase in cost savings Percent reduction in rearrests Drug Courts Where a Treatment Representative Attends Court Hearings had 10 greater reductions in recidivism 38% 4 35% 25% 15% 5% Treatment attends court hearings N=57 19% Treatment does NOT attend court hearings N=10 Note 1: Difference is significant at p<.10 Drug Courts Where the Prosecutor Attends Staffings had a 171% Higher Cost Savings 38% 4 35% 25% 15% 5% Prosecutor attends staffings N=5 14% Prosecutor does NOT attend staffings N=5 Note: Difference is significant at p<.05 Drug Courts Where the Defense Attorney Attends Drug Court Team Meetings (Staffings) had a 93% Higher Cost Savings 29% 15% Defense attorney attends staffings N=59 Defense Attorney does NOT attend staffings N=11

3 Percent reduction in recidivism Percent reduction in recidivism Drug Courts where Law Enforcement is a member of the drug court team had 88% greater reductions in recidivism 5 45% 4 24% Law enforcement is on team N=20 Law enforcement is NOT on team N=29 Drug Courts where all team members attended staffings had 5 greater reductions in recidivism 5 42% 4 28% All team members attend staffings N=31 All team does NOT attend staffings N=28 Note 2: Team Members = Judge, Both Attorneys, Treatment Provider, Coordinator, Probation Drug Court Key Component # 2 Using a non-adversarial approach, prosecution and defense counsel promote public safety while protecting participants due process rights. Does allowing non-drug charges (e.g. violence) threaten public safety?

4 Drug Courts That Accepted Participants With Non- Drug Charges Had Nearly Twice the Savings Note 2: Non-drug charges include property, prostitution, violence, etc. Drug Courts That Accepted Participants with Prior Violence Had No Differences in Graduation Rates Note: Difference is NOT significant Drug Courts That Accepted Participants with Prior Violence Had No Differences in Cost Savings Note: Difference is NOT significant

5 Percent reductions in recidivism Percent reductions in recidivism Drug Court Key Component # 3 Eligible participants are identified and placed in the program as soon as possible. Is it really important to get participants into the program quickly? What does quickly REALLY MEAN? Drug Courts That Accepted Participants With Non-Drug Charges had 98% Greater Reductions in Recidivism 5 41% 4 21% Drug court accepts nondrug charges N=42 Drug court does NOT accept non-drug charges N=24 Note 2: Non-drug charges include property, prostitution, forgery, etc. Drug Courts That Accepted Participants with Prior Violence Had Equal Reductions in Recidivism 5 36% 38% 4 Drug Court accepts participants with prior violence N=14 Drug Court does NOT accept participants with prior violence N=39 Note: Difference is NOT significant

6 Percent reductions in recidivism Program Caseload Is there a limit to how many participants can you treat effectively? -NPC Research #1 Drug Courts with a Program Caseload (Number of Active Participants) of less than 125 had 567% Greater Reductions in Recidivism % Drug court caseload is LESS than 125 N=29 Drug court caseload is MORE than 125 N=13 Drug Courts with a Program Caseload (Number of Active Participants) of less than 125 had 567% reductions in recidivism

7 Percent reductions in recidivism Prompt Treatment Is it really important to get participants into the program quickly? And what is quickly? - NPC Research Drug Courts In Which Participants Entered the Program within 50 Days of Arrest Had 63% Greater Reductions in Recidivism 5 39% 4 24% Participants enter program within 50 days of arrest N=15 Participants enter program within 50 days of arrest N=26 Note: Difference is significant at p<.05 Drug Court Key Component # 4 Drug courts provide access to a continuum of alcohol, drug, and other related treatment and rehabilitation services. Is it better to have a single treatment agency or to have multiple treatment options? How important is relapse prevention?

8 Drug Courts That Used One or Two Primary Treatment Agencies Had 76% Greater Reductions in Recidivism -NPC Research Drug Courts That Included a Phase Focusing on Relapse Prevention Had Over 3 Times Greater Savings Note: Difference is significant at p<.05 Drug Court Key Component # 5 Abstinence is monitored by frequent drug and alcohol testing. How frequently should participants be tested? How well do drug courts really reduce drug use? How important is it for drug test results to be available quickly? What does quickly REALLY MEAN?)

9 Percent reductions in recidivism Percent increase in cost savings Percent increase in cost savings Drug Courts Where Drug Tests are Collected at Least Two Times per Week In the First Phase had a 61% Higher Cost Savings 4 29% 18% Participants drug tested at least 2X per week N=53 Participants tested LESS often than 2X per week N=12 Note 1: Difference is significant at p<.15 (Trend) Drug Courts Where Drug Test Results are Back in 48 Hours or Less had 68% Higher Cost Savings 4 32% 19% Drug tests are back within 48 hours N=21 Drug tests are back in LONGER THAN 48 hours N=16 #2 Drug Courts Where Participants are expected to have greater than 90 consecutive days clean before graduation had 164% greater reductions in recidivism 4 37% 14% Participants are clean at least 90 days before graduation N=57 Participants are clean LESS THAN 90 days before graduation N=9 Note 1: Difference is significant at p<.15 (Trend)

10 Percent increase in cost savings Percent increase in cost savings Drug Court Key Component # 6 A coordinated strategy governs responses to participant s compliance. Do your guidelines on team response to client behavior really need to be in writing? How important is jail as a sanction? Drug Courts Where Team Members are Given a Copy of Written Guidelines For Sanctions And Rewards Had 72% Higher Cost Savings 4 31% 18% Team has guidelines N=33 Team DOES NOT have guidelines N=11 Note 1: Difference is significant at p<.15 (Trend) Drug Courts Where Sanctions Are Imposed Immediately After Non-compliant Behavior had a 10 Increase in Cost Savings 4 28% 14% Sanctions are imposed immediately N=36 Sanctions are NOT imposed immediately N=17 Note 2: Immediately = Before the next regular court hearing (or one week of less to court hearing)

11 Courts that use jail greater than 6 days have worse (higher) recidivism Staffing Integrates the Ten Key Components Drug Court Staffing / Pre-Case Conferencing What The purpose of staffing is to present a coordinated response to offender behavior. Who Judge Coordinator Prosecutor Defense Counsel Treatment Probation Law Enforcement When Anytime prior to seeing the participant Eligibility Arraignment Progress Report Probation Revocation / Termination Regression / Advancement Return on Warrant Pre-Graduation/Graduation Why Shared Decision Making, Docket Control, Informed Approach, Empowerment of Team

12 % improvement in # of re-arrests Percent Reduction in Recidivism Drug Court Key Component # 7 Ongoing judicial interaction with each participant is essential. Does it matter how long the judge spends interacting with each participant in court? How often should participants appear before the judge? How long should the judge stay on the drug court bench? Is longevity better or is it better to rotate regularly? Drug Courts That Held Status Hearings Every 2 Weeks During Phase 1 Had 5 Greater Reductions in Recidivism 5 46% 4 31% Drug court has review hearings every two weeks N=14 Drug court has review hearings more or less often N=35 Note: Difference is significant at p<.1 The Longer the Judge Spent on the Drug Court Bench, the Better the Client Outcomes 5 45% 4 35% 25% 15% 5% 42% 34% 27% 28% 8% 4% Judge 1A Judge 2 Judge 3A Judge 3B Judge 1B Judge 4 Judge 5 Different judges had different impacts on recidivism

13 Percent increase in cost savings % improvement in # of re-arrests % improvement in # of re-arrests The Longer the Judge Spent on the Drug Court Bench, the Better the Client Outcomes 5 45% 4 35% 25% 15% 5% 42% 34% 27% 28% 8% 4% Judge 1A Judge 2 Judge 3A Judge 3B Judge 1B Judge 4 Judge 5 Different judges had different impacts on recidivism Judges did better their second time The Longer the Judge Spent on the Drug Court Bench, the Better the Client Outcomes 5 45% 4 35% 25% 15% 5% 42% 34% 27% 28% 8% 4% Judge 1A Judge 2 Judge 3A Judge 3B Judge 1B Judge 4 Judge 5 Different judges had different impacts on recidivism Judges did better their second time Drug Courts That Have Judges Stay Longer Than Two Years Had 3 Times Greater Cost Savings 25% 8% Judge is on bench at least 2 years N=9 Judge is on bench LESS THAN 2 years N=3 Note: Difference is significant at p<.05

14 Percent reduction in recidivism Drug Courts Where the Judge Spends an Average of 3 Minutes or Greater per Participant During Court Hearings had 153% greater reductions in recidivism 5 43% 4 17% Judge spends at least 3 min. per participant N=23 Judge spends LESS THAN 3 min. per participant N=12 Drug Courts Where the Judge Spends an Average of 3 Minutes or Greater per Participant During Court Hearings had 153% greater reductions in recidivism Drug Court Key Component # 8 Monitoring and Evaluation measure the achievement of program goals and effectiveness. Does it matter whether data are kept in paper files or in a database? Does keeping program stats make a difference? Do you really need an evaluation? What do you get out of it?

15 Percent increase in cost savings Percent increase in cost savings Percent increase in cost savings Drug Courts That Used Paper Files Rather Than Electronic Databases Had 65% LESS Savings 4 33% Program uses paper files N=8 Program has electronic database N=3 Note: Difference is significant at p<.05 #1 Drug Courts Where Review of The Data and Stats Has Led to Modifications in Drug Court Operations had a 131% Increase in Cost Savings 37% 16% Program reviews their own stats N=20 Program does NOT review stats N=15 #2 Drug Courts Where The Results Of Program Evaluations Have Led to Modifications In Drug Court Operations had a 10 Increase in Cost Savings 5 36% 4 18% Used evaluation to make modifications to program N=18 Did NOT use evaluation to make modifications N=13

16 Percent increase in cost savings Drug Court Key Component # 9 Continuing interdisciplinary education promotes effective drug court planning, implementation, and operations. Can your team save money by training on-the-job or by selecting only certain team members for formal training? Drug Courts That Provided Formal Training for ALL New Team Members Had 57% Greater Reductions in Recidivism % All new team members have formal training N=30 All team members NOT formally trained N=17 Note: Difference is significant at p<.05 Drug Courts That Received Training Prior to Implementation Had 238% Higher Cost Savings 4 27% 8% Team trained BEFORE implementation N=12 Team members NOT trained before implementation N=5 Note: Difference is significant at p<.05

17 Drug Court Key Component # 10 Forging partnerships among drug courts, public agencies and community-based organizations generates support and increases effectiveness. How important are partnerships in the community for your drug court? Drug Courts That Had Formal Partnerships with Community Organizations Had 133% Greater Cost Savings 4 35% 15% Drug court has formal partnerships in community N=15 Drug court doees NOT have formal partnerships N=5 Note: Difference is significant as a trend at p<.15 Recipe for Success Send us the high value cases Fidelity to the 10 Key Components until proven otherwise! Ongoing judicial authority Interagency team approach Get it right the first time

18 Summary Success in Drug Court depends on Applying ALL of The Ten Key Components as a Framework SPONSOR S NOTE This project was supported by Grant No DC-BX-K004 awarded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance. The Bureau of Justice Assistance is a component of the Office of Justice Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the National Institute of Justice, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, the SMART Office, and the Office for Victims of Crime. Points of view or opinions in this document are those of the author and do not represent the official position or policies of the United States Department of Justice.