TREATMENT COURTS Inns of Court Presentation By John Markson & Elliott Levine October 17, 2012.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Walter A. McNeil, Secretary Florida Department of Corrections Public Safety and Domestic Security Policy Committee Policy Committee October 6, 2009.
Advertisements

Veterans Treatment Court
Bureau of Justice Assistance JUSTICE AND MENTAL HEALTH COLLABORATIONS Bureau of Justice Assistance JUSTICE AND MENTAL HEALTH COLLABORATIONS Presentation.
Mentor Courts, Training Curriculum, & Legislation Brian Clubb Project Director National Drug Court Institute.
Veterans Treatment Courts GEORGIA ACCOUNTABILITY COURTS CONFERENCE JACK OCONNOR BUFFALO VETERANS COURT B.
Criminal Justice and Behavioral Health Partnerships Review of projects recognizing the needs of and providing treatment supports to DUI offenders Nisha.
Assess, Inform, and Measure (AIM) Court: An Evaluation of an Alternative to Incarceration By: Megan A. Buysse in collaboration with Dr. Donald D. Mowry,
Evidence-Based Intervention Services Community Corrections Partnership October 27, 2011.
Residential Community Supervision Programs
Drug Courts: Background Carl Leukefeld Lexington, Kentucky January 24, 2012 University of Kentucky This presentation is supported by National Institute.
1 17-Year-Old Offenders in the Adult Criminal Justice System Legislative Audit Bureau April 2008.
HONORABLE PEGGY DAVIS ROLES AND BOUNDARIES OF SPECIALTY COURT SUPERVISION.
Core Competencies. OBJECTIVES Recognize key core competencies Identify the relationship between core competencies and best practices.
Tribal Juvenile Wellness Courts
NATIONAL AMERICAN INDIAN COURT JUDGES ASSOCIATION’S 43RD ANNUAL MEETING > THE JUDGES’ ROLE IN TRIBAL HEALING TO WELLNESS COURTS Presenters: Joseph Thomas.
Ramsey County Mental Health Court: Working with the Mentally Ill Defendant Judge John H. Guthmann, Second Judicial District, State of Minnesota Judge William.
A MERICAN P SYCHOLOGICAL A SSOCIATION 11. Forensic Issues II.
The Implementation and Impact of Drug Courts Drug Courts and the New Technology of Offender Change Nov. 10, 2010 Lecture James M. Byrne, Professor.
Police chiefs | formerly incarcerated people | pretrial service administrators | probation officials | state legislators | substance abuse treatment providers.
Introduction to Kenosha County Behavioral Health Courts Kenosha County Division of Aging & Disability Jim Truchan (LMFT,LPC,LCSW) Human Services Manager.
Mental Health America July 30, 2013 Affordable Care Act & Justice Populations Planning for Systems Change.
Hamilton County Veterans’ Treatment Court Structure, Process, and Purpose.
REALIGNING RESOURCES TO FUND YOUR DTC CANADIAN ASSOCIATION OF DRUG TREATMENT COURT PROFESSIONALS – NATIONAL CONFERENCE BANFF, ALBERTA OCTOBER 24 – 27,
King County Regional Mental Health Court Navigating the mental health and chemical dependency communities.
Austin American Statesman August 21, 2007 Texas leads nation in number of drunken driving deaths WASHINGTON BUREAU Tuesday, August 21, 2007 WASHINGTON.
The Implementation and Impact of Drug Courts Drug Courts and the New Technology of Offender Change James M. Byrne, Professor March 26,2015.
Elmore County Drug and DUI Court
The 10 Key Components of Veteran’s Treatment Court Presented by: The Honorable Robert Russell.
Drug Court ♦The alternative to incarceration  History žHow and why the experiment evolved  Main Features of Drug Court žCooperation within the adversarial.
Lost Opportunities: The Reality of Latinos in the U.S. Criminal Justice System Nancy E. Walker J. Michael Senger Francisco A. Villarruel Angela M. Arboleda.
C OUNTY S OLUTIONS FOR K IDS IN T ROUBLE Benet Magnuson, J.D. Policy Attorney Texas Criminal Justice Coalition
C OUNTY S OLUTIONS FOR K IDS IN T ROUBLE Benet Magnuson, J.D. Policy Attorney Texas Criminal Justice Coalition
Mayor’s Office of Homeland Security and Public Safety Gang Reduction Program Los Angeles.
By Jacqueline Gallegos ……to  Chaired by Judge Wells  Invited Executive Level Management  Working toward Local Implementation ◦ Local government.
North Carolina TASC Clinical Series Training Module One: Understanding TASC.
Probation and Parole in the United States Your presenter:
Drunk Driving: A Strategy for Reducing Recidivism 12 th Annual Michigan Traffic Safety Summit Tuesday March 13, 2006 Bradley Finegood, MA, LLPC.
Aimed at a reduction in alcohol and drug use and criminal activity.
© 2009 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. McGraw-Hill Chapter 5 Intermediate Sanctions: Between Probation and Incarceration 1.
Pretrial, Probation and Parole
Drug Courts: Some Answers to Our Burning Questions NADCP May 2008.
PREPARED BY NPC RESEARCH PORTLAND, OR MAY 2013 Florida Adult Felony Drug Courts Evaluation Results.
Understanding TASC Marc Harrington, LPC, LCASI Case Developer Region 4 TASC Robin Cuellar, CCJP, CSAC Buncombe County.
4380 SW Macadam Ave., Ste. 530 Portland, OR Informing policy, improving programs Implementation of the Ten Key Components: Variations.
National Association of Drug Court Practitioners Anaheim, CA June 2009.
Adult Drug Courts: The Effect of Structural Differences on Program Retention Rates Natasha Williams, Ph.D., J.D., MPH Post Doctoral Fellow, Morgan State.
Evidence-Based Reentry Practices in a Jail Setting
Coordinator 101 Rose M. Ewing. Drug Court History First Drug Court was implemented in Miami, Florida in Today, there are approximately 2,500 therapeutic.
RISK AND NEED TRACKS SAMHSA 2013 Orleans Parish Drug Court Expansion Grant.
EMPOWERING TEAMS TO CAUSE THRIVING MENTAL HEALTH COURTS By Christine O’Hanlon Marin County Public Defender.
8/21/2015 Scott Ronan Idaho Supreme Court Senior Manager, Problem-Solving Courts and Sentencing Alternatives.
ACCELERATED COMMUNITY ENTRY (ACE) A program designed to increase the success of high risk offenders returning to the community from prison Western District.
Judge Neil Edward Axel District Court of Maryland (retired) Maryland Highway Safety Judicial Conference December 2, 2015 Best Practices & Sentencing Alternatives.
DUI and other Drug Treatment Dockets Facts and Figures.
Drug Courts Prepared by Sheri Heffelfinger Montana Legislative Services Division For the Law and Justice Interim Committee February 2008.
Chapter 5 Intermediate Sanctions 1.  Intermediate sanctions emerged in the 1980s due to three factors: The belief that prisons were being overused Prison.
Cleveland Municipal Drug Court: SAMHSA CSAT Adult Treatment Drug Court Grant Dr. Margaret Baughman Madison Wheeler, BS Paul Tuschman, BA Begun.
 As of July 1, 2014, 61 operational courts: › 28 Adult Drug Courts  5 Hybrid Drug/OWI Courts › 14 OWI Courts › 9 Veterans Treatment Courts › 4 Mental.
 First drug court opened in Miami-Dade, FL in 1989  Goal is to reduce recidivism by using graduated sanctions and incentives combined with treatment.
Veterans Treatment Courts Presented by Magistrate Judge John Hinrichs, Captain James Hoekman, Captain Tracy Schaefer, and Lt. Mike Burgeson Adapted with.
The Kansas City VA Medical Center And Kansas City, Missouri Municipal Court.
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.
History and Concepts of Drug Courts
Probation and Community Justice Program Overview
Henu’ Community Wellness Court
Drug Treatment Court.
Marie Crosson, Executive Director
BY: Honorable Robert S. Anchondo
Coconino County Recovery Court
Presentation transcript:

TREATMENT COURTS Inns of Court Presentation By John Markson & Elliott Levine October 17, 2012

Mission Statement The mission of Treatment Courts is to increase community safety and restore sober, productive and law abiding citizens to the community by breaking the cycle of drug and alcohol addiction through effective, long-term treatment with intensive court supervision.

Treatment Court Defined A specifically designed court calendar or docket with a purpose of reducing recidivism and substance abuse. The court increases the likelihood of successful habilitation through early, continuous and intensive treatment, case management and mandatory drug testing with judicial supervision.

-The best Drug Courts reduce crime up to 45% -For Every dollar invested into Drug Courts they produce an average of $2.21 in direct benefits to the criminal justice system. -More serious, higher-risk drug offenders, average return for every $1 invested has a $3.36 return. -The net economic benefit to local communities range from $3000 to $13,000 per Drug Court participant. -OWI Courts, 2008 study of Waukesha OWI Court found significantly lower recidivism rate for OWI Court participants, 29%, verses wait listed OWI Offenders, 45%. Why Treatment Courts?

There are 10 Key Components for all Drug Courts to function effectively. (These will be discussed later) There are, however, THREE CRITICAL components that must be mastered to have a successful Drug Court Why Treatment Courts Work

Key Components for Specialty Courts  Judicially Monitored Coerced Treatment  Integrated Services  Frequent and Random Testing  Incentives and Immediate Graduated Sanctions

Treatment Court Phases  Each Court structures Phases differently.  Phases are based on the Stages of Change. La Crosse County Drug Court (Example)  Pre-Admission Phase (assessment)  Phase I (appear in court weekly, 3 months long)  Phase II (appear in court every 2 weeks, 4 months long)  Phase III (appear in court every 4 weeks, 6 months long)  Commencement

Ten Key Components of Drug Court Programs In 1997, the National Association of Drug Court Professionals developed the ten key components which were designed to provide courts with a model which can be adapted to fit the specific needs of any community.

Key Component #1  Drug Courts integrate alcohol and other drug treatment services with justice system case processing.

The Drug Court Treatment Team A successful Drug Court requires a team approach including collaboration and cooperation of the:  Judge  District Attorney  Public Defender’s Office/Defense Attorney  Coordinator  Probation & Parole Agent  Treatment Provider  Law Enforcement

Key Component #2  Using a non-adversarial approach, prosecution and defense counsel promote public safety while protecting each participant’s due process rights.

Key Component #3  Eligible participants are identified early and promptly placed in the drug court program.

Is it important to get participants into the program quickly? This means from the time of arrest to the time they start Drug Court.  Drug Courts in which participants entered the program within 20 days of arrest had twice the savings.

Key Component #4  Drug Courts provide access to a continuum of alcohol, drug, and other related treatment and rehabilitation services.

Key Component #5  Abstinence is monitored by frequent alcohol and other drug testing.

Key Component #6  A coordinated strategy governs drug court responses to participants’ compliance.

Drug Courts that had written rules for team responses had almost 3 times the cost savings. _________________________________ Participants facing the possibility of jail as a sanction had lower recidivism. How effective is jail as a sanction?

Key Component #7  Ongoing judicial interaction with each drug court participant is essential.

Does it matter how long the judge spends interacting with each participant in court?  Judges who spent at least 3 minutes talking to each participant in court had more then twice the savings.  Motivational Interviewing skills carried through to the courtroom.

Key Component #8  Monitoring and evaluation measure the achievement of program goals and gauge effectiveness.

Key Component #9  Continuing interdisciplinary education promotes effective drug court planning, implementation, and operations.

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

Dane County’s Drug Treatment Court  Began in 1996 under Judge Aulik –The first in Wisconsin –Now more than 50 in about half of Wisconsin counties –Participants are non-violent felons whose criminal behavior is related to drug dependency –Capacity of 70 participants; 100 participants per year –Pre-adjudication model

Dane County’s Drug Treatment Court  Graduation: –Completion of treatment –Completion of three phases of the program takes 9 months, more or less –120 days without relapse  Dane County Graduation Stats: –66% average ( ) –84% in 2011 –45% national average

Dr. Brown’s study

Dr. Brown’s Study  Other findings: –Minorities and those with a more extensive criminal history did particularly better after drug treatment court than after traditional adjudication –Dane County receives a marginal benefit of $2,634 per participant based solely on jail days saved

Contact Information for Treatment Courts Wisconsin Associations of Treatment Court Professionals National Association of Drug Court Professionals Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration Center for Court Innovation National Institute on Drug Abuse Bureau of Justice Assistance