1. New Jersey Judiciary Overview of the Adult Drug Court Program Presentation to the New Jersey Commission to Review Criminal Sentencing February 15, 2006

2. Definition of a Drug Court Drug Courts are a highly specialized court process that functions within the existing Superior Court structure to address the nonviolent drug addicted offender.

3. Essential Elements of a Drug Court Nonadversarial process Nonadversarial process Nontraditional courtroom dynamic Nontraditional courtroom dynamic Intensive probation supervision Intensive probation supervision Frequent and random drug testing Frequent and random drug testing Treatment partners with the CJS Treatment partners with the CJS Focus on collaboration among agencies and other parts of the court system Focus on collaboration among agencies and other parts of the court system Holistic approach to dealing with the drug addicted criminal offender Holistic approach to dealing with the drug addicted criminal offender

4. The Drug Court Team Superior Court Judge Assistant Prosecutor Assistant Deputy Public Defender Drug Court Coordinator Team Leader Substance Abuse (TASC) Evaluator Treatment Provider(s) Probation Supervisor Probation Officers

5. How is Drug Court Different? Traditional Court Event-oriented Offense-specific Determination of guilt and sentencing are the end of the process Process identical for all offenders Judicial interaction exists primarily with the representatives of the parties Responsibility equals atonement and punishment Post-adjudication monitoring is designed to enforce conditions and uncover violations Judge is the neutral agent among various competitors Legal history supporting this system is approx. 400 years old; change is difficult

6. How is Drug Court Different? Drug Court Process-oriented Behavior-specific Process-oriented Behavior-specific Identification of addiction and referral to drug court is the beginning of the process Identification of addiction and referral to drug court is the beginning of the process Process is focused on the individual offender Process is focused on the individual offender Judicial interaction exists directly with the offender Judicial interaction exists directly with the offender Responsibility equals behavioral changes designed to reduce conflict by reducing addictive behavior Responsibility equals behavioral changes designed to reduce conflict by reducing addictive behavior Post-adjudication monitoring is designed to reinforce treatment Post-adjudication monitoring is designed to reinforce treatment Judge is an active participant in the partnership between the offender and the team Judge is an active participant in the partnership between the offender and the team Legal history supporting this systems is 10 years old; change is relatively easy Legal history supporting this systems is 10 years old; change is relatively easy

7. TRADITIONAL PROBATION DRUG COURT Judge involved post- disposition only w/ VOPs Post-dispositional judicial oversight Traditional probation caseloads avg. 108 cases Intensive probation Supervision (max. 50 cases) Probation is sole agency Multi-disciplinary team Drug testing is limited (ie: once per month) Frequent and random drug testing (ie: 2x/wk) Only court sanction is in response to a VOP Swift sanctions imposed by the Drug Court judge Probation case plans Comprehensive treatment plans Compliance monitoring Recovery support

8. Eligibility Determination: A two-step process Applicants must be legally screened and clinically assessed before acceptance Applicants must be legally screened and clinically assessed before acceptance LEGAL ELIGIBILITY – Prosecutor’s recommendation on legal acceptability LEGAL ELIGIBILITY – Prosecutor’s recommendation on legal acceptability CLINICAL ELIGIBILITY – TASC Evaluators conduct a clinical assessment of substance abuse dependency and appropriate treatment recommendations CLINICAL ELIGIBILITY – TASC Evaluators conduct a clinical assessment of substance abuse dependency and appropriate treatment recommendations

9. Offense Convictions of DC Participants 93% of participants would have received a sentence in NJ state prison were it not for drug court. 93% of participants would have received a sentence in NJ state prison were it not for drug court. 25% of prison-bound, direct-sentence participants were convicted of school zone offenses. 25% of prison-bound, direct-sentence participants were convicted of school zone offenses. 64% of prison-bound, direct-sentence participants were convicted of a drug offense. 64% of prison-bound, direct-sentence participants were convicted of a drug offense.

10. Statutory Provisions N.J.S.A. 2C:35-7 - The mandatory minimum exposure provided Drug Courts with the “hammer” of coercive treatment N.J.S.A. 2C:35-7 - The mandatory minimum exposure provided Drug Courts with the “hammer” of coercive treatment N.J.S.A. 2C:35-14 provided some school zone offenders with the opportunity to enter drug court, however, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-14 provided some school zone offenders with the opportunity to enter drug court, however, The restrictions of the statute severely limit the impact on urban and minority offenders The restrictions of the statute severely limit the impact on urban and minority offenders Many prosecutors are now applying the provisions to non-school zone cases, further restricting the applicant pool for drug court Many prosecutors are now applying the provisions to non-school zone cases, further restricting the applicant pool for drug court

11. N.J.S.A. 2C:35-14 STATUTORY RESTRICTION Defendants with 2 or more priors of 1 st, 2 nd and 3 rd Degree except simple possession IMPACT ON DRUG COURT Many drug offenders who may be ready to try sobriety have multiple priors due to the nature of addiction Many drug offenders who may be ready to try sobriety have multiple priors due to the nature of addiction Those who are eligible tend to be younger and are more difficult to treat in drug court Those who are eligible tend to be younger and are more difficult to treat in drug court

12. N.J.S.A. 2C:35-14 STATUTORY REQUIREMENT Defendants must complete a minimum of 6 months in residential treatment IMPACT ON DRUG COURT Eliminates the alternative sentence for offenders who are unsuitable for residential treatment Defendants with a less severe addiction Defendants with a less severe addiction Defendants not acceptable to residential providers (physically handicapped) Defendants not acceptable to residential providers (physically handicapped) Wastes residential beds that could be used for addicts needing that level of care Wastes residential beds that could be used for addicts needing that level of care

13. N.J.S.A. 2C:35-14 STATUTORY REQUIREMENT Defendants on “Special Probation” must serve full five years with no early discharge IMPACT ON DRUG COURT Five year provision is a deterrent to many offenders Five year provision is a deterrent to many offenders Eliminates a powerful incentive to do well Eliminates a powerful incentive to do well Diverts probation resources that could be used for high risk offenders in early recovery Diverts probation resources that could be used for high risk offenders in early recovery

14. Unintended Consequences Since 4/1/02, 1,109 nonviolent drug offenders have been rejected from participation in Drug Court due to “statutory” reasons; many would have been otherwise eligible for drug court (66% of these applicants are minorities). Since 4/1/02, 1,109 nonviolent drug offenders have been rejected from participation in Drug Court due to “statutory” reasons; many would have been otherwise eligible for drug court (66% of these applicants are minorities). Since 4/1/02, 221 non-violent substance dependent offenders have been rejected from participation in Drug Court because they were not addicted enough to be suitable for 6 months of residential treatment (68% of these applicants are minorities). Since 4/1/02, 221 non-violent substance dependent offenders have been rejected from participation in Drug Court because they were not addicted enough to be suitable for 6 months of residential treatment (68% of these applicants are minorities).

15. How do we Successfully Address the Drug-Addicted Offender? PunishmentTreatment

16. What if we put them in prison? Criminal Recidivism* 43.5 are rearrested within 1 year 43.5 are rearrested within 1 year 58.6 are rearrested within 2 years 58.6 are rearrested within 2 years Relapse to Drug Abuse** 85% relapse within first year 85% relapse within first year 95% relapse within 3 years 95% relapse within 3 years *National Institute of Justice ** National Institute of Health

17. NJ has the highest known proportion of prisoners incarcerated for drug offenses in the country (36% compared to the national average of 20%); 63% of inmates in New Jersey state prisons are African American. NJ spends more to incarcerate drug offenders than a third of the country’s states spend on their entire corrections budget. Traditional criminal justice system responses to drug offenders have been ineffective in breaking the cycle of drugs and crime. NIJ estimates that 43.5% of drug offenders are rearrested in the first year of their release; 58.6% within the second year. The Problem

18. Why Drug Courts for New Jersey? Drug Courts address drug offender recidivism by dealing with the underlying problem: drug addiction. Drug Courts address drug offender recidivism by dealing with the underlying problem: drug addiction. 36% of New Jersey’s inmate population consists of drug offenders – 80% higher than the national average. 36% of New Jersey’s inmate population consists of drug offenders – 80% higher than the national average. Drug Courts are a cost effective alternative to prison. Drug Courts are a cost effective alternative to prison. Coercive treatment works. Coercive treatment works. Coordinating treatment and supervision has been proven to be much more effective in reducing drug use and recidivism than treatment alone or supervision alone. Coordinating treatment and supervision has been proven to be much more effective in reducing drug use and recidivism than treatment alone or supervision alone.

19. “The Judge Effect” 1 Research indicates high-risk offenders do appreciably better under judicial supervision. 2 Research indicates high-risk offenders do appreciably better under judicial supervision. 2 80% of participants generally believe that the involvement of the drug court judge is critical to their success in the program. 80% of participants generally believe that the involvement of the drug court judge is critical to their success in the program. Research suggests that subjects that are legally coerced into treatment perform as well or better than voluntary admissions. 3 Research suggests that subjects that are legally coerced into treatment perform as well or better than voluntary admissions. 3 1 Satel, S.,” Study of Courtroom Dynamics In Selected Drug Courts,” National Drug Court Institute Review. Vol. 1:1 (1998). 2 Marlowe, D. “Are Judicial Status Hearings a Key Component of Drug Court? Six and twelve month outcomes,” Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 79 (2005). 3 Farabee, C. “Efficacy of coercion in substance abuse treatment,” Relapse and Recovery in Addictions pp 208-227 (2001).

20. Eligibility for Drug Court Non-violent substance abusing offenders charged with a criminal offense in the Superior Court Non-violent substance abusing offenders charged with a criminal offense in the Superior Court Drug court targets offenders who, were it not for their substance abuse, may never have been involved with the criminal justice system Drug court targets offenders who, were it not for their substance abuse, may never have been involved with the criminal justice system

21. Who is Not Eligible for Drug Court* Offenders whose current or any other pending charges involve a violent offense; Offenders whose current or any other pending charges involve a violent offense; Offenders who have a prior conviction for a violent crime; Offenders who have a prior conviction for a violent crime; Offenders motivated by profit, not addiction; Offenders motivated by profit, not addiction; Offenders who use juveniles for drug distribution. Offenders who use juveniles for drug distribution. *Other criteria apply. Please refer to the State of New Jersey Manual for Operation of Adult Drug Courts at: http://www.aoc.judiciary.state.nj.us/directive/dctman.pdf

22. New Jersey Statewide Program 5 grant funded pilot counties: Camden, Essex, Mercer, Passaic and Union 5 grant funded pilot counties: Camden, Essex, Mercer, Passaic and Union Chief Justice asked Presiding Judges to investigate drug courts for expansion Chief Justice asked Presiding Judges to investigate drug courts for expansion PJ’s report recommended drug courts as a best practice in New Jersey PJ’s report recommended drug courts as a best practice in New Jersey On 9/6/01, legislation was signed to appropriate funding to implement the statewide program (P.L. 2001, c.243) On 9/6/01, legislation was signed to appropriate funding to implement the statewide program (P.L. 2001, c.243) The NJ Adult Drug Courts began operating as a “statewide program” on 4/1/02. The NJ Adult Drug Courts began operating as a “statewide program” on 4/1/02.

23. 3 Phase Implementation Project September, 2001: Transfer grant funded pilots to state funding: Camden; Essex; Mercer; Passaic; Union September, 2001: Transfer grant funded pilots to state funding: Camden; Essex; Mercer; Passaic; Union 5 new court vicinages began on 4/1/02: Bergen; Cumberland/ Gloucester/ Salem; Monmouth; Morris/ Sussex; Ocean 5 new court vicinages began on 4/1/02: Bergen; Cumberland/ Gloucester/ Salem; Monmouth; Morris/ Sussex; Ocean Final 5 vicinages began on 9/1/04: Atlantic/Cape May; Burlington; Hudson; Middlesex; Somerset/Hunterdon/Warren Final 5 vicinages began on 9/1/04: Atlantic/Cape May; Burlington; Hudson; Middlesex; Somerset/Hunterdon/Warren

24. Drug Court Network Drug Court Treatment Prosecutors/ Law Enforcement Intensive Probation Supervision Vicinage Management Team Judicial Supervision Non-Profit & Social Service Agencies Municipal &County Government Office of the Public Defender The Community

25. What are the benefits of participation in the NJ Adult Drug Court Program?

26. NJ Adult Drug Courts No. of Current Active Participants: 2,256 No. of Current Active Participants: 2,256 Percent of Minority Participants: 64% Percent of Minority Participants: 64% No. of Program Graduates: 476 No. of Program Graduates: 476 No. of Participants in Final Phase: 421 No. of Participants in Final Phase: 421 Percent Employed Full-Time while in DC: 74% Percent Employed Full-Time while in DC: 74% Percent Employed FT by Graduation: 92% Percent Employed FT by Graduation: 92% Percent of Negative Drug Tests 96% Percent of Negative Drug Tests 96% (Out of 104,735 tests conducted since 4/1/02) (Out of 104,735 tests conducted since 4/1/02)

27. Success of NJ Drug Courts Since the Statewide Program Began on 4/1/02: 45 Babies were born drug-free to previously drug-addicted mothers. 45 Babies were born drug-free to previously drug-addicted mothers. Drug court participants regained custody of at least 42 minor children due to their successful participation in drug court. Some of these children had been in foster care. Drug court participants regained custody of at least 42 minor children due to their successful participation in drug court. Some of these children had been in foster care.

28. Success of NJ Adult Drug Courts The NIJ 1 estimated that recidivism among a nationally representative sample of drug court graduates was 16.4% the first year after graduation and 27.5% two years after graduation. Current Statistics on 493 Drug Court Graduates w/in 3 years of Graduation 14% re-arrested for indictable offenses; 14% re-arrested for indictable offenses; 6% convicted of new indictable offenses; and 6% convicted of new indictable offenses; and 4% sentenced to New Jersey State Prison 4% sentenced to New Jersey State Prison 1 “Estimate of Drug Court Recidivism Rates,” conducted by the Urban Institute for the National Institute of Justice in 2004 2 Recidivism study conducted by AOC Criminal Practice on 1/31/06

29. Participant Benefits: Before and After The percentage of participants employed rose from 27% to 92%. The percentage of participants employed rose from 27% to 92%. The percentage of participants with a valid drivers license rose from 28% to 52%. The percentage of participants with a valid drivers license rose from 28% to 52%. 13% of graduates raised their level of education or vocational skills. 13% of graduates raised their level of education or vocational skills. The percentage of participants covered by medical insurance was raised from 13% to 47%. The percentage of participants covered by medical insurance was raised from 13% to 47%. The 445 drug court graduates studied have a total of 539 minor children. The 445 drug court graduates studied have a total of 539 minor children.

30. Financial Impact of Drug Courts Drug courts achieve direct cost savings for the justice system by reducing incarceration rates. Incarcerating an adult for one year costs up to $37,000*. The first year of drug court, when most treatment costs are borne, costs between $5,400 and $19,500 depending upon the type of treatment. The total court imposed fines, fees and (DEDR and VCCB) penalties paid by the 445 graduates studied is over one-half million dollars * Additional administrative costs included. Figures estimated by AOC.

31. Other cost savings can occur when: Participants become employed, support their families and pay taxes; Participants become employed, support their families and pay taxes; Custody of minor children is regained, reducing the cost of foster care; Custody of minor children is regained, reducing the cost of foster care; Babies are born without drug addiction, eliminating the short and long term medical cost of treating drug addicted infants; Babies are born without drug addiction, eliminating the short and long term medical cost of treating drug addicted infants; Participant visits to emergency rooms are reduced. Participant visits to emergency rooms are reduced.

32. Every dollar spent on treatment leads to a $7.46 reduction in crime-related spending and lost productivity, according to a study conducted for the Office of Nat’l Drug Control Policy.

33. WHY ARE THE NEW JERSEY DRUG COURTS SO SUCCESSFUL?

34. CENTER FOR COURT INNOVATION “The State of Drug Court Research” (2005) Research Findings: “Little is known about which categories of defendants are most likely to benefit from the drug court intervention; but three have emerged as likely candidates: (a) “high-risk” offenders, (b) those facing greater legal consequences for failing drug court, and (c) drug offenders (as opposed to offenders arrested for property crimes and other offenses).” New Jersey Drug Courts: Since the pilot program days, the NJ Adult Drug Courts have focused primarily on prison diversion, with intensive supervision of high-risk, nonviolent drug offenders.

35. Researchers found: Drug Court retention rates far exceed those for the general treatment population. One review estimates that drug courts nationwide have an average one-year retention rate of 60% New Jersey Drug Courts: The New Jersey Adult Drug Court Statewide Program cumulative retention rate after almost 4 years is 69% CENTER FOR COURT INNOVATION “The State of Drug Court Research” (2005)

36. In a 2002 study, Dr. Faye Taxman found that half of the drug courts reported that they have non-clinical staff screen clients for drug treatment court eligibility and that “while drug courts are designed to integrate services across systems, few courts have developed such an approach.” A well structured clinical assessment process was deemed essential for positive outcomes. New Jersey Drug Courts: The New Jersey Judiciary employs substance abuse (TASC) evaluators who provide the courts with the benefit of bridging the court and treatment systems. The drug court process begins with a professional clinical assessment. What Works in Drug Court?

37. Researchers have identified a phenomenon in many drug courts that suggests that the typical one-year term of supervision is inadequate to address the needs of many drug court participants; in practice, most participants remain enrolled well beyond the one- year program length. 8 New Jersey Drug Courts: A search of all available sources indicates that New Jersey adult drug courts supervise participants longer than any other drug court program. 8 Marlowe, D. “Amenability to Treatment of Drug Offenders” (2003) Term of Supervision

38. Researchers found: The length of time a patient spends in treatment is a reliable predictor of his or her post-treatment performance New Jersey Adult Drug Courts: Provide comprehensive substance abuse treatment through a cooperative agreement with the Division of Addiction Services; All treatment modalities and levels of care are available to participants; the recent inclusion of enhanced services (i.e. psychiatric evaluations) should improve outcomes The modalities and duration of the treatment interventions used meets or exceeds those recommended by the National Association of Drug Court Professionals. What Works in Drug Court?

39. In A National Center for State Courts publication, Dr. Cary Heck reported: “standardized statewide case management systems can assist localities and states in the measurement of drug court performance” and “as the drug court movement continues to flourish, the need for standardized and consistent data management continues.” New Jersey Adult Drug Courts: New Jersey is in the forefront of state-level drug court program management. The NJ Judiciary has enhanced existing mainframe systems in order to capture drug court related data on a county and state level. Quality Control