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

(1)

Specialty Courts 101

Developed by: National Drug Court Institute (NDCI) Presented by: Carolyn Hardin, Senior Director

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.

(2)

Note 1: Difference is significant at p<.10

Drug Courts Where a Treatment Representative

Attends Court Hearings had

100% greater reductions in recidivism

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%

Treatment attends court hearings

N=57

Treatment does NOT attend court hearings

N=10 38% 19% P e rc e n t r e d u c tio n in r e a rr e s ts

Note: Difference is significant at p<.05

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% Prosecutor attends staffings N=5

Prosecutor does NOT attend staffings N=5 38% 14% P e rc e n t i n c re a s e in c o s t s a v in g s

Drug Courts Where the Prosecutor

Attends Staffings had

a 171% Higher Cost Savings

Drug Courts Where the Defense Attorney Attends Drug

Court Team Meetings (Staffings) had

a 93% Higher Cost Savings

0% 10% 20% 30% Defense attorney attends staffings N=59

Defense Attorney does NOT attend staffings

N=11 29% 15% P e rc e n t I n c re a s e in Co s t S a v in g s

(3)

Drug Courts where Law Enforcement is a member of the drug

court team had

88% greater reductions in recidivism

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Law enforcement is on team N=20

Law enforcement is NOT on team N=29 45% 24% P e rc e n t r e d u c tio n in r e c id iv is m

Note 2: “Team Members” = Judge, Both Attorneys, Treatment Provider, Coordinator, Probation

Drug Courts where all team members attended staffings had

50% greater reductions in recidivism

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

All team members attend staffings

N=31

All team does NOT attend staffings N=28 42% 28% P e rc e n t r e d u c tio n in r e c id iv is m

Drug Court Key Component # 2

Using a non-adversarial

approach, prosecution and

defense counsel promote

public safety while

protecting participants’

due process rights.

(4)

Note 1: Difference is significant at p<.05

Drug Courts That Accepted Participants With

Non-Drug Charges Had Nearly Twice the Savings

Note 2: Non-drug charges include property, prostitution, violence, etc.

Note: Difference is NOT significant

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

(5)

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

Note 2: Non-drug charges include property, prostitution, forgery, etc.

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

Drug court accepts non-drug charges

N=42

Drug court does NOT accept non-drug charges N=24 41% 21% P e rc e n t r e d u c tio n s in r e c id iv is m

Note: Difference is NOT significant

Drug Courts That Accepted Participants with Prior

Violence Had Equal Reductions in Recidivism

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

Drug Court accepts participants with prior

violence N=14

Drug Court does NOT accept participants with prior

violence N=39 36% 38% P e rc e n t r e d u c tio n s in r e c id iv is m

(6)

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

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

Drug court caseload is LESS than 125

N=29

Drug court caseload is MORE than 125 N=13 40% 6% P er ce n t r edu cti on s in r ec idiv ism

Drug Courts with a Program Caseload (Number of Active

Participants) of less than 125 had

(7)

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

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Participants enter program within 50 days of arrest N=15 Participants enter program within 50 days of arrest N=26 39% 24% P e rce n t re d u ct io n s i n r e ci d iv is m

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

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?

(9)

Note 1: Difference is significant at p<.15 (Trend)

Drug Courts Where Drug Tests are Collected at Least Two Times

per Week In the First Phase had

a 61% Higher Cost Savings

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

Participants drug tested at least 2X per week

N=53

Participants tested LESS often than 2X per week

N=12 29% 18% P e rc e n t i n c re a s e in c o s t s a v in g s

Drug Courts Where Drug Test Results are Back in 48

Hours or Less had

68% Higher Cost Savings

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

Drug tests are back within 48 hours N=21 Drug tests are back in LONGER THAN 48 hours N=16 32% 19% P e rc e n t i n c re a s e in c o s t s a v in g s

#2

Drug Courts Where Participants are expected to have greater

than 90 consecutive days clean before graduation had

164%

greater reductions in recidivism

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

Participants are clean at least 90 days before

graduation N=57

Participants are clean LESS THAN 90 days

before graduation N=9 37% 14% P e rc e n t r e d u c tio n s in r e c id iv is m

(10)

Drug Court Key Component # 6

A coordinated strategy governs

responses to participant’s

compliance.

How important is jail as a sanction?

Do your guidelines on team response to client behavior really need to

be in writing?

Drug Courts Where Team Members are Given a Copy of

Written Guidelines For Sanctions And Rewards Had

72% Higher Cost Savings

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

Team has guidelines N=33

Team DOES NOT have guidelines N=11 31% 18% P e rc e n t i n c re a s e in c o s t s a v in g s

Drug Courts Where Sanctions Are Imposed

Immediately After Non-compliant Behavior had

a 100% Increase in Cost Savings

Note 2: Immediately = Before the next regular court hearing (or one week of less to court hearing)

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

Sanctions are imposed immediately

N=36

Sanctions are NOT imposed immediately N=17 28% 14% P e rc e n t i n c re a s e in c o s t s a v in g s

(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

• Why

–

Shared Decision Making, Docket Control, Informed

Approach, Empowerment of Team

• When

Anytime prior to seeing the participant

•Eligibility •Arraignment •Progress Report

•Probation Revocation / Termination •Regression / Advancement •Return on Warrant •Pre-Graduation/Graduation

(12)

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 50% Greater Reductions in

Recidivism

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

Drug court has review hearings every two weeks

N=14

Drug court has review hearings more or less often

N=35 46% 31% P e rc e n t Re d u c tio n in Re c id iv is m



Different judges had different impacts on recidivism

8% 27% 4% 28% 42% 30% 34% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%

Judge 1A Judge 2 Judge 3A Judge 3B Judge 1B Judge 4 Judge 5

% i mp rov em ent in # o f re -arr es ts

The Longer the Judge Spent on the Drug Court Bench,

the Better the Client Outcomes

(13)

 Different judges had different impacts on recidivism



Judges did better their second time

8% 27% 4% 28% 42% 30% 34% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%

The Longer the Judge Spent on the Drug Court Bench,

the Better the Client Outcomes

8% 27% 4% 28% 42% 30% 34% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%

 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

Drug Courts That Have Judges Stay Longer Than

Two Years Had 3 Times Greater Cost Savings

Note: Difference is significant at p<.05 0%

10% 20% 30%

Judge is on bench at least 2 years

N=9

Judge is on bench LESS THAN 2 years N=3 25% 8% P e rc e n t i n c re a s e in c o s t s a v in g s

(14)

Drug Courts Where the Judge Spends an Average of

3 Minutes or

Greater per Participant During Court Hearings had 153%

greater reductions in recidivism

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

Judge spends at least 3 min. per participant

N=23

Judge spends LESS THAN 3 min. per

participant N=12 43% 17% P e rc e n t r e d u c tio n in r e c id iv is m

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)

Drug Courts That Used Paper Files Rather Than

Electronic Databases Had 65% LESS Savings

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% Program uses paper files N=8 Program has electronic database N=3 20% 33% P e rc e n t i n c re a s e in c o s t s a v in g s

#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

Program reviews their own stats N=20

Program does NOT review stats N=15 37% 16% P e rc e n t i n c re a s e in c o s t s a v in g s

#2

Drug Courts Where The Results Of Program Evaluations

Have Led to Modifications In Drug Court Operations had

a 100% Increase in Cost Savings

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

Used evaluation to make modifications to program

N=18

Did NOT use evaluation to make modifications N=13 36% 18% P e rc e n t i n c re a s e in c o s t s a v in g s

(16)

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

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

All new team members have formal

training N=30

All team members NOT formally trained

N=17 40%

26%

Drug Courts That Received Training Prior to

Implementation Had 238% Higher Cost Savings

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

Team trained BEFORE implementation

N=12

Team members NOT trained before implementation N=5 27% 8% P er cen t i n cr eas e in co st sav in g s