1. Drug Courts Prepared by Sheri Heffelfinger Montana Legislative Services Division For the Law and Justice Interim Committee February 2008

2. History First drug court, 1989, Miami Height of crack cocaine use, related crime Corrections spending skyrocketing 60% of federal prison pop – drug offenders Crime Bill – 1994 - Drug Court Grants 1995-1997: $56 million 2007: $10 million 2008: $15 million

3. Federal Grant Program Drug Court Discretionary Grant Program (BJA) Local, state, tribal direct to court or through other public/private entities FY08 Grant: Three types Implementation Enhancement Statewide

4. Grants For FY08 Implementation $350,000 – 3 years Enhancement $200,000 – 2 years Statewide $200,000 – 2 years

5. Conditions Only for nonviolent drug offenders Compliance w/ “10 Key Components” standards 25% Match Collect & report program evaluation data

6. Proliferation About 1,600 + drug courts nationwide Various shapes Adult, Juvenile, Family, Re-entry, etc. Various sizes City, County, District, State, Tribal

7. Montana’s Drug Courts 4 Adult Courts 2 District 1 County/JP 1 Municipal 4 Family Courts (District) 4 Juvenile Courts (District)

8. Others? 4 Juvenile Tribal Chippewa Cree, Fort Peck, Cheyenne, Crow Agency 1 Family Tribal – Fort Peck 1 Adult/Juvenile Combined Tribal - Fort Belknap

9. National Standards 10 Key Components - Benchmarks (1997) National Initiatives - models & guides Planning Training Technical Assistance Model Legislation

10. 10 Key Components Integrate legal sanctions with treatment goals Non-adversarial Eligibility screening after arrest Continuum of treatment Frequent drug testing Judicial “face to face” – status hearings

11. 10 Key Components - continued Participant treatment progress closely monitored by court Collect & report program evaluation data Multi-disciplinary teams and partnerships Prosecution, defense, treatment professionals, human services, corrections, community reps

12. Drug Courts: The Second Decade Reduces recidivism – 15 to 20% Saves money/avoids costs – Oregon study Saved investment costs = $1,400 Avoided law enforcement costs = $2,300 Avoided victimization costs = $1,300 TOTAL = savings/avoided costs = $5,000 per participant

13. But, words of caution Need better data & more rigorous analysis Time intensive for the judge Treatment services are key to success evidence-based, best practices, understood by court accessible, may be provided directly by court must address co-occurring mental and physical health Effectiveness of juvenile courts questionable

14. Montana Law Drug Offender Accountability and Treatment Act Ch. 282, L. 2005 Title 46, Chapter 1, part 11 Based on Model Legislation

15. Montana vs. Model “May” instead of “shall” establish a drug court Not mandatory to screen every offender for drugs Corrections officers don’t have to participate on treatment teams

16. Montana vs. Model - continued No statutorily assigned state-level duties statewide training, technical assistance, standards development No statutorily required data collection, program evaluation, or reporting requirements No dedicated funding stream

17. Montana Grant Program Appropriation for Drug Courts in HB 2 $1,345,000 in Supreme Court Operations Section 46-1-1112, MCA, should be clarified: Account for federal funding - confusing 5-yr research project – not funded Add account for state funding – institutionalize budget? Add structure for grant process - IF to continue? Add requirement - federal funds spent first

18. Options A.Request draft legislation B.Request further information C. Set aside for now – other priorities