Upload
carmel-lang
View
213
Download
1
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
The The PromisePromise
ofof
Drug Drug CourtsCourts
New York City New York City 80%80%
Detroit 78%Detroit 78%Philadelphia Philadelphia
76%76%Indianapolis Indianapolis
63%63%Oklahoma City Oklahoma City
72%72%
2/3 of Adult and 1/2 of 2/3 of Adult and 1/2 of Juvenile ArresteesJuvenile Arrestees Test Test
Positive for DrugsPositive for Drugs
Portland, Spokane, San Diego
and Phoenix report 25% to
44%
Arrestees Test Arrestees Test Positive for Positive for
MethamphetamineMethamphetamine
From 1979 to present date, the number From 1979 to present date, the number of drug and alcohol users in the of drug and alcohol users in the
United States declined by 45%, but United States declined by 45%, but the percentages of burglaries, the percentages of burglaries,
robberies, murder, and other crime robberies, murder, and other crime attributable to drugs has spiraled attributable to drugs has spiraled
incessantly upward, even as crime in incessantly upward, even as crime in general has declined.general has declined.
We are a nation of fewer addicts, but a We are a nation of fewer addicts, but a nation of more harmful and nation of more harmful and
destructive addicts.destructive addicts.
What is our Philosophical What is our Philosophical Base?Base?
Punishment Punishment
oror
RehabilitatiRehabilitationon
What if we JUST put them in What if we JUST put them in PRISON?PRISON?
29.9% of prisoners released in 1998 in 15 29.9% of prisoners released in 1998 in 15 statesstates
were rearrested within six months and 68% were rearrested within six months and 68% are are
rearrested within three years. rearrested within three years. (Bureau of Justice (Bureau of Justice
Statistics, 2002)Statistics, 2002)
95% relapse to substance abuse in 95% relapse to substance abuse in three years. three years. (Treatment Research Institute, 2002)(Treatment Research Institute, 2002)
The Number of Inmates The Number of Inmates ReleasedReleased
Federal and States PrisonsFederal and States Prisons
19951995 20012001
473,300
635,000
Judge Dennis ChalleenJudge Dennis Challeen
We want them to have self-worthWe want them to have self-worth
So we destroy their self-worthSo we destroy their self-worth
We want them to be responsibleWe want them to be responsible
So we take away all responsibilitySo we take away all responsibility
We want them to be positive and We want them to be positive and constructiveconstructive
So we degrade them and make them So we degrade them and make them uselessuseless
We want them to be trustworthyWe want them to be trustworthy
So we put them where there is no trustSo we put them where there is no trust
Judge Dennis ChalleenJudge Dennis Challeen
We want them to be non-violentWe want them to be non-violent
So we put them where violence is all around themSo we put them where violence is all around them
We want them to be kind and loving peopleWe want them to be kind and loving people
So we subject them to hatred and crueltySo we subject them to hatred and cruelty
We want them to quit being the tough guyWe want them to quit being the tough guy
So we put them where the tough guy is respectedSo we put them where the tough guy is respected
We want them quit hanging around losersWe want them quit hanging around losers
So we put all the losers in the state under one So we put all the losers in the state under one roofroof
Judge Dennis ChalleenJudge Dennis Challeen
We want them to quit We want them to quit exploiting usexploiting us
So we put them where they exploit So we put them where they exploit
each othereach other
We want them to take control We want them to take control of their lives, own problems of their lives, own problems
and quit being a parasite on…and quit being a parasite on…
So we make them totally So we make them totally dependant on usdependant on us
The AnswerThe Answer
““We need to punish the offenders We need to punish the offenders we are afraid of and we are afraid of and
treat the ones we are mad at”treat the ones we are mad at”
Hon. Dennis ChalleenHon. Dennis Challeen
What if we JUST refer them to What if we JUST refer them to TREATMENT?TREATMENT?
AttritionAttrition 50% to 67% don’t show for intake50% to 67% don’t show for intake 40% to 80% drop out in 3 months40% to 80% drop out in 3 months 90% drop out in 12 months90% drop out in 12 months
OutcomesOutcomes 40% to 60% of clients abstinent at 1 year40% to 60% of clients abstinent at 1 year
Treatment Research Treatment Research Institute, 2003Institute, 2003
““We cannot solve the We cannot solve the problems we have problems we have
created with the same created with the same thinking that created thinking that created
them”them”
Albert EinsteinAlbert Einstein
Courts as Problem-Courts as Problem-SolverSolver
“Effective trial courts are responsive to emergent public issues such as drug
abuse…A trial court that moves deliberately in response to emergent issues is a stabilizing force in society and acts consistently with its role of
maintaining the rule of law”
Bureau of Justice Assistance’s Trial Court Performance Standards, 1997
Unlike These Judges Unlike These Judges
Drug Court Judges Find the Drug Court Judges Find the Good in Those Who Can’t See Good in Those Who Can’t See
it in Themselvesit in Themselves
Painting the Current Painting the Current Picture:Picture:A National Report Card on Drug A National Report Card on Drug
Courts and Other Problem-Solving Courts and Other Problem-Solving Courts in the United States Volume Courts in the United States Volume
I, Issues 1 and 2I, Issues 1 and 2
C. West HuddlestonC. West HuddlestonHon. Karen Freeman-WilsonHon. Karen Freeman-Wilson
Doug Marlowe, Ph.D., J.D.Doug Marlowe, Ph.D., J.D.Aaron RoussellAaron Roussell
Office of National Drug Control Office of National Drug Control Policy, Executive Office of the Policy, Executive Office of the
President and the Bureau of Justice President and the Bureau of Justice Assistance, U.S. Department of Assistance, U.S. Department of
JusticeJustice
Drug Courts: Drug Courts:
A National A National PhenomenonPhenomenon
Number of Drug Number of Drug CourtsCourts
19891989 11
19901990 11
19911991 55
19921992 1010
19931993 1919
19941994 4040
19951995 7575
19961996 139139
19971997 230230
19981998 347347
19991999 472472
20002000 665665
20012001 847847
20022002 1,0481,048
20032003 1,1831,183
1,621 Drug Courts in 1,621 Drug Courts in 20042004
1,621 Drug Courts in Operation 811 Adult Drug Courts
357 Juvenile Drug Courts 153 Family Dependency Treatment
Courts 176 DWI Courts (90/86)
54 Tribal Healing to Wellness Courts68 Reentry Drug Courts
1 Campus Drug Court1 Federal Drug Court
2004 Drug Court 2004 Drug Court ActivityActivity
37% Increase from 200316,186 graduates in 2004
69,000 currently being served75% of Adult Drug Courts are
Post Plea
Benefits of Drug CourtBenefits of Drug Court“drug courts provide the most
comprehensive and effective control of drug-using offenders’ criminality and drug usage while under the court’s
supervision.”
-Effective Treatment--Drug Testing-
-Community Supervision and Structure-
Belenko (1998; 2001)Belenko (1998; 2001)
Effective Community Effective Community Supervision and Home Supervision and Home
VisitsVisits
Bar SweepsBar Sweeps
Benefits of Drug Benefits of Drug CourtsCourts
Drug Courts Increase Drug Courts Increase Retention in Retention in TreatmentTreatment
Treatment Research Treatment Research FindingsFindings
Drug Abuse Reporting Project (DARP)Drug Abuse Reporting Project (DARP) Treatment Outcome Prospective Study Treatment Outcome Prospective Study
(TOPS)(TOPS) Drug Abuse Treatment Outcome Study Drug Abuse Treatment Outcome Study
(DATOS)(DATOS) National Treatment Improvement Evaluation National Treatment Improvement Evaluation
StudyStudy
Treatment Research Treatment Research FindingsFindings
The length of time a patient spent in The length of time a patient spent in treatment was a reliable predictor of treatment was a reliable predictor of his or her post treatment performancehis or her post treatment performance. . Beyond a ninety-day threshold, treatment outcomes improved in a Beyond a ninety-day threshold, treatment outcomes improved in a direct relationship to the length of time spent in treatment, with one direct relationship to the length of time spent in treatment, with one year generally found to be the minimum effective duration of year generally found to be the minimum effective duration of treatment.treatment.
Coerced patients tended to stay longerCoerced patients tended to stay longer.. This was in light of the finding that most of the legally coerced This was in light of the finding that most of the legally coerced addicts had more crime and gang involvement, more drug use, and addicts had more crime and gang involvement, more drug use, and worse employment records than their non-coerced counterparts.worse employment records than their non-coerced counterparts.
Retention in Retention in TreatmentTreatment
““Drug Courts exceed these Drug Courts exceed these abysmal projections”… “This abysmal projections”… “This
represents a six-fold increase in represents a six-fold increase in treatment retention over most treatment retention over most
previous efforts.”previous efforts.”
Marlowe, Dematteo, & Marlowe, Dematteo, & Festinger, 2003Festinger, 2003
Benefits of Drug Court:Benefits of Drug Court:
Drug Courts Reduce Drug Courts Reduce
Criminal InvolvementCriminal Involvement
Graduation is KEYGraduation is KEY
““The body of literature on recidivism is The body of literature on recidivism is now strong enough to conclude that now strong enough to conclude that
completing a drug court program completing a drug court program reduces the likelihood of further reduces the likelihood of further
involvement in the involvement in the criminal justice system.”criminal justice system.”
Vera: Vera: Fluellen & Trone, Fluellen & Trone, 20002000
National ResearchNational Research
2020 Graduates from 95 Drug CourtsRepresenting 17,000 Graduates17,000 Graduates
1 Year Post Graduation: 16.4%2 Years Post Graduation: 27.5%
Roman, Townsend & Roman, Townsend & Bhati, 2003Bhati, 2003
Statewide ResearchStatewide Research
““Re-conviction rate among a sample Re-conviction rate among a sample of almost 2,500 drug court of almost 2,500 drug court
participants in six sites across New participants in six sites across New York State was, on average, 29% York State was, on average, 29%
lower (56% to 40%) over three years lower (56% to 40%) over three years after the initial arrest than the after the initial arrest than the
comparison group.comparison group.
Repel, et. al. 2003Repel, et. al. 2003
GAO Evaluation ReviewGAO Evaluation ReviewDrug court participants had:Drug court participants had:
Lower rearrest and reconviction rates than comparison group Lower rearrest and reconviction rates than comparison group members.members.
Fewer recidivism events/incidents than comparison group members.Fewer recidivism events/incidents than comparison group members.
Longer time intervals until rearrest or reconviction than Longer time intervals until rearrest or reconviction than comparison group members.comparison group members.
Recidivism reductions in various categories of offenses Recidivism reductions in various categories of offenses
Decreased involvement in substance abuseDecreased involvement in substance abuse
Positive cost/benefit/ratioPositive cost/benefit/ratio
GAO, 2005GAO, 2005
Benefits of Drug Court:Benefits of Drug Court:
Drug Courts Save Drug Courts Save MoneyMoney
Drug Courts Save Drug Courts Save MoneyMoney
““A state taxpayer’s return on A state taxpayer’s return on the upfront investment in the upfront investment in
drug courts drug courts is substantial.”is substantial.”
””a county’s investment in drug a county’s investment in drug court pays off.”court pays off.”
Statewide ResearchStatewide Research
“New York Statewide Drug Court System saved $254 Million in three
years”
Rempel et al, 2003
Statewide ResearchStatewide Research
““The average drug court participant The average drug court participant produces $6,779 in benefits with produces $6,779 in benefits with
$3,759 in avoided criminal justice $3,759 in avoided criminal justice costs paid by taxpayers and $3,020 costs paid by taxpayers and $3,020
in avoided costs to victims.”in avoided costs to victims.”
Washington State Institute for Washington State Institute for Public Policy, 2003Public Policy, 2003
Statewide ResearchStatewide Research
““California drug courts demonstrate a California drug courts demonstrate a savings of 18 million per year. A 14 savings of 18 million per year. A 14
million investment returned 43.3 million investment returned 43.3 million in savings over two years.”million in savings over two years.”
Judicial Council of Judicial Council of California 2002; California 2002;
NPC Research & Judicial Council of NPC Research & Judicial Council of California 2002California 2002
Local ResearchLocal Research
““In St. Louis, Missouri, each drug In St. Louis, Missouri, each drug court graduate cost the city $2,615 court graduate cost the city $2,615 less than those on probation alone.”less than those on probation alone.”
Institute for Applied Institute for Applied Research, 2004Research, 2004
Local ResearchLocal Research
““For every dollar spent on drug court For every dollar spent on drug court in Multnomah County, Oregon, ten in Multnomah County, Oregon, ten
dollars were saved.”dollars were saved.” Finigan, 1998Finigan, 1998
““A total savings to the local taxpayer A total savings to the local taxpayer over a thirty-month period was over a thirty-month period was
$5,071.57 or a savings of $5,071.57 or a savings of $1,521,471 per year.”$1,521,471 per year.”
Carey & Finigan, 2003Carey & Finigan, 2003
Local ResearchLocal Research
““For every dollar spent on drug For every dollar spent on drug court in Dallas, Texas, $9.43 in court in Dallas, Texas, $9.43 in tax dollars was realized over a tax dollars was realized over a
forty-month period.”forty-month period.”
Fomby & Fomby & Rangaprasad, 2002Rangaprasad, 2002
Cost Benefits of Drug Cost Benefits of Drug CourtCourt
Avoided Criminal Justice Avoided Criminal Justice CostsCosts
Avoided Victim CostsAvoided Victim Costs
EmployabilityEmployability
Drug Free-BabiesDrug Free-Babies
460 drug free babies in 460 drug free babies in 2004!2004!
“To put it bluntly, we know that drug courts outperform virtually all other strategies that have been
attempted for drug-involved offenders.”
Marlowe, DeMatteo, Festinger (2003)Marlowe, DeMatteo, Festinger (2003)
National ResolutionsNational Resolutions
““Continued development of problem-Continued development of problem-solving courts” solving courts”
American Bar American Bar Association, 2001Association, 2001
““To take steps nationally and locally To take steps nationally and locally to expand the methods and to expand the methods and
principles of well-functioning drug principles of well-functioning drug courts into ongoing court courts into ongoing court
operations”operations”
Conference of Chief Justices and the Conference of Court Conference of Chief Justices and the Conference of Court Administrators, 2000/2004Administrators, 2000/2004
National ResolutionsNational Resolutions
The National District Attorneys AssociationThe National Sheriffs Association
International Association of Chiefs of Police
The National Association of County Organizations
Governors Highway Safety AssociationMothers Against Drunk Driving
Drug Court Drug Court PermutationsPermutations
““Problem Solving in Problem Solving in the Courts: Taking the Courts: Taking the Model to Other the Model to Other
Populations”Populations”
936936 Problem-Solving Courts Problem-Solving Courts
Teen Courts – 393Mental Health Courts - 111
Domestic Violence Courts – 141Community Courts - 23
Reentry Courts – 16Gun Courts- 2
Prostitution Courts - 4Parole Violation Courts - 5
Homeless Courts - 6Truancy Courts - 131
Child Support Courts – 45Integrated Courts 17
Other -42
Number of Operational Number of Operational Problem-Solving Problem-Solving
Court Programs in the Court Programs in the United StatesUnited States
1,667 - 20031,667 - 20032,557 - 20042,557 - 2004
Aiming to Solve the Aiming to Solve the Problems of the Problems of the
People Who Come People Who Come Before the Courts isBefore the Courts is
Work Worth Doing!Work Worth Doing!