DRUG COURTS IN ILLINOIS

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Kansas City Municipal Mental Health Court Hon. John B. Williams, Judge Kansas City Municipal Court.
Advertisements

Senate Criminal Justice Committee October 7, 2009 Walter A. McNeil, Secretary Florida Department of Corrections.
Criminal Justice Process: Sentencing & Corrections
Oklahoma Department of Corrections DUI Offender Profile
DUI AMENDMENTS PROPOSED BY ART LUSSE JUNE 30, 2010 LAW & JUSTICE INTERIM COMMITTEE.
Residential Community Supervision Programs
PROCESSING OF YOUTHFUL AND JUVENILE OFFENDERS IN NORTH CAROLINA Youth Accountability Planning Task Force December 10, 2009.
1 17-Year-Old Offenders in the Adult Criminal Justice System Legislative Audit Bureau April 2008.
Drug Offender Sentencing Alternative (DOSA): Treatment and Supervision
Introduction to Kenosha County Behavioral Health Courts Kenosha County Division of Aging & Disability Jim Truchan (LMFT,LPC,LCSW) Human Services Manager.
Hamilton County Veterans’ Treatment Court Structure, Process, and Purpose.
Vermilion County Action Team Laurie Krolikowski & Susan Werner.
Criminal Justice. Four components to the system 1.Legislative-some examples… Felon voter right: Restored when no longer under DOC supervision-State. Fairness.
A Case Study of the Intersection Between the Child Welfare and Criminal Justice Systems Charlene Wear Simmons, Ph.D. Parental Incarceration, Termination.
Elmore County Drug and DUI Court
Drug Court ♦The alternative to incarceration  History žHow and why the experiment evolved  Main Features of Drug Court žCooperation within the adversarial.
1 Ed Monahan Public Advocate Substance Abuse: Senate Bill 4 (2009) Treatment options expanded Ernie Lewis KY Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers June.
Probation Supervision and Information Gathering Presentence Reports.
Aimed at a reduction in alcohol and drug use and criminal activity.
Drug Courts: Some Answers to Our Burning Questions NADCP May 2008.
NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission RECIDIVISM OF 16 AND 17 YEAR OLD AND JUVENILE OFFENDERS: FINDINGS FROM TWO STUDIES Presented to Youth Accountability.
PREPARED BY NPC RESEARCH PORTLAND, OR MAY 2013 Florida Adult Felony Drug Courts Evaluation Results.
EXTENDING THE THERAPEUTIC JUSTICE MODEL TO PROBLEM GAMBLERS Mark G. Farrell, JD; Jessica Aungst Weitzel, MPH; Thomas H. Nochajski, PhD, Buffalo Center.
TREATMENT COURTS Inns of Court Presentation By John Markson & Elliott Levine October 17, 2012.
North Carolina TASC NC TASC Bridging Systems for Effective Offender Care Management.
Chapter 2 Pretrial Release and Diversion. Pretrial Services Pretrial Services is a department with two overlapping functions: Assisting the court with.
URBAN INSTITUTE Justice Policy Center The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to The Urban Institute, its trustees, or.
CRIMINAL JUSTICE INTRO TO CORRECTIONS. WHAT IS CORRECTIONS? Corrections is that portion of the criminal justice system charged with carrying out the sentences.
URBAN INSTITUTE Justice Policy Center The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to The Urban Institute, its trustees, or.
Judge Neil Edward Axel District Court of Maryland (retired) Maryland Highway Safety Judicial Conference December 2, 2015 Best Practices & Sentencing Alternatives.
Yavapai County Jail Planning Services Presentation to: Yavapai County Board of Supervisors January 6, 2016.
ADULT REDEPLOY ILLINOIS Mary Ann Dyar, Program Administrator National Association of Sentencing Commissions August 7, 2012.
Deviance and the Criminal Justice System 1.Illegitimate Opportunity Structures and perceptions of crime in our society 2.The Criminal Justice System 3.The.
Reclassifying Nonviolent, Small Quantity Possession Potential Impact on Alaska’s Budget and Society.
Improving Access to Mental Health Services: A Community Systems Approach Leslie Mahlmeister, MBA PhD Student Department of Political Science Wayne State.
Court Services A Continuum of Behavioral, Therapeutic and Supervision Programs.
Problem Solving Courts Bench Bar Conference Double Tree Hotel April 20, rd Judicial District Court of Common Pleas – Berks County.
Okaloosa County Department of Corrections. Population Reports.
The Criminal Justice System Chapter 12. Elements of the Criminal Justice System  Criminal Justice Law  Texas criminal justice system: The system of.
History and Concepts of Drug Courts
Copyright 2011 Curriculum Technology, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
BCJ 3150: Probation and Parole
An Examination of AB109 Recidivism In San Joaquin County In Year 4
Criminal Justice Poll Diamond State Consulting
Probation and Community Justice Program Overview
Introduction to the Florida Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ)
Itasca County Wellness Court
STANDARDS: SS8CG6 The student will explain how the Georgia court system treats juvenile offenders. a. Explain the difference between delinquent behavior.
AJS101 (40384) Monday, October 3, 2016 Time Keeper.
Judicial Best Practices in Drug & DUI Court
Summit County Probation Services
Sentencing Reform in CA
Dependency Court Flowchart
Justice Court 2017 Budget Presentation
7Y Thursday MN Juvenile Justice System
Criminal Justice Poll Diamond State Consulting
Eighth Judicial District Court Mental Health Court Program
Social Justice Aspects of Proposition 64: Adult Use of Marijuana Act
Overview of the Juvenile Justice System
Beyond the referral Presented by:
1 Panel 2, Position 5 Jack D. Ripper.
Garry Herceg Consultant Pretrial Justice Institute
Criminal Court Cases Chapter 16, Section 2.
Criminal Justice Process: Sentencing & Corrections
Juvenile Offenders Delinquent acts and unruly acts are legal terms for behavior in minors under the age of 16. Delinquent behavior is an act committed.
Chapter 11 – Criminal Justice
Criminal Justice Poll Diamond State Consulting
A Decade of Youthful Offender Supervision
The Judicial Branch’s Response to the Opioid Crisis
SAVING FUTURES Juvenile Civil Citations Florida League of Women Voters
Presentation transcript:

DRUG COURTS IN ILLINOIS Judge Jeffrey B. Ford June 17, 2019

Problem-Solving Courts A drug court is a type of problem-solving court, which also includes Mental Health and Veterans Courts. In January 2016, problem-solving court standards were enacted by the Illinois Supreme Court. Currently there are approximately 68 drug courts in Illinois.

June 2015 – May 2019 Graduations Champaign County held 9 Drug Court graduations from 6/15 – 5/19. 91 people graduated Youngest - 21 Oldest - 66 Female - 29 / Male - 62 Caucasian - 50 / African American - 39 / Hispanic - 1 / Asian - 1

Time In Drug Court Total time in Drug Court until graduation for the 91 graduates from these 9 graduations – 1811 months = 151 years for an average of 19.9 months for each person.

Drug Use One of the 91 started using alcohol and cannabis at 6 years of age, another started at least one of these substances at 7 years and another at 8. Average first use for alcohol or cannabis was 14 years. All started using in their teens and most moved on to cocaine, opiates, and other drugs.

Prior Record of Conviction These 91 graduates came into Drug Court with Juvenile adjudications – 30 Petty traffic tickets – 517 Misdemeanors – 317 Felonies – 351 THEIR SENTENCES INCLUDED Community-based, such as probation – 498 Straight time in jail – 91 Penitentiary - 139

NEW CRIMES WHILE IN DRUG COURT During the 151 total years in Drug Court these 91 people were found guilty of 12 petty traffic tickets 3 misdemeanor traffic offenses

Graduation Requirements Champaign County Requirements: One year of confirmed sobriety Continuous involvement in a 12-step sobriety-based self-help program No pending criminal charges Successful completion of all recommended treatment Drug Court Team recommendation

Graduation Requirements Cont. No outstanding arrest warrants. If participant is charged with a misdemeanor while in drug court, 6 months have to pass after case finished before eligible Involvement in a life skills program (education, employment, or volunteer work) Application to graduate, which includes a 2-page essay on how drug court has helped participant’s recovery and changed his/her life Presentation in front of the Drug Court Team

All are required to attend the staffings and court. Team Drug Court Teams, at a minimum, include Judge Prosecutor Defense attorney Substance abuse/mental health treatment providers Probation Coordinator All are required to attend the staffings and court.

Staffing Prior to court, the team staffs every participant that will be in court. Discussion includes Compliance with treatment and counseling Drug test results Employment Whether an incentive or sanction is appropriate Future action required

Different Types Three types of Drug Court: 1. Post-adjudicatory 2. Pre-adjudicatory 3. Combination Courts can vary in length of time and graduation requirements.

CHAMPAIGN COUNTY DRUG COURT Started in March 1999 High-risk/high-need participants – many have co-occurring mental illness Voluntary program Not dangerous to public Plead guilty to a felony and sentenced to drug court probation – post-adjudicatory Court every Wednesday

Champaign County Staffing every Wednesday morning Court every Wednesday afternoon Rewards (including praise, gift cards, applause, called up early, and days off from court) are provided for good work and completion of milestones Sanctions provided, not to punish, but to keep participant on the path to success: writing essays, public service work, jail Treatment interventions such as more groups, AA/NA meetings, increased drug testing Punishment comes in the form of termination from the program and resentencing.

309 people have graduated since our first graduation in June 2000.

The Multi-Site Adult Drug Court Evaluation: The Impact of Drug Courts Final Report: Volume 4 November 2011 URBAN INSTITUTE Justice Policy Center

Researchers identified all of the costs of drug court programing. Information is from Cost-Benefit Analyses starting at p. 228 of the report. Researchers identified all of the costs of drug court programing. They focused the benefits estimation on outcomes alone and did not count inputs that occur after participation ends. Thus, the analysis was from an 18- month period during participation in drug court, only. Not from after drug court graduation.

“The mean control group participant committed $16,887 worth of crime during the 18 months following study enrollment. Drug court participants, on average, committed only $7,111 worth of crime. We estimate that drug court resulted in $9,776 of victim crime costs prevented during the 18 months following program entry (p-0.001).”

“We estimate that drug court reduced police arrest costs from $115 per individual to $44 per individual, for a savings of $71 per participant (p=0.001), and reduced costs of jails and prisons from $5,441 to $2,768, for total savings in corrections in the 18 months following program entry of $2,673 per drug court participant (p<0.001). Aggregating across savings from prevented crime, arrests, and incarceration, drug court produces, on average, $11,408 of benefits.” p. 239

“In our sample, the average treatment usage among drug court participants was $8,979 during the 18 months following program entry, roughly double the $4,407 for the comparison individuals in the same time frame.” p. 238

“Using independent samples t-tests, we found that the average comparison individual cost society $14,575 during the year and a half following their initial arrest. We estimate that the average drug court participant cost society only $12,362.” p. 240

“The difference in the social costs - the net benefits [between those who receive drug court and those who do not] – is considerable, totaling between $5,680 and $6,208, but is not significant (p=0.76; p=0.40). Virtually all of the benefit of drug court appears to be to people not involved in drug court, e.g., private citizens who are not victimized. Drug court appears to prevent about $11,566 (p=0.03) in criminal victimizations compared to not receiving drug court.” p.241

“The other benefits are a substantial average reduction in the use of corrections ($2,795) that is marginally significant (p=0.09) and a modest average reduction in the use of policing resources ($120) that is statistically significant (p=0.04).” p. 241

CHAMPAIGN COUNTY DRUG COURT As of May 2018, 746 persons had been sentenced to drug court. 290 graduates as of May 2018 Savings of $11,400 per graduate for duration of participation in drug court Our community saved $11,400 x 290 = $3,397,200.

$2,599,200 saved in our community. Of the remaining 456 persons who had participated as of May 2018, not all remained in the program for 18 months. Some participants left after one day in drug court, a few others who did not graduate were there for approximately 2 years. Assuming an average of 9 months, $5,700 x 456 = $2,599,200 saved in our community.

Recidivism As of May 2018, 5 ½ years after graduation, there are 194 graduates who have not recidivated, no misdemeanor, felony, or petitions to revoke. Multi-site evaluation showed that drug court participants committed an average $7,111 worth of crime in an 18 month period. If we assume, for these non- recidivists, 4 ½ years (three 18-month periods) saving at least $20,000 and adding to that the $11,400/year saved over a non-participant: $11,400 x 3 = $34,200 + $20,000 = $54,200 per graduate (194) = $10,785,800 saved after graduation.

$3,397,200 + $2,599,200 + $10,785,800 = $16,782,200 is the minimum saved by the people of Champaign County in the past 20 years since Drug Court started in 1999. Graduation rate in early 2000s was @ 30%. After employing coordinator and law enforcement, rate rose to 34% As of May 2018 graduation is at 41.79%.

So who saves? Fewer police calls Less incarceration Fewer court cases Less property damage, fewer thefts, forgeries, etc., resulting in lower insurance costs More families staying together More employment and taxes paid More children staying with families, thereby hopefully keeping children out of the system