Do Drug Courts Work Bringing Research to Practice

1
Do Drug Courts Work?Bringing Research to
Practice

• Cary Heck, Ph.D.
• University of Wyoming

2
In Cold Blood

• Truman Capotes tale of murder in small town
  America.
• West Kansas farming family in 1959.
• Two ex-cons met in prison
• Planned, seemingly random attack.
• What could have been done to prevent this
  tragedy?

3
The Addicted Offender

• Are drug courts effective tools for improving
  community safety, and helping specific offenders?
• What pieces of the model are most important?
• What can be done to reduce criminality?
• What can be done to improve sobriety?

4
Drug Court Research

• Drug court model is well defined.
• Applications of the drug court model are as
  varied as the communities and clients served by
  each program.
• However, there are commonalities.
• Logic model provides a tool for analyzing drug
  court programs.

5
Key Components

• Rapid assessment intake
• Judicial status hearings
• Graduated sanctions rewards
• Urine breath screens
• Substance abuse treatment
• Case management adjunctive services
• Additional surveillance (e.g., interlocks)
• Nolle prosse or conditions served

(NADCP, 1997)
6
Logic Model
stakeholders expectations
eligibility criteria
Jurisdictional Characteristics
Supervision variables
Client variables (or risk factors)
Short-term outcomes
Longer-term outcomes
Treatment
Sanctions Incentives -Ratio to
infractions achievements -Time delay
Alcohol drug screens - and
submitted - density per month
Status hearings - and attended
- density per month
Other surveillance (e.g., interlock devices)
7
Logic Model
stakeholders expectations
eligibility criteria
Jurisdictional Characteristics
Supervision variables
Client variables (or risk factors)
Short-term outcomes
Longer-term outcomes
Treatment variables
Adjunctive services - and sessions by
type - matched to needs
Counseling attendance - and sessions
- density of services
Length of stay
8
Logic Model
stakeholders expectations
eligibility criteria
Jurisdictional Characteristics
Supervision variables
Client variables (or risk factors)
Short-term outcomes
Longer-term outcomes
Coordination
Treatment variables
Completion status - graduated - time
to graduation
Problem days (self-report) - drugs /
alcohol - medical - education
- psychiatric - employment -
family - legal
Alcohol drug screens - and clean
- plotted by week - unexcused
missing dirty
Consumer satisfaction - cultural competency
9
Logic Model
stakeholders expectations
eligibility criteria
Jurisdictional Characteristics
Supervision variables
Client variables (or risk factors)
Short-term outcomes
Longer-term outcomes
Coordination
Treatment variables
Problem days (self-report) - drugs /
alcohol - medical - education
- psychiatric - employment -
family - legal
Re-arrest rates
Alcohol drug screens
10
Logic Model
stakeholders expectations
eligibility criteria
Jurisdictional Characteristics
Supervision variables
Client variables (or risk factors)
Short-term outcomes
Longer-term outcomes
Coordination
Treatment variables
11
Risk Factors (moderators)

• Age (lt 25 years)
• Early onset substance use (lt 14 years)
• Early onset crime (lt 16 years)
• Prior treatment failures
• Substance-use severity
• Criminal history
• Antisocial Personality Disorder

12

• What Have We Learned in the Past Ten Years?
• Broad Conclusions

13
Courts as Problem-Solver

• Effective trial courts are responsive to
  emergent public issues such as drug abuseA 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
  Assistances Trial Court Performance Standards,
  1997

14
Belenko (1998 2001)

• drug courts provide the most comprehensive and
  effective control of drug-using offenders
  criminality and drug usage while under the
  courts supervision.

15
Marlowe, DeMatteo, Festinger (2003)

• To put it bluntly, we know that drug courts
  outperform virtually all other strategies that
  have been attempted for drug-involved offenders.

16
National Research

• 2020 Graduates from 95 Drug Courts
• Representing 17,000 Graduates
• Recidivism Rates
• 1 Year Post Graduation 16.4
• 2 Years Post Graduation 27.5
• Roman,
  Townsend Bhati, 2003

17
National Research

• The body of literature on recidivism is
• now strong enough to conclude that completing a
  drug court program reduces the likelihood of
  further involvement in the
• criminal justice system.
• Vera Institute, 2003

18
Statewide Research

• Re-conviction rate among a sample of almost
  2,500 drug court participants in six sites across
  New York State was, on average, 29 lower (56 to
  40) over three years after the initial arrest
  than the comparison group.
• 
  Rempel, et. al. 2003

19
? Retention in Treatment

• Drug Courts exceed these abysmal projections
  This represents a six-fold increase in treatment
  retention over most previous efforts.
• 
  Marlowe, Dematteo, Festinger, 2003

20
What Makes Drug Courts Work?

• Early intervention
• Judicial involvement
• Behavioral model
• Intensive treatment
• Retention in treatment
• Improved client social capital

21
Early Intervention

• Early identification and rapid processing of
  addicted offenders improves likelihood of
  positive outcomes (Anspach and Ferguson, 2005).
• Drug courts promoted improved identification of
  addicted offenders and hastened their involvement
  in treatment (heck, 2003).

22
Judicial Involvement

• Judge is key component especially for offenders
  with prior treatment histories and antisocial
  personality disorders (Marlowe et al., 2004).

23
Behavioral Model

• Sanctions and incentives appropriately applied
  provide behavioral controls.
• Even absent treatment, sanctions can have a
  statistically significant impact on offenders
  behavior (Berman and Feinblatt, 2005).

24
Intensive Treatment

• Drug courts consistently require more intensive
  treatment than any other criminal justice
  intervention.
• Louisianas drug court clients averaged 7.5 hours
  of treatment a week (Heck, 2003).

25
Retention in Treatment

• Voluntary treatment results in incredibly
  diminished participation over time.
• Voluntary treatment results in 10 to 30
  retention over 1 year (Lewis and Ross, 1994).
• Court mandated treatment results in 60 to 70
  retention (Belenko, 1998)

26
Improved Pro-social Capital

• Addicted offenders tend to have social capital in
  negative environments.
• Drug Courts effectively change social capital for
  participants by creating positive relationships
  with offenders and retraining offenders to engage
  in relationships that support their sobriety
  (May, 2006)

27
Conclusions

• Drug courts are effective and doing good work.
• Research that employs a scientifically designed
  logic model and focuses on the key components is
  critical to the advancement of the field.
• Thanks for your time.