Cut DUI Recidivism for Good: A Multi-Track DUI...

Cut DUI Recidivism for Good: A

Multi-Track DUI Court Approach to

Repeat Offenders

Going to Scale for Public Safety

NADCP 2018 CONFERENCE

MAY 31, 2018, HOUSTON TX

JUDGE RICHARD A. VLAVIANOS, SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY

Objectives:

1. Identify the highest risk DWI/DUI offenders and design a strategy to hold them accountable

2. Use evidence-based screening and assessment to separate high-risk/high-need offenders from other high-risk DWI/DUI offenders

3. Identify how the highest risk DWI/DUI break out within Dr. Doug Marlowe’s matrix

4. Use monitoring to effectively handle offenders with different risks and needs, including high-risk/low-needs offenders who constitute the largest percentage of many repeat DUI caseloads

Expanding Our Vision

. . .

. . .

. . .

Task - Draw four straight lines connecting all nine boxes

“It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you in trouble.

It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.”

WHY DUI?

Homicides should be the main public safety focus

DUIs are only misdemeanors –need to focus on

more serious crime

California Homicides 2013

1,746FBI Uniform Crime Report

Murder or Non-Negligent Manslaughter

California Alcohol & Drug Involved

Crash Fatalities 2013

1,699DMV DUI MIS Report

2013 - California Homicides and Impaired

Driving Deaths Compared

Total = 3,445

Homicide = 1,746

Alcohol/Drug Impaired Driving =1,699

Homicide

51%

Impaired Driving

49%

Imagine - 36% Reduction in DUI Deaths

Total = 2,833

Homicide = 1,746

Alcohol/Drug Driving = 1,087

-612 lives

Homicide

67%

Impaired Driving

33%

Deaths

SWITRS

REPEAT OFFENDERS

TARGETING THE HIGH RISK GROUP

Repeat Offenders Constitute:

1.43% of California Drivers

26% of California DUI Offenders

59% of California drivers in alcohol/drug fatal or injury crashes

DMV MIS Report 2015

DUI OFFENDERS ARE

DIFFERENT!

KNOWING THE CLIENT

What do we know about DUI offenders?

High risk for a new DUI does not mean high

risk for other types of criminal recidivism

More likely to be high functioning in other

areas (Many alcoholics still get up every

morning and go to work and take care of

their children)

DUI offenders don’t often show up as high

risk on risk assessments standardized on the

typical criminal justice population

Are DUI offenders really different?

❑ More likely to be:

❑ Male

❑ White

❑ Older

❑ Highly educated

❑ Employed

❑ Of a higher income level

❑ Scored as low risk on assessment

❑ Need DUI specific tool – DUI RANT, IDA, CARS

Are DUI offenders really that different

from drug offenders?

❑ Engage in behavior that is dangerous and frequently causes serious injury or

fatalities

❑ Denial - drinking alcohol is not illegal, highly prevalent, and even encouraged

in many activities

TRADITIONAL DUI

COURTS WORK!

GOOD NEWS

TRADITIONAL DUI COURT

Treatment

Designed for addicted/dependent offenders

Intensive treatment

Intensive court supervision

75 – 100 participants, no >125

Great success rates

Evidence based model for addicted offenders

Traditional DUI Court Data

Georgia study – 3 courts (NHTSA)

20% reduction in recidivism

Up to 65% for graduates

Wisconsin study – 1 court (Temple)

Michigan study – 3 courts (NPC)

Minnesota study – 9 courts (NPC)

Traditional dui

courts are Not For

Everyone!

SOME BAD NEWS

Who They Work For

Only Individuals who are high risk and high need!

Increases recidivism/no effect for the rest

Minnesota Study in 9 DWI Courts

Completed September 2014

DWICourt #1n = 51

DWICourt #2n = 48

DWICourt #3n = 46

DWICourt #4n = 273

DWICourt #5n = 33

DWICourt #6n = 43

DWICourt #7n = 140

DWICourt #8n = 30

DWICourt #9n = 74

0.31 0.29

0.14

0.36 0.30

0.210.19

0.81

0.25

0.57 0.59

0.20

0.54 0.53

0.34 0.30

0.75

0.28

0.46

0.87

0.65

0.52

0.700.65

0.47 0.44

0.62

Nu

mb

er

of

Re

-Arr

ests

Graduates All Participants Comparison

Participants (regardless of graduation status), at the majority of the 9 DWI courts had lower re-arrest rates but not all of them

% Appropriate for DUI CourtRisk/Needs Data on Repeat Offenders - San

Joaquin Co. using DUI RANT

819 over 27 months in S.J. County

31% High Risk/High Need

69% not – Traditional DUI Court is NOT APPROPRIATE

48% - High Risk/Low Needs

17% - Low Risk/Low Needs

4% - Low Risk/High Needs

LIMITATIONS OF TRADITIONAL DUI COURTS

Numbers - should be no >125

S.J. County - >500 repeat offenders per year

Need to work with many more high risk offenders

than traditional DUI Court handles

Traditional DUI Court can exclude:

Many high risk substance abusers who need

lesser interventions; and

Those who do not volunteer

43

32

38

43

37

15

9

29

9

34

10

6

30

20

31

36

19

11

19

911

28

13

36

22

38

18

9

17

14

24

18

5

40

18

21

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

California OTS Safety Ranking Alcohol Involved Collisions By County

1=Worst; 58=Best

1 2 3 4 5 6

Expanding Our Vision

. . .

. . .

. . .

Moving the traffic safety needle

through

a more comprehensive and systemic

approach

MORE GOOD NEWS

THE MULTI-TRACK DUI COURT

TRADITIONAL DUI COURT PRINCIPLES

THAT CAN BE USED

Monitoring & accountability to court

Same judge

Compliance monitored

Consequences - certain & swift

Positive reinforcement

ACCOUNTABILITY WORKS!!!

MULTI-TRACK MODEL DESIGN

All Repeat Offenders!!!

Track One – Everyone except High Risk/High Needs

Mostly Substance Abusers

Court Monitoring, no treatment

Track Two – High Risk, High Needs

Addicts

DUI Court – Monitoring and Treatment

DUI RANT Screening determines track

COURT MONITORING TRACK

Report to Case Manager - verifes compliance

Added probation conditions

Alcohol/drug monitoring 1 year; Abstain clause

Court reviews scheduled for - 1 mo.; 6 mo.; 1 yr.

Court appearance added with non-

compliance

Swift response to non-compliance

Recognition for compliance 81% of clients - 29% of costs

MONITORING TECHNOLOGIES

Transdermal Monitoring (ankle bracelet)

Ignition Interlock Device

Remote Testing (cell phone)

Daily Testing (24/7 program)

Drug Testing

Transdermal Monitoring (ankle

bracelet)Positives

24/7 monitoring for alcohol

Works almost anywhere/anytime

Psychological effect – constant reminder

Best technology for monitoring abstinence

Negatives

Does not prevent driving impaired

Tampers

Client must download or base station

Highest cost ($8-10/day)

Ignition Interlock Device

Positives

Prevents driving that vehicle impaired

Can be used as a breath test

Cost efficient - $95-110/month

Negatives

Does not prevent driving other vehicles impaired or monitor alcohol consumption

Need 4 tests per day as breath test

Limited to the location of the vehicle

Need device with a camera (higher cost)

Remote Testing (cell phone)

Positives

Ease of use

Can be used anywhere

Identity not an issue

Negatives

Does not stop driving impaired

Want at least 4 tests per day

Missed tests

Cost = $6-8/day

Daily Breath Testing (24/7)

Positives

Most affordable

Can be used with police to make sanctions swift and

certain

Can use with other technologies

Negatives

Does not prevent impaired driving

Easiest to drink around

Can be used as a step down

Drug Testing

Urine Testing

Must have integrity – cannot be beat

2 – 3 times per week

Random testing

Drug Patch

Gives 24/7 testing

Must be replaced bi-weekly

Making Monitoring Work

Non-negotiable – IT WORKS!

Costs

Mostly offender paid – they can

Some grant funding for those who can’t

Checked at least every two weeks for certainty and

celerity

Any violations, missed tests, or tampers advanced to

the next court calendar

OUTCOMES

SAFETY

SWITRS

OTHER OUTCOMES

Overall impact

NUMBERS

Active clients - 489

Since inception (10 years) - 4,301

Completions - 3,666

Successful – 82%, 2991

Recidivism – 11%, 471

32% Reduction overall

50% Reduction in collisions

SWITRS

17

25

32 32

43

55

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

California OTS Safety Ranking Alcohol Involved Collisions By County

1=Worst; 58=BestSan Joaquin County –4th best

Questions?