Washington D.C. Superior Court Drug Intervention Program Assessment Report

Washington D.C. Superior Court Drug Intervention Program Assessment Report Submitted to: Dr. Laura House PSA Contract Officer Technical Representative/ Senior Program Analyst DC Pretrial Services Agency Submitted by: NPC Research Portland, Oregon April 2011 4380 SW Macadam Ave., Suite 530 Portland, OR 97239 (503) 243-2436 www.npcresearch.com

Washington, D.C. Superior Court Drug Intervention Program Assessment Report Submitted By NPC Research Theresa Herrera Allen, Ph.D. Shannon M. Carey, Ph.D. Michael W. Finigan, Ph.D. Douglas B. Marlowe, J.D., Ph.D. www.npcresearch.com April 2011 Informing policy, improving programs

Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY... 1 Assessment Description and Purpose... 1 Washington D.C. Superior Court Drug Intervention Program Assessment and Technical Assistance Activities... 2 Electronic Program Assessment... 2 General Summary of Findings and Recommendations... 3 WASHINGTON D.C. SUPERIOR COURT DRUG INTERVENTION PROGRAM ASSESSMENT RESULTS... 12 10 Key Components of Drug Courts Detailed Results... 12 Key Component #1: Drug courts integrate alcohol and other drug treatment services with justice system case processing.... 12 Key Component #2: Using a non-adversarial approach, prosecution and defense counsel promote public safety while protecting participants due process rights.... 15 Key Component #3: Eligible participants are identified early and promptly placed in the drug court program... 17 Key Component #4: Drug courts provide access to a continuum of alcohol, drug and other treatment and rehabilitation services.... 19 Key Component #5: Abstinence is monitored by frequent alcohol and other drug testing.... 23 Key Component #6: A coordinated strategy governs drug court responses to participants compliance.... 24 Key Component #7: Ongoing judicial interaction with each participant is essential.... 28 Key Component #8: Monitoring and evaluation measure the achievement of program goals and gauge effectiveness.... 32 Key Component #9: Continuing interdisciplinary education promotes effective drug court planning, implementation, and operations.... 33 Key Component #10: Forging partnerships among drug courts, public agencies, and community-based organizations generates local support and enhances drug court program effectiveness.... 34 REFERENCES... 37 APPENDIX A: SCDIP ASSESSMENT PROJECT STAFF... 39 APPENDIX B: LIST OF POSSIBLE PROGRAM REWARDS AND SANCTIONS... 45 APPENDIX C: SAMPLE OF DRUG COURT REWARD AND SANCTION GUIDELINES... 51 APPENDIX D: LIST OF DATA ELEMENTS FOR PROGRAM SELF-MONITORING... 61 i

Background and Summary BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY D rug courts are designed to guide offenders identified as drug-addicted into treatment that will reduce drug dependence and improve the quality of life for the offenders and their families. Benefits to society include substantial reductions in crime, resulting in reduced costs to taxpayers and increased public safety. In the typical drug court program, participants are closely supervised by a judge who is supported by a team of agency representatives operating outside of their traditional roles. The team typically includes a drug court coordinator, case managers, substance abuse treatment providers, prosecuting attorneys, defense attorneys, law enforcement officers, and parole and probation officers who work together to provide needed services to drug court participants. Prosecuting and defense attorneys modify their traditional adversarial roles to support the treatment and supervision needs of program participants. Drug court programs blend the resources, expertise and interests of a variety of jurisdictions and agencies. Drug courts have been shown to be effective in reducing criminal recidivism (GAO, 2005), improving the psycho-social functioning of offenders (Kralstein, 2010), and reducing taxpayer costs due to positive outcomes for drug court participants (including fewer re-arrests, less time in jail and less time in prison) (Carey & Finigan, 2004; Carey, Finigan, Waller, Lucas, & Crumpton, 2005). Some drug courts have been shown to cost less to operate than processing offenders through business-as-usual in the court system (Carey & Finigan, 2004; Carey et al., 2005). Assessment Description and Purpose The D.C. Pretrial Services Agency (PSA) is intent on ensuring its Superior Court Drug Intervention Program (SCDIP) is incorporating national standards and guidelines to become a model drug court. NPC Research was hired to perform a process assessment and provide technical assistance to assist the SCDIP in these goals. The research team worked with the staff of the PSA s Office of Research, Analysis and Development (RAD) and the Office of Operations Treatment Program Area (Treatment), to assess the extent to which the current SCDIP program incorporates national standards from DOJ/NIJ, SAMHSA/CSAT, NIDA, and NADCP/ NDCI in terms of what constitutes best practices and evidence-based practices in drug courts. The assessment process examined the extent to which SCDIP is implementing the 10 Key Components of drug courts (NADCP, 1997) and the best practices that research indicates are related to positive outcomes. Activities included administration of an electronic assessment; site visits to the drug court; interviews in person and by telephone with drug court staff; focus groups with current participants; and a facilitated discussion of enhancement recommendations at an on-site meeting with drug court staff members, court administration, a SCDIP advisory group and drug court experts. A synthesis of the information collected through these activities provided NPC with a good understanding of the drug court s organization and current processes, assisted the assessment team in determining the direction and content of further questions and technical assistance needs and supports, and informed possible future evaluations of the program. 1

Washington D.C. Superior Court Drug Intervention Program Assessment Report Washington D.C. Superior Court Drug Intervention Program Assessment and Technical Assistance Activities NPC staff conducted the following activities with the Washington D.C. Superior Court Drug Intervention Program (referred to as SCDIP in the remainder of the report): 1. Assessment completed by the Pretrial Services Agency, Director of Treatment in collaboration with several of the SCDIP Pretrial Services Officers 2. Site visits by NPC staff and consultant to: a. Observe a graduation (progression) ceremony and drug court status review hearings, challenge hearings, and sanction hearings b. Visit the primary treatment facility c. Become oriented to the program s electronic data tracking system d. Perform focus groups with current SCDIP participants e. Talk to team members in person to: i. Learn more about the drug court s program policies and procedures and how they are implementing these as they relate to the 10 Key Components and best practices ii. Determine the drug court team s understanding of the 10 Key Components iii. Share the current status of the research in these areas iv. Review and discuss data elements and program operations, and address any questions that arose f. Facilitate a discussion of enhancement recommendations at meetings of drug court staff, court administration, the advisory committee and drug court experts. The NPC assessment staff on this project was Dr. Shannon Carey, Dr. Michael Finigan and Dr. Theresa Allen. Consulting on this assessment was Dr. Doug Marlowe. See Appendix A for staff bios. 3. This report is the main product of the assessment phase of this contract. The report summarizes program characteristics and practices, analyzes the degree to which this program is following guidelines based on the 10 Key Components, and provides recommendations for program improvement and enhancement. ELECTRONIC PROGRAM ASSESSMENT An electronic assessment was used to gather program process information from the SCDIP staff. This assessment, which provides a consistent method for collecting structure and process information from drug courts, was developed based on three main sources: NPC s extensive experience and research on drug courts, the American University Drug Court Survey, and a published paper by Longshore et al. (2001), which lays out a conceptual framework for drug courts. The assessment is regularly updated based on information from the latest drug court research in the literature and feedback from programs and experts in the field. The assessment covers a number of areas, particularly topics related to the 10 Key Components including eligibility guidelines, specific drug court program processes (e.g., phases, treatment providers, drug and alcohol testing, fee 2 April 2011

Background and Summary structure, rewards/sanctions), graduation, aftercare, termination, and identification of drug court team members and their roles. The use of an electronic assessment allows NPC to begin building an understanding of the program, as well as to collect information to support a thorough review of the site. General Summary of Findings and Recommendations The Washington, D.C. Superior Court Drug Intervention Program (SCDIP) was established in 1993 as one of the original drug court programs in the country. It now stands as one of a shrinking number of drug courts that continue to serve pretrial defendants on a pre-plea basis. Less than 8 percent of drug courts, nationally, still follow a pre-plea model. This may be unfortunate for several reasons. First, pre-plea programs can substantially reduce burdens on the court system by diverting cases away from more costly and intensive trial proceedings. Second, defendants are not placed in the position of having to relinquish their trial rights in order to access needed treatment and social services. Finally, defendants can enter treatment more quickly because there is no need to complete (potentially lengthy) discovery before tendering a plea. Research clearly indicates that faster entry into drug courts is associated with significantly better outcomes (Carey et al., 2008); therefore, getting drug-addicted defendants into treatment quickly on a pre-plea basis has the potential to contribute greatly to public health and public safety. Having administered a pre-plea drug court for approximately 18 years, the knowledge base of the SCDIP program could serve as a model for the drug court field as a whole, and assist in establishing best practices for pre-plea drug court programs. Unlike post-plea and post-adjudication drug courts, which typically run from 12 to 24 months in duration, SCDIP cases must be adjudicated within a substantially shorter period of time. The program must accomplish its goals with most participants within approximately 5 to 7 months. The program population consists of a wide variety of defendants, including those charged with misdemeanor and non-violent felony offenses. Currently, the target population is described as adult pretrial defendants assessed with the need for substance abuse-related treatment. It has a reported capacity to serve approximately 375 participants at one time. As of December 2010, there were 350 active participants. Research has demonstrated that drug courts that have performed monitoring and evaluation and made changes based on the feedback have significantly better outcomes, including 50% reductions in recidivism rates and twice the cost savings (Carey, Finigan, & Pukstas, 2008; Carey, Waller, & Weller, 2010). The recommendations in this report are based on research performed in over 100 drug courts around the country and on practical experience working with individual courts and collaborating with the professionals who do this work. Overall, the SCDIP has implemented its drug court program within many of the guidelines of the 10 Key Components. Among its many positive attributes, the program should be specifically commended for the following practices: The SCDIP staff includes representatives from a range of collaborating agencies. The program provides a breadth of diverse and specialized services to program participants. A thorough reexamination and reorientation of the treatment curricula was conducted in late 2008 by the Director of Treatment. A careful review of the evidence-based treatment literature led to the selection of a proven menu of standardized, manualized and culturally relevant interventions, including cognitive-behavioral therapies, motivational enhancement procedures, and 12-Step facilitation. 3

Washington D.C. Superior Court Drug Intervention Program Assessment Report Treatment, supervision and case management are coordinated through a single organization, which allows for the consistent and seamless management of participants. Urine drug screens are analyzed on-site, in the PSA laboratory, allowing for quick results and an expert interpretation of drug test results. Laboratory experts are available to explain their findings at challenge hearings, thus enhancing the technical accuracy of the court s conclusions, and reducing opportunities for participants to delay or avoid the imposition of appropriate sanctions. The Pretrial Services Agency has established partnerships across other community agencies that can provide employment, educational and other services. Participants report being pleased with their relationships with their case managers/pretrial Service Officers. The SCDIP program is open to and interested in performing best practices and being a model drug court. It has examined many of its own policies and procedures and already worked to improve practices. For example, as noted, the PSA has adjusted treatment services over time to incorporate evidence based practices. In addition, PSA s Department of Research, Analysis and Development (RAD) has performed a study comparing scheduled drug testing to random drug testing so that they could independently confirm the usefulness of random drug testing with their specific population. Finally, the SCDIP has implemented an alumni group to assist participants after graudation. The current judge, who just recently returned to the drug court bench, has already implemented some new practices, such as reading the PSO reports the night before status review hearings, instead of during the hearings. This has already had the effect of making the hearings more time-efficient and personalized for the SCDIP participants. PSA staff from RAD have been working to update the program database to ensure that the data entry options include variables appropriate for SCDIP and other PSA needs, and have been writing up clear data definitions and educating staff on those data definitions as well as data entry procedures. The SCDIP/PSA leadership has already begun the process of sharing the assessment results. The team and steering committee members should continue to set aside time to discuss the overall findings and recommendations in this report, both to make a note of their accomplishments and to determine what program adjustments will be made. In addition, the assessment and past evaluation results can be very beneficial to the program if it is looking to apply for grants to fund additional positions, or for local funders/agencies to help them access resources. These results can document needs as well as show how well the program has responded in some areas. Finally, the SCDIP has a model Progression Ceremony (graduation) that is well-attended, meaningful and inspirational. Although this program is functioning well in many areas, NPC s review of program operations resulted in some recommendations for program improvements. It is recognized that it will not always be feasible to implement all of these recommendations due to budgetary, policy or infrastructure limitations. It is important for the team to be as flexible as possible and do what they can to work around the barriers that are not changeable, in order to accomplish the ultimate goal of doing what is best for the participants. 4 April 2011

Background and Summary The following recommendations represent the primary areas of suggested program improvement that arose in the interviews, focus groups and observations during the site visit. These recommendations are provided with an understanding of the context within which this program operates, including the understanding that this is a pretrial program. Based on what NPC Research has learned about the SCDIP program and on our experience working with over 100 other drug courts, the key issues that should be addressed by this program are summarized below in general order of priority (though some of the later recommendations may be implemented more easily and therefore sooner). Background information, more detailed explanations, and additional recommendations are presented within each of the 10 Key Components in the main body of the report. Assign a single or small number of consistent defense attorney(s) to the drug court program. It is recommended that SCDIP have a dedicated defense attorney, or small group of defense attorneys, who are interested in and supportive of the drug court concept. Although defendants have the right to be represented by their own private attorneys, there are many downsides to this. The proceedings are delayed while defense lawyers are summoned to the courtroom to represent their clients. Several of the defense attorneys did not seem familiar with the drug court proceedings, or to have specialized knowledge about the nature of addiction or drug court processes. Their input seemed fairly minimal in many cases. It is generally a good idea to have a trained defense lawyer who is assigned to the drug court and can serve in an advisory capacity for participants and their private counsel. This regularly assigned defense attorney should attend all hearings and staffings to gain information about the program and offer input into the program s processes and operations. According to the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL), defense attorneys assigned to drug courts should be experienced, well trained, and assigned to the program for more than one-year rotations. 1 This is also recommended by NADCP and NDCI. 2 Defense attorneys assigned to drug courts should also be present, whenever reasonably possible, at all staffings and court hearings. The defense attorney(s) should be trained in the drug court model and the defense attorney s role in drug court. Because continuity in team roles strengthens relationships, and consequently team functioning, the program should work to maximize tenure in this position to the extent feasible. Drug court training early on in the defense attorneys tenure will help ensure understanding and acceptance of the non-traditional roles that distinguish drug courts from usual court processing. 1 National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. (2009). America s problem-solving courts: The criminal costs of treatment and the case for reform. Washington DC: Author. 2 NAT L DRUG CT. INST., CRITICAL ISSUES FOR DEFENSE ATTORNEYS IN DRUG COURT (Monograph Series No. 4, 2003), available at www.allrise.org. 5

Washington D.C. Superior Court Drug Intervention Program Assessment Report Implement regular staffing meetings attended by the full team: judge, defense attorney, prosecutor, and PSO/treatment representative(s). In these meetings, participants progress should be discussed prior to the court sessions, and tentative decisions reached about potential responses to participant behavior. Each professional who interacts with the participants observes them from a unique perspective, at different times of the day or week, and under varied circumstances. This offers holistic, useful information for the team to draw upon in determining court responses that will change participant behavior. Representatives from all agencies should attend pre-hearing meetings for the entire team to be unified in its understanding of the cases, and to have the most current information about participants and the decisions arising from these meetings. These meetings also allow status review hearings to be more efficient and focused on the specific behaviors that need attention in court. Best practices research shows that programs that include all team members (judge, prosecutor, defense attorney, case manager, treatment provider) at staffing meetings have 33% lower recidivism (Carey et al., in process). Invite a representative from law enforcement (police and/or sheriff) onto the team or as a member of the advisory committee. The SCDIP could benefit from having a law enforcement (e.g., police or sheriff) representative on the drug court team or advisory committee. Research has shown that drug courts that include law enforcement as an active team member have significantly higher graduation rates, lower recidivism and higher cost savings (Carey et al., in process). Attendance of law enforcement at graduation and other SCDIP events can be gratifying for drug court participants to demonstrate their success and can be a learning experience for law enforcement as they see that this population can change their lives and how the program helps this process. Where possible, combine sanction and challenge hearings into regular status hearings, and use staffings to engage in the background discussions that are typically being conducted at the status hearings. Currently, the majority of the important interactions in SCDIP take place outside of the status hearings. This is inconsistent with the drug court model, which focuses on status hearings as the central gathering for drug court rituals and interventions. Phase advancements and administration of rewards for phase advancement take place at the Progression and Commencement Ceremony. Sanctions are administered at sanction hearings, and challenges to the factual bases of sanctions occur at challenge hearings. This breaks up the flow of the process, delays the resolution of factual issues, delays the imposition of sanctions and rewards, and requires defendants and their attorneys to attend multiple court hearings. Rewards and phase advancements could be administered at status hearings, and could be further ritualized at the Progression and Commencement Ceremony. Sanctions that stop short of a loss of liberty could be handled during status hearings, so long as defense counsel has had sufficient notice and opportunity to respond. Procedural due process does not necessarily require a separate hearing. Even jail sanctions and challenges to the factual bases underlying infractions could be handled after a relatively brief hearing the same day, with reasonably relaxed procedural formalities. These recommendations will be more feasible if there is an assigned defense attorney(s) who attends staffings and is apprised of upcoming sanctions. An additional benefit to this arrangement is the courtroom as theater aspect of drug court sessions. The courtroom can be a theater or classroom where participants learn at an accelerated pace by observing the experiences of other participants. If all participants observe sanc- 6 April 2011

Background and Summary tions, incentives and challenges, then the judge and team can use this variety of interactions to teach not only the participant in front of the judge, but also others in the courtroom awaiting their hearings. Increase the frequency of status hearings. Once the SCDIP has consolidated multiple types of court hearings, more time should be available to increase the frequency of status reviews. Best practices research has shown that programs that hold status review hearings every two weeks in the first phase have 33% greater reductions in recidivism than those that see participants less often. It is recommended that SCDIP participants attend status hearings once every two weeks during the first phase of the program. At a minimum, the program should consider having participants who are in need of more intense supervision attend hearings every two weeks. For example, those assessed as being high risk and in need of more intense supervision could appear weekly or every two weeks, whereas those who require only moderate to low supervision may attend hearings monthly. Although participants should start out by attending court sessions every two weeks, if they are in compliance with the program they may be incentivized by gradually reducing the frequency of court appearances. Implement random drug testing. For drug courts that perform urine drug testing less frequently than three times per week, research indicates the testing should be truly random and unexpected. Although a previous RAD study showed little difference between participants tested randomly compared to those tested on a twice-weekly regular schedule, it is possible that those on random testing were motivated to use drugs less often for the very reason that they were more likely to be detected. This is supported by findings in the focus groups, in which participants reported that they knew they could use drugs on certain days because there were four days between their last test and their next one. They further indicated they would find it more difficult to use drugs if the tests happened randomly. It is recommended that the SCDIP work to develop random testing procedures for all program phases. There are many models for best practices in this area and it is likely that the program will be able to identify one that fits its particular needs, particularly if this is focused on during the TA phase of this project. Consider requiring participants to incur the cost of the test or receive some other sanction for challenging positive drug tests, if the confirmation test comes back positive. Currently, there is no consequence for challenging a positive drug test which is subsequently confirmed by GCMS. As a result, participants often challenge the tests because they can do so without incurring any additional burden, resulting in a large number of participants on the challenge docket. This takes up the court s time and substantial resources must be expended to cover the cost of re-testing. Requiring participants to incur the costs of confirmed tests, or receive a sanction for failing to admit use, would discourage participants who know they have used drugs from challenging positive results. Consequences for dishonesty are commonly imposed in drug courts and are associated with better outcomes in treatment. Implement a greater variety of sanctions and rewards. In the hearings that were observed, a limited range of sanctions and rewards were routinely meted out, without much comment about the purpose and rationale behind the consequences. Programs tend to have better outcomes when they have at their disposal a wide range of graduated rewards and sanctions that they can apply in an escalating fashion over time. Also, it is a superior learning experience for the participants and court observers when they hear a clearly articulated explanation of what specific behavior elicited the sanction, why a particular type of sanction was chosen, and what the participant is expected to learn from the experience. Appendix B provides ex- 7

Washington D.C. Superior Court Drug Intervention Program Assessment Report amples of possible incentives and sanctions, and Appendix C provides a sample sanction structure with ranges in sanctions for different types of infractions. The National Drug Court Institute (NDCI) maintains a list of sanctions and incentives that have been collected from around the country. In addition, NDCI offers one- and two-day trainings on how to most effectively apply sanctions, incentives and therapeutic consequences in drug courts. Limit the use of jail as a sanction. Jail can be an expensive use of resources. The program reports the use of jail as a sanction for each infraction beyond the third. If the recommendation to implement a greater variety of sanctions is put into practice, the consistent use jail after the 3 rd infraction may naturally decrease. Although the option to use jail as a sanction is an integral component of an effective drug court (e.g., Carey et al., 2008), it is important to use jail judiciously both because of the expense and because it may not be the most effective sanction in some circumstances. For example, there are some goals that are extremely difficult for truly dependant individuals to accomplish during the early phases of the program, particularly abstinence. For addicted participants, positive drug tests in the first phase of the program should ordinarily receive treatment-oriented consequences, and not high-magnitude punitive sanctions, even after the third infraction. Using jail sanctions for drug use in the first phase may leave the court with no harsher alternatives (called a ceiling effect ) before treatment has had a chance to take effect. However, even for participants with true drug dependence it can be appropriate to impose jail for some non-compliant behavior such as tampered urine specimens (as is done in SCDIP) or nonattendance at appointments as these are behaviors that even dependant participants can be expected to engage in immediately. It is recommended that the drug court team attend a scientifically informed training program on effective behavior modification techniques for drug defendants. Increase the focus on rewards for participants who are doing well. The program may want to discuss expanding its use of incentives and strength-based practices. Identifying the strengths of each participant and using them to build on can increase program engagement, identify individualized incentives to participation, and contribute to greater success. Incentives are key to shaping participant behavior, and it is important that the program find incentives that are meaningful to its participants. For ideas and examples, please see Appendix B, which is a sample list of rewards and sanctions used by drug courts across the United States. Other examples can be found at this BJA Web site: http://www.dcpi.ncjrs.org/dcpi/dcpi_adult.html#ias and at the NADCP/NDCI website. Consider assigning only one role to the PSO case managers. It is unusual to have supervision staff serve so many different functions, including provision of treatment, pretrial supervision, and reviewing progress reports during court hearings. Research does not offer much guidance on the effects of such an approach, but there could be concerns about potential role conflicts, the PSOs competence in so many different functions, and whether the participants understand or object to this practice. The team may want to discuss the logistics of assigning some of the case managers to treatment and others to supervision, and/or contracting out some of the treatment services. Participants usually perceive and relate to their treatment counselors in a different way than they do the persons responsible for supervising their adherence to program requirements. Separating these roles might help foster the therapeutic relationship that is needed in drug treatment. It may also be a more effective way to make use of the PSOs education, interests and experience. Alternatively, if separating the roles is not feasible, the PSA leadership has discussed implementing some more specific training for all 8 April 2011

Background and Summary PSO s on what is expected of them to help them prioritize their tasks and be more consistent in their work with participants across PSO s. It is further recommended that the PSO liaison to the court not sit adjacent to the bench facing the audience, and not read out incident reports prior to the discussion of the cases. (The latter recommendation has already been implemented by the judge in that incident report are no longer read aloud in court). This arrangement gives a distinct impression that the PSO is a court officer primarily responsible for prosecuting matters. To facilitate the appearance (and reality) that the PSOs serve as treatment and supervision agents, it is recommended that they sit adjacent to the attorneys, and respond to inquiries from the judge rather than initiate case discussions. Determine the amount of time PSOs should be spending performing their required duties, ensure those duties are clearly defined, and establish what size a PSO s caseload should be based on a 40 hour work week. Given the multiple duties performed by the PSOs, the size of the group sessions/classes, and their expressed work stress levels, there are some indications that the caseloads for the PSOs may be too high. The PSA should work to better define the specific duties SCDIP PSOs are expected to perform, and determine what a reasonable amount of time is to perform those duties. This information can then be used to calculate a caseload size that would allow PSOs to accomplish their duties within a 40-hour work week. This issue is also related to the matter of treatment capacity, which is discussed further below. Explore options for increasing treatment capacity. PSA should consider contracting more treatment services outside of the agency, and determine whether it is possible to increase the number of PSA treatment counselors. Counseling groups that number substantially over 12 participants tend to be less effective and become more like classrooms than therapeutic interventions. With large numbers of participants, it is no longer feasible to process or discuss individual participants experiences. Instead, the groups tend to focus on imparting information, which is not sufficient alone for behavioral change. During focus groups with the participants, several clients expressed surprise that the groups were intended to be therapeutic in nature, and instead referred to them as classes. The large number of participants can also pose safety issues for treatment counselors trying to manage the interactions, and for group participants who may not have sufficient space to easily exit the room. Consider waiting to increase the number of participants in the program until a determination has been reached about available resources. Drug court team members have expressed a desire to increase the number of felony participants in the program. The drug court steering committee should determine whether the program has the appropriate resources for a larger number of (potentially more serious) clients, and whether all team members feel prepared to provide services to this expanded population. Once these determinations are made, there can be a better estimation of the true capacity of the program and what additional resources would be necessary to effectively treat a larger number of clients. Train all team members on the drug court model, incentives and sanctions, collaboration and drug court roles. Several of the current SCDIP staff members have not attended specialized drug court training workshops, or it has been many years since their last attendance at a workshop. The drug court model requires specialized training for all staff members to understand their new roles, and the behavioral science underlying effective treatment of addiction. Team member training has been demonstrated to produce significantly lower 9

Washington D.C. Superior Court Drug Intervention Program Assessment Report recidivism and greater program completion rates, and to save criminal justice system resources that can then be used to support the processing of greater numbers of defendants (Carey, Finigan and Pukstas, 2008; Carey et. al., in process). The NDCI offers many excellent training opportunities, and is located nearby in a Virginia suburb of Washington D.C. In addition, the NADCP Annual Training Conference will be held in Washington D.C. this July. It is strongly encouraged that the SCDIP send as many staff members as possible to the training workshops available at this conference. Extend judge tenure to the drug court. It is recommended that the drug court continue to keep the judge on the drug court bench for at least 2 years and ideally longer, rather than having this be a frequently rotating assignment. When the position rotates, the judge should serve at least 2 years and the court should consider having the same judges rotate through the drug court assignment more than once, as judge experience and longevity are correlated with more positive participant outcomes and greater cost savings (Carey, Pukstas, & Finigan, 2008; Finigan, Carey and Cox, 2007). Streamline data collection on program participants. PSA s RAD has been modifying and updating the data collection process for SCDIP and other PSA programs. The drug court team should continue to work to improve collection and analysis of data about the drug court participants and use it for program reviews and planning, such as to inform the team about the types of participants who are most and least successful in the program. A list of data important for participant case management, program self-monitoring and evaluation is included in Appendix D. Include representatives from community agencies on the SCDIP advisory committee. The inclusion of community members, including law enforcement, in this group could result in expanded understanding of, and community support for, the program, and may result in additional services and facilities for the program. For participants with felonies, continue considering the option of reducing the felonies to misdemeanors and consider expunging the participant s record (of the felony or misdemeanor that led to SCDIP participation) once a participant has successfully completed the program. The SCDIP is encouraged to continue moving toward the goal of reducing felony charges to misdemeanors upon successful program completion. In addition, NPC would encourage SCDIP to expunge the felony or misdemeanor from the record of successful participants. Not only is this likely to function as a carrot to participate in drug court, but it may benefit society by graduating an individual who is more likely to be able to find employment because of the avoidance of a felony record. Assign or hire a drug court coordinator who can help organize and ensure communication between all agency representatives on the team. SCDIP does not currently have a Drug Court Coordinator. The drug court coordinator is often the face of the drug court, along with the judge. As such, it is essential that s/he be perceived as the professional who navigates and manages the clients through the program. Likewise, s/he should have the ability to bring all agency representatives together in a collaborative fashion for day-to-day procedures and policy decisions. In addition, the PSO case managers have little direct communication with the judge or attorneys. It is typically a drug court coordinator s responsibility to organize the various agencies so that they communicate about participants regularly. The role of coordinator could be a function of the PSO supervisor. 10 April 2011

Background and Summary I want to tell you how drug court is, it s an alright program, it keeps on your toes. The sanction, going to jail for 3 days, it gets to you, but other than that it s an okay program. SCDIP Focus Group Participant Overall, the SCDIP has implemented a program that follows many guidelines of the 10 Key Components of drug courts. The staff (including the judge, attorneys, and PSOs) should set aside time to discuss the findings and recommendations in this report, both to enjoy the recognition of its accomplishments and to determine how to respond to the recommendations provided. The following section of the report presents each of the 10 Key Components with the SCDIP practices and recommendations in more detail as well as additional recommendations within each component. 11

Washington D.C. Superior Court Drug Intervention Program Assessment Report WASHINGTON D.C. SUPERIOR COURT DRUG INTERVENTION PROGRAM ASSESSMENT RESULTS 10 Key Components of Drug Courts Detailed Results The Washington D.C. Superior Court Drug Intervention Program was founded in 1993 as one of the original drug court programs in the U.S. The program takes an average of 7 months to complete, and admits only pretrial participants. The program population consists of a wide variety of defendants, including those charged with misdemeanor offenses and non-violent felony charges. The program target population is described as adult pretrial defendants assessed as being in need of substance-related treatment. KEY COMPONENT #1: DRUG COURTS INTEGRATE ALCOHOL AND OTHER DRUG TREATMENT SERVICES WITH JUSTICE SYSTEM CASE PROCESSING. Assessment Question: Has an integrated drug court team emerged? The focus of this key component is on the integration of treatment services with traditional court case processing. Practices that illustrate an adherence to treatment integration include the role of the treatment provider in the drug court system and the extent of collaboration of all the agencies involved in the program. In the original monograph on the 10 key components (NADCP, 1997), drug court is described as a collaboration between ALL members of a team made up of treatment, the judge, the prosecutor, the defense attorney, the coordinator, case managers, and other community partners. Each team member sees the participant from a different perspective. Participation from all partners contributes to the strength of this model and is one of the reasons it is successful at engaging participants and changing behavior. It is important to keep team members engaged in the process by ensuring they have input on drug court policies and feel their role and contribution is valued. National Research Previous research (Carey, Finigan and Pukstas, 2008; Carey et al., 2010; Carey et. al., in process) has indicated that greater representation of team members from collaborating agencies (e.g., defense attorney, treatment, prosecuting attorney) at team meetings and court hearings is correlated with positive outcomes for clients, including reduced recidivism and, consequently, reduced costs at follow-up. Greater law enforcement involvement significantly increases graduation rates, reduces recidivism and reduces outcome costs. Research has also demonstrated that drug courts with fewer treatment agencies resulted in more positive participant outcomes, including higher graduation rates and lower recidivism costs (Carey et al., 2005; Carey et al., 2008; Carey et al., in process). Washington, D.C. Drug Court Process Currently, there is not an assigned public defender to the drug court. The PSO case managers have little direct communication with the judge or attorneys. It is typically a drug court coordinator s responsibility to organize the various agencies so that they communicate about participants regularly. SCDIP does not currently have a Drug Court Coordinator. 12 April 2011

Washington D.C. Superior Court Drug Intervention Program Drug court staff members do not hold staffings. The judge receives reports about participant progress from the Pretrial Service Officers (PSOs). Recommendations about responses to participant behavior are contained in the reports. The judge currently conforms closely to the program s four-option sanction grid. The drug court staff is composed of the Judge, Pretrial Service Officers (who provide treatment services, case management and supervision), the PSO supervisor, prosecuting attorney, multiple private and appointed defense attorneys, and the court clerk. The treatment counseling, case management and supervision roles are combined under the title of Pretrial Service Officer, also called the case manager. SCDIP does not currently hold case staffings (pre-court meetings in which participant progress and incentives and sanctions are discussed). Paper reports about participant progress are completed by the PSOs and given to the judge the day before court. The judge typically makes decisions about responses to behavior in the court hearings, based upon recommendations outlined in the PSO report. The Pretrial Services Agency (PSA) provides treatment to the SCDIP participants. PSA is also responsible for referring clients to other needed treatment services, such as detoxification and residential treatment, which are offered through contracted agencies. Suggestions/Recommendations The SCDIP is commended for using a single agency to oversee treatment and referrals. Research has demonstrated that drug courts with one or two treatment agencies have nearly half the recidivism rate compared to drug courts with more treatment providers. Assign a single or small number of consistent defense attorney(s) to the drug court program. It is recommended that SCDIP have a dedicated defense attorney, or small group of defense attorneys, who are interested in and supportive of the drug court concept. Although defendants have the right to be represented by their own private attorneys, there are many downsides to this. The proceedings are delayed while defense lawyers are summoned to the courtroom to represent their clients. Several of the defense attorneys did not seem familiar with the drug court proceedings, or to have specialized knowledge about the nature of addiction or drug court processes. Their input seemed fairly minimal in many cases. My lawyer didn t know I was sanctioned until it was time to go to court. She said, I told you, I told you. You shouldn t have gone into this program. SCDIP Focus Group Participant It is generally a good idea to have a trained defense lawyer who is assigned to the drug court and can serve in an advisory capacity for participants and their private counsel. This regularly assigned defense attorney should attend all hearings and staffings to gain information about the program and offer input into the program s processes and operations. According to the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL), defense attorneys as- 13

Washington D.C. Superior Court Drug Intervention Program Assessment Report signed to drug courts should be experienced, well trained, and assigned to the program for more than one-year rotations. 3 This is also recommended by NADCP and NDCI. 4 Defense attorneys assigned to drug courts should also be present, whenever reasonably possible, at all staffings and court hearings. The defense attorney(s) should be trained in the drug court model and the defense attorney s role in drug court. Because continuity in team roles strengthens relationships, and consequently team functioning, the program should work to maximize tenure in this position to the extent feasible. Drug court training early on in the defense attorneys tenure will help ensure understanding and acceptance of the non-traditional roles that distinguish drug courts from usual court processing. Implement regular staffing meetings attended by the full team: judge, defense attorney, prosecutor, and PSO/treatment representative(s). In these meetings, participants progress should be discussed prior to the court sessions, and tentative decisions reached about potential responses to participant behavior. Each professional who interacts with the participants observes them from a unique perspective, at different times of the day or week, and under varied circumstances. This offers holistic, useful information for the team to draw upon in determining court responses that will change participant behavior. Representatives from all agencies should attend pre-hearing meetings for the entire team to be unified in its understanding of the cases, and to have the most current information about participants and the decisions arising from these meetings. These meetings also allow status review hearings to be more efficient and focused on the specific behaviors that need attention in court. Best practices research shows that programs that include all team members (judge, prosecutor, defense attorney, case manager, treatment provider) at staffing meetings have 33% lower recidivism (Carey et al., in process). Invite a representative from law enforcement (police and/or sheriff) onto the team or as a member of the advisory committee. The SCDIP could benefit from having a law enforcement (e.g., police or sheriff) representative on the drug court team or advisory committee. Research has shown that drug courts that include law enforcement as an active team member have significantly higher graduation rates, lower recidivism and higher cost savings (Carey et al., in process). Attendance of law enforcement at graduation and other SCDIP events can be gratifying for drug court participants to demonstrate their success and can be a learning experience for law enforcement as they see that this population can change their lives and how the program helps this process. Assign or hire a drug court coordinator who can help organize and ensure communication between all agency representatives on the team. SCDIP does not currently have a Drug Court Coordinator. The drug court coordinator is often the face of the drug court, along with the judge. As such, it is essential that s/he be perceived as the professional who navigates and manages the clients through the program. Likewise, s/he should have the ability to bring all agency representatives together in a collaborative fashion for day-to-day procedures and policy decisions. In addition, the PSO case managers have little direct communication with the judge or attorneys. It is typically a drug court coordinator s responsibility to 3 National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. (2009). America s problem-solving courts: The criminal costs of treatment and the case for reform. Washington DC: Author. 4 NAT L DRUG CT. INST., CRITICAL ISSUES FOR DEFENSE ATTORNEYS IN DRUG COURT (Monograph Series No. 4, 2003), available at www.allrise.org. 14 April 2011

Washington D.C. Superior Court Drug Intervention Program organize the various agencies so that they communicate about participants regularly. The role of coordinator could be a function of the PSO supervisor. KEY COMPONENT #2: USING A NON-ADVERSARIAL APPROACH, PROSECUTION AND DEFENSE COUNSEL PROMOTE PUBLIC SAFETY WHILE PROTECTING PARTICIPANTS DUE PROCESS RIGHTS. Assessment Question: Are the Defense Attorney and Prosecuting Attorney satisfied that the mission of each has not been compromised by drug court? This key component is concerned with the balance of three important issues. The first issue is the nature of the relationship between the prosecution and defense counsel in drug court. Unlike traditional case processing, drug court case processing favors a non-adversarial approach. The second issue is to ensure the drug court remains responsible for promoting public safety. The third issue is to ensure the protection of participants due process rights. National Research Research by Carey et al. (2008) and Carey et al. (2010) found that participation by the prosecution and defense attorneys in team meetings and at drug court status review hearings had a positive effect on graduation rates and recidivism 5 costs. In addition, drug courts that allowed non-drug-related charges also showed lower recidivism costs. Allowing participants into the drug court program only post-plea was associated with lower graduation rates and higher investment 6 costs while drug courts that mixed pretrial and posttrial defendants had similar outcomes as drug courts that keep those populations separate (Carey, et. al., in process). Washington, D.C. Drug Court Process The prosecuting attorney, defense attorneys and the judge may identify and refer potential participants to the program. The program accepts only pretrial participants. Defendants with current and prior violent charges are not allowed into the program. Prosecution and defense counsel are included as part of SCDIP. However, there are many private and public defense attorneys who participate at the drug court hearings. There is one dedicated State s Attorney for the drug court. The public defender s office typically handles more serious cases than those involving drug charges. Criminal Justice Act (CJA) defense attorneys are more likely to work on drug cases. However, there is always a defense attorney at sanction and challenge hearings, and generally this is a public defender. 5 Recidivism costs are the expenses related to the measures of participant outcomes, such as re-arrests, jail time, probation, etc. Successful programs result in lower recidivism costs, due to reductions in new arrests and incarcerations, because they create less work for courts, law enforcement, and other agencies than individuals who have more new offenses. 6 Investment costs are the resources that each agency and the program overall spend to run the drug court, including program and affiliated agency staff time, costs to pay for drug testing, etc. 15