4380 SW Macadam Ave., Ste. 530 Portland, OR Informing policy, improving programs Implementation of the Ten Key Components: Variations in Practice Across 18 Drug Courts Shannon Carey, Ph.D. Mike Finigan, Ph.D. NEADCP October 21, 2008

Research Team Dr. Shannon Carey Dr. Michael Finigan Dr. Kimberly Pukstas Sarah Martin Rich Mackin Funding provided by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ).

Project Inception Between 1996 – 2008, NPC Research has conducted over 75 drug court evaluations. Evaluations include process, outcome and cost measures. Courts represent geographic diversity. NIJ and NPC Research partner together to look for larger trends.

Research Questions How do drug courts implement the ten key components? Which practices are consistently implemented across sites? Which practices vary? Can we link variations in practice to outcomes and costs????

Drug Court Ten Key Components National Association of Drug Court Professionals, 1997 List of ten operational practices that help define a drug court Widely accepted by drug court administrators Provide guidelines – not a manual

Methods Select courts for review (n = 18) Qualitative data coding Organize measures by component Standardize reporting Select courts for review (n = 18) Qualitative data coding Organize measures by component Standardize reporting Identify gaps and collect additional data when appropriate Analyze data Identify significant variation (75% rule) Identify gaps and collect additional data when appropriate Analyze data Identify significant variation (75% rule)

Component #1: Drug Courts Integrate Alcohol and Other Drug Treatment Services With Justice System Case Processing

Component #1: Similarities Group Counseling (100%) Individual counseling (78%) Support group attendance (95%) Tx rep on team (89%) Tx members provides written progress reports to court (79%) Tx member participates in steering/oversight committee (78%)

Component #1: Differences 61.5% of drug courts offered more than one tx agency to drug court participants 66.7% of drug courts required the treatment rep is required to attend drug court sessions

Component #2: Using a non-adversarial approach, prosecution & defense counsel promote public safety while protecting participants’ due process rights.

Component #2: Similarities A reduction/elimination of potential jail time is an incentive for participation (100%). Prosecution & defense present a united front in court sessions (86%). Defense attorney attends all sessions (82%).

Component #2: Differences Allows non-drug related charges (56%) Allows both felony and misdemeanors (53%) Admits participates post-plea/conviction (68%) Unsuccessful clients receive original sentence (29%) Differences Allows non-drug related charges (56%) Allows both felony and misdemeanors (53%) Admits participates post-plea/conviction (68%) Unsuccessful clients receive original sentence (29%) Prosecution/defense often disagree outside courtroom (27%) Prosecution attends all team mtgs (64%) Prosecution attends all court sessions (61%) Defense retains traditional role (51%) Prosecution/defense often disagree outside courtroom (27%) Prosecution attends all team mtgs (64%) Prosecution attends all court sessions (61%) Defense retains traditional role (51%)

Component #3: Eligible Participants are Identified Early and Promptly Placed in the Drug Court Program

Component #3: Similarities A central intake is used to pace clients in program (100%) Eligibility requirements have been agreed upon and are written down (94%)

Component #3: Differences Use substance use screening tool (71%) Use mental health screen (35%) No more than 30 days pass from arrest to drug court entry (61%) Caseload fewer than 100 (59%) Waitlist (41%)

Component #4: Drug courts provide access to a continuum of alcohol, drug, and other related treatment and rehabilitation services

Component #4: Similarities Offer treatment in phases (100%) Completion in 3-4 phases (89%) Offer education/employment services (78%) Offer additional wraparound services (83%)

Component #4: Differences Completion takes 1 yr or longer (72%) Aftercare is offered (59%) Guidelines on the frequency of group counseling (66%) Guidelines on the frequency of individual counseling (30%)

Component #5: Abstinence is monitored by frequent alcohol and other drug testing

Component #5: Similarities Random schedule (100%) Urinalysis (100%) Breath tests (83%) Bracelet monitoring (24%) Hair tests (19%) Blood tests (6%)

Component #5: Differences In phase 1, tests are collected at least 2 per week (71%) Tx agency collects tests (39%) Call-in system for clients (61%) Results avail within 48 hrs (53%) 90 days clean before graduation (47%)

Component #6: A coordinated strategy governs drug court responses to participant compliance

Component #6: Similarities Incarceration used as sanction (100%) Graduated sanctions (94%) Small gifts/rewards (83%) Policies are written (83%) Policies shared with client (85%)

Component #6: Differences Sanctions occur in advance of scheduled hearing (72%) Support groups used as sanction (50%) Tx sessions decreased as reward (61%) Testing decreased as reward (28%) Judge is sole provider of rewards (50%) and sanctions (44%)

Component #7: Ongoing judicial interaction with each drug court participant is essential

Component #7: Similarities Judge attends all sessions (100%) Judge attends all team mtgs (100%) Judge attends all policy mtgs (100%) Judge receives written progress reports on clients (77%)

Component #7: Differences Judge assigned to court indefinitely (50%) In first phase, clients appear before judge 1 per week (39%) In final phase, clients appear before judge at least 1 per month (50%)

Component #8: Monitoring and evaluation measure the achievement of program goals and gauge effectiveness

Component #8: Similarities DC staff routinely collect and report program stats (100%) DC has been evaluated by an independent evaluator (100%) Maintain electronic database (94%) Database used for case mgt (81%)

Component #8: Differences Critical data for evaluation maintained in paper files (68%) Evaluation results have been used to modify drug court procedures (54%) Participated in more than 1 evaluation (33%)

Component #9: Continuing interdisciplinary education promotes effective drug court planning, implementation, and operations

Component #9 Similarities Members of drug court team receive routine training (100%) Trainings are offered to team members at least once per year (89%)

Component #9 Differences All new hires complete a formal training or orientation (69%) All members on the received drug court training (50%) Prior to the court ’ s implementation, team members received training (64%)

Component #10: Forging partnerships among drug courts, public agencies, and community-based organizations generates local support and enhances drug court program effectiveness.

Component #10 Similarities Team includes: Judge (100%) Coordinator (94%) Public Defender (89%) District Attorney (83%) Treatment Rep (89%) Community Rep (17%)

Component #10 Differences Team includes Probation (72%) Team includes Law Enforcement (41%) Steering Committee includes Community Representatives (58%)

Conclusion Drug courts still have a lot of discretion in how they implement the ten key components Results suggest reasons why some courts cost more to operate Results suggest reasons why some courts have better outcomes

Next Steps Link process findings to cost and outcome data Continue to add new courts to sample Look for interactions related process, outcome, cost

Questions? NPC Research: National Institute of Justice: Contact Dr. Kimberly Pukstas: Phone: