Effective responses to substance abuse in minnesota courts
Download
1 / 52

EFFECTIVE RESPONSES TO SUBSTANCE ABUSE IN MINNESOTA COURTS - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 190 Views
  • Uploaded on

MINNESOTA JUDICIAL BRANCH. EFFECTIVE RESPONSES TO SUBSTANCE ABUSE IN MINNESOTA COURTS. MARCH 21, 2007. HISTORY. LOCAL LEVEL RAMSEY COUNTY SUBSTANCE ABUSE INITIATIVE---1999 STEERING COMMITTEE FORMED KEY STAKEHOLDERS COUNTY ADMINISTRATION COUNTY ATTORNEY

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'EFFECTIVE RESPONSES TO SUBSTANCE ABUSE IN MINNESOTA COURTS' - Samuel


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
Effective responses to substance abuse in minnesota courts l.jpg

MINNESOTA JUDICIAL BRANCH

EFFECTIVE RESPONSES TO SUBSTANCE ABUSE IN MINNESOTA COURTS

MARCH 21, 2007


History l.jpg
HISTORY

  • LOCAL LEVEL

    RAMSEY COUNTY SUBSTANCE ABUSE

    INITIATIVE---1999

    STEERING COMMITTEE FORMED

    KEY STAKEHOLDERS

    COUNTY ADMINISTRATION

    COUNTY ATTORNEY

    COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDER

    COUNTY COMMISSIONER

    COUNTY SHERIFF

    DIRECTORS OF: COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS, HUMAN SERVICES, PUBLIC HEALTH.


History cont d l.jpg
HISTORY (cont’d)

  • DISTRICT WIDE CONFERENCE

  • FOCUS GROUPS FORMED FROM PARTICIPANTS

  • MADE FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO STEERING COMMITTEE IN 2000

  • STANDARDS DEVELOPED BY STEERING COMMITTEE


Ramsey county district court standards on substance abuse l.jpg
RAMSEY COUNTY DISTRICT COURT STANDARDS ON SUBSTANCE ABUSE

  • STANDARD 1: JUDGE AS LEADER IN COURT’S REPONSE TO SUBSTANCE ABUSE

  • STANDARD 2: COURTHOUSE AS INFORMATION AND REFERRAL CENTER

  • STANDARD 3: ACCESS TO CONTINUING EDUCATION

  • STANDARD 4: COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS RESPONSIBILITIES

  • STANDARD 5: ORDERING TREATMENT


Ramsey county district court standards on substance abuse cont d l.jpg
RAMSEY COUNTY DISTRICT COURT STANDARDS ON SUBSTANCE ABUSE (cont’d)

  • STANDARD 6: INDICATIONS OF SUBSTANCE ABUSE

  • STANDARD 7: SCREENING

  • STANDARD 8: CHEMICAL HEALTH ASSESSMENT

  • STANDARD 9: TREATMENT MATCHING

  • STANDARD 10: RECOMMENDATION TO STATE CORRECTIONAL AUTHORITIES


Ramsey county district court standards on substance abuse cont d6 l.jpg
RAMSEY COUNTY DISTRICT COURT STANDARDS ON SUBSTANCE ABUSE (cont’d)

  • STANDARD 11: MANDATORY ABSTINENCE

  • STANDARD 12: MONITORING COMPLIANCE

  • STANDARD 13: RELAPSE

  • STANDARD 14: STANDARDS FOR TREATMENT PROVIDERS

  • STANDARD 15: TREATMENT DIRECTORY


Ramsey county district court standards on substance abuse cont d7 l.jpg
RAMSEY COUNTY DISTRICT COURT STANDARDS ON SUBSTANCE ABUSE (cont’d)

  • STANDARD 16: COMMUNITY RESOURCES

  • STANDARD 17: COMMUNICATION AND COLLOBORATION WITHIN THE COURT AND WITH THE COMMUNITY

  • STANDARD 18: USE OF THE COURTHOUSE FOR RECOVERY AND EDUCATION SESSIONS

  • STANDARD 19: SUBSTANCE ABUSE WITHIN THE COURTS

  • STANDARD 20: SUBSTANCE ABUSE AMONG ATTORNEYS AND JUDGES


Problem solving courts in ramsey county l.jpg
PROBLEM SOLVING COURTS IN RAMSEY COUNTY (cont’d)

  • Juvenile Substance Abuse Court (JSAC)

    Began in 2001

    Target population: Ramsey County Resident, non-violent offender, substance abuse problem, avoidance of out-of-home placement

  • Cost-benefit analysis completed in 2006

  • Graduates had the lowest cost of any group averaging $12,000 less than the comparison group over a two years.

  • Comparison group costs were 41% higher per juvenile.

  • JSAC Participants had significantly less contact with the court system after their participation including less than half the number of subsequent offenses; only 40% of the number of days in out-of-home placement and only half the number of days on probation.


Problem solving courts in ramsey county cont d l.jpg
PROBLEM SOLVING COURTS IN RAMSEY COUNTY (cont’d)(cont’d)

  • Adult Substance Abuse Court (ASAC)

    Began in 2002

    Target Population: Ramsey County resident, non-violent offender, substance abuse problem, felony level offenses (to include 5th/4th Degree drug offenses and other non-drug related case types)

    Length of program: 12-24 months.

  • Traditionally 1st/2nd Degree drug cases excluded and 3rd Degree considered on a case-by-case basis.

  • Initially very few methamphetamine addicts in program. Currently at least half indicate methamphetamine as their drug of choice.

  • Co-occurring disorders evident due to affects of methamphetamine.

  • Court Clinic created to address unmet mental health needs of this population.


Problem solving courts in ramsey county cont d10 l.jpg
PROBLEM SOLVING COURTS IN RAMSEY COUNTY (cont’d)(cont’d)

  • Total participants for ASAC from 2002 to present: 171

  • Successful completions and graduates: 44

  • Currently Active: 62

  • Over 90% of ASAC participants who stay in the program remain arrest free.

  • Program retention rate is 83%.

  • To date 10 drug-free babies have been born.

  • ASAC has saved at least $750,000 in jail bed savings.

  • ASAC has saved at least $204,400 in prison costs for one female participant.


Problem solving courts in ramsey county cont d11 l.jpg
PROBLEM SOLVING COURTS IN RAMSEY COUNTY (cont’d)(cont’d)

  • Ramsey County DWI Court

    Began January, 2005

    Target population: Ramsey County resident, charged by the City of St. Paul, three or more alcohol related driving offenses (Gross Misdemeanor), non-violent offender, substance abuse problem.

    Length of program: 24 months

  • Currently active: 25

  • Successful completions and graduates: 2


Problem solving courts in ramsey county cont d12 l.jpg
PROBLEM SOLVING COURTS IN RAMSEY COUNTY (cont’d)(cont’d)

  • Ramsey County Mental Health Court

    Began in 2005

    Target Population: Ramsey County resident, Misdemeanor/Gross Misdemeanor charges, 3 or more law enforcement contacts in the last two years, diagnosis of SMI (serious mental illness).

  • Currently Active: 19

  • Successful completions and graduates: 12


Problem solving courts in ramsey county cont d13 l.jpg
PROBLEM SOLVING COURTS IN RAMSEY COUNTY ( (cont’d)cont’d)

  • Ramsey County Community Court

    Began in 2001

    Target Population: Misdemeanor “livability” crimes including Underage Consumption cases.


Philosophical debate l.jpg
PHILOSOPHICAL DEBATE (cont’d)

  • COURTS AS PROBLEM SOLVERS

  • COURTS AS ADJUDICATORS


Courts as problem solvers l.jpg
COURTS AS PROBLEM-SOLVERS (cont’d)

“EFFECTIVE TRIAL COURTS ARE RESPONSIVE TO EMERGENT PUBLIC ISSUES SUCH AS DRUG ABUSE…A TRIAL COURT THAT MOVES DELIBERATELY IN RESPONSE TO EMERGENT ISSUES IS A STABILIZING FORCE IN SOCIETY AND ACTS CONSISTENTLY WITH ITS ROLE OF MAINTAINING THE RULE OF LAW”

BUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE’S TRIAL COURT PERFORMANCE STANDARDS, 1997


Courts as problem solvers cont d l.jpg
COURTS AS PROBLEM SOLVERS (cont’d)(cont’d)

NATIONAL RESOLUTIONS OF SUPPORT

THE NATIONAL DISTRICT ATTORNEYS ASSOCIATION

THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION

THE NATIONAL SHERIFFS ASSOCIATION

INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE

THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF COUNTY ORGANIZATIONS

GOVERNORS HIGHWAY SAFETY ASSOCIAITON

MOTHERS AGAINST DRUNK DRIVING


Philosophical basis of criminal justice system l.jpg
PHILOSOPHICAL BASIS OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM (cont’d)

PUNISHMENT

OR

REHABILITATION


Prison l.jpg
PRISON? (cont’d)

29.9% of prisoners released in 1998 in 15 states were rearrested within six months and 68% were rearrested within three years.(Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2002)

95% relapse to substanceabuse in three years.

(Treatment Research Institute, 2002)


Prison cont d l.jpg
PRISON? (cont’d)(cont’d)

  • Inmates Releasedfrom Federal

  • and State Prisons

635,000

473003,

1995 2001


Treatment l.jpg
TREATMENT? (cont’d)

Attrition

  • 50% to 67% don’t show for intake

  • 40% to 80% drop out in 3 months

  • 90% drop out in 12 months

    Outcomes

  • 40% to 60% of clients abstinent at 1 year

    Treatment Research Institute, 2003


Punishment or rehabilitation l.jpg
PUNISHMENT OR REHABILITATION (cont’d)

  • ANSWER IS BOTH---ALTHOUGH THE NATURE AND EXTENT OF PUNISHMENT SHOULD DEPEND UPON THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE CRIME


The answer l.jpg
THE ANSWER (cont’d)

  • NEED TO DISTINQUISH BETWEEN THE VIOLENT AND REPEAT OFFENDER WHO IS AN ADDICT AND

  • THE ADDICT WHO COMMITS A NON-VIOLENT CRIME BECAUSE OF THE DRUG ADDICTION


The answer cont d l.jpg
THE ANSWER (cont’d) (cont’d)

  • NEED TO LOCK UP THE VIOLENT AND REPEAT OFFENDER AND

  • EMPHASIZE TREATMENT ALONG WITH SANCTIONS AND INCENTIVES FOR THE LATTER


Drug courts l.jpg
DRUG COURTS (cont’d)

A National Phenomenon


Drug courts need l.jpg
DRUG COURTS - Need (cont’d)

  • A large percentage of criminal cases are AOD offenses, or AOD addiction is the underlying reason for the crime.

  • Addiction to drugs or alcohol affects the offender’s family members, particularly children.

  • Many drug addicted criminal offenders are poly-drug users (meaning they use multiple drugs and alcohol).

    • Many also suffer from mental health problems.


Drug courts definition l.jpg
DRUG COURTS - Definition (cont’d)

What is a drug court?

A specialized court that processes cases involving drug-using offenders through utilization of comprehensive supervision, drug testing, treatment services and immediate sanctions and incentives.

Types of drug courts:

  • Adult

  • Juvenile

  • Family

  • DWI


Drug courts purpose l.jpg
Drug Courts - Purpose (cont’d)

  • Designed to:

    • Provide greater system oversight and support for appropriate offenders

    • Emphasize treatment and rehabilitation with escalating sanctions for continuing alcohol or drug use

    • Bring hope back into the lives of addicted criminal offenders, allowing them a real opportunity to put their drug addiction and life of crime behind them.


Drug courts must include treatment l.jpg
Drug Courts Must Include (cont’d)Treatment

Treatment Research Findings:

  • The length of time a patient spent in treatment was a reliable predictor of his or her post-treatment performance.Beyond a ninety-day threshold, treatment outcomes improved in direct relationship to the length of time spent in treatment, with one year generally found to be the minimum effective duration of treatment.

  • Coerced patients tended to stay longer.This was true even though most of the legally coerced addicts had more crime and gang involvement, more drug use, and worse employment records than their non-coerced counterparts.


Drug courts benefits l.jpg
DRUG COURTS - Benefits (cont’d)

Correct implementation of drug courts:

  • Interrupts the cycle of recidivism of drug using offenders and helps them sustain recovery

  • Increases public safety by holding offenders accountable through increased supervision and drug testing

  • Results in all aspects of the criminal justice

    system working together for the benefit of both the public and the offender


Drug courts benefits30 l.jpg
DRUG COURTS - Benefits (cont’d)

  • Reduce criminal activity by addicted offenders.

    “The body of literature on recidivism is now strong enough to conclude that completing a drug court program reduces the likelihood of further involvement in the criminal justice system.”

    Vera: Fluellen & Trone, 2000

Graduation is Key


Drug courts benefits31 l.jpg
DRUG COURTS - Benefits (cont’d)

In addition to avoided criminal justice costs, Drug Courts result in:

  • Avoided victim costs

  • Improved public safety

  • Fewer children in need of child protection and more drug-free babies

  • Greater employability of offenders (which results in lower recidivism)


Slide32 l.jpg

DRUG COURTS - Success (cont’d)

“To put it bluntly, we know that drug courts outperform virtually all other strategies that have been attempted for [high risk] drug-involved offenders.”

Marlowe, DeMatteo, Festinger (2003)


Drug courts anticipated outcomes l.jpg
DRUG COURTS - Anticipated Outcomes (cont’d)

  • Improved outcomes for AOD offenders

    • NY – 29% decrease in recidivism

  • Reduction in costs

    • CA - $14M investment avoided $43.3M cost

  • Greater state-level collaboration regarding policy and funding allocation

  • Ongoing evaluation and assessment of efforts


Drug courts anticipated outcomes cont d l.jpg
DRUG COURTS - Anticipated Outcomes (cont’d) (Cont’d)

  • Periodic performance measure reports

  • Greater statewide consistency through the establishment of standards and more centralized oversight


Drug courts costs l.jpg
DRUG COURTS - Costs (cont’d)

  • Drug Courts save money – but not right away.

    • Example of front-end loading

    • Require a substantial initial investment

    • Most cost savings based on lower recidivism of participating offenders.


Drug courts research l.jpg
DRUG COURTS - Research (cont’d)

“The re-conviction rate among a sample of almost 2,500 drug court participants in six sites across New York State was, on average, 29% lower over three years after the initial arrest than the comparison group.”

Rempel, et. al. 2003


Drug courts research37 l.jpg
DRUG COURTS - Research (cont’d)

U.S. GAO 2005 Evaluation Review:

  • Lower rearrest and reconviction rates than comparison group members.

  • Fewer recidivism events/incidents than comparison group members.

  • Longer time intervals until re-arrest or reconviction than comparison group members.

  • Recidivism reductions in various categories of offenses.

  • Decreased involvement in substance abuse.

  • Positive cost/benefit ratio.


Drug courts reduced costs l.jpg
DRUG COURTS – Reduced Costs (cont’d)

  • New York - $254 million in incarceration costs were saved by diverting 18,000 non-violent drug offenders.

  • Washington – Average drug court participant produced $6,779 in benefits - $3,759 in avoided criminal justice costs paid directly by taxpayers and $3,020 in estimated avoided costs to victims


Drug courts reduced costs cont d l.jpg
DRUG COURTS – Reduced Costs (cont’d)(cont’d)

  • California - Investment of $14 million created a total cost avoidance of $43.3 million over a two-year period - 425,014 jail days/$26 million cost and 27,894 prison days/$13 million were avoided.

  • Multnomah County, Oregon - $10 saved for every $1 spent; $1,521,471 saved per year


Drug courts national movement l.jpg
DRUG COURTS - National (cont’d)Movement

  • Began in 1989. By 2004 there were 1,621Drug Courts in operation in the United States, including:

    • 811 Adult Drug Courts

    • 357 Juvenile Drug Courts

    • 153 Family Dependency Treatment Courts

    • 176 DWI Courts

    • 54 Tribal Healing/Wellness Courts

    • 68 Re-entry Drug Courts

    • 1 Campus Drug Court

    • 1 Federal Drug Court


History state level l.jpg
HISTORY STATE LEVEL (cont’d)

  • 2000---ALL MN. COURTS POLLED

    REGARDING STRATEGIC PRIORITIES

  • MN. JUDICIAL ADOPTED AS ONE OF TOP

    PRIORITIES “IMPACT OF AOD ISSUES

    ON COURTS”


History state level cont d l.jpg
HISTORY (cont’d)STATE LEVEL (cont’d)

  • MINNESOTA SUPREME COURT CREATION OF CHEMICAL DEPENDENCY TASK FORCE MARCH, 2005

  • MEMBERSHIP: STATE COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTIONS, PUBLIC SAFETY, HUMAN SERVICES, PUBLIC HEALTH, COUNTY ATTORNEY, STATE PUBLIC DEFENDER, COUNTY SHERIFF, CHIEF OF POLICE, COURT ADMINISTRATORS, COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS, STATE REPRESENTATIVE, STATE SENATOR, JUDGES, SUPREME COURT JUSTICE


Purpose l.jpg
PURPOSE (cont’d)

1. CONDUCT BACKGROUND RESEARCH ON SPECIFIC

ISSUES CONCERNING AOD DEPENDENT PERSONS,

PARTICULARLY AOD OFFENDERS

2. CONDUCT AND INVENTORY OF CURRENT MULTI-

AGENCY, STATE-LEVEL AOD EFFORTS IN MINNESOTA

AS WELL AS IN OTHER STATES


Purpose cont d l.jpg
PURPOSE (cont’d) (cont’d)

  • IDENTIFY AND RECOMMEND APPROACHES,

    SOLUTIONS AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR

    COLLABORATION


Reports l.jpg
REPORTS (cont’d)

ADULT AND JUVENILE AOD OFFENDERS

FEBRUARY, 2006

OVERALL IMPACT OF AOD ACROSS ALL CASE TYPES

NOVEMBER, 2006


Philsophical basis l.jpg
PHILSOPHICAL BASIS (cont’d)

TASK FORCE ACCEPTED THAT ADDICTION IS A BRAIN DISEASE CHARACTERIZED BY COMPULSIVE, AT TIMES, UNCONTROLLABLE DRUG CRAVING, SEEKING AND USE THAT PERSIST EVEN IN THE FACE OF EXTREMELY NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES. FOR MANY PEOPLE, DRUG ADDICTION BECOMES CHRONIC, WITH RELAPSES POSSIBLE EVEN AFTER LONG PERIODS OF ABSTINENCE.

ALAN I. LESHNER, NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON DRUG ABUSE


Recommendations l.jpg
RECOMMENDATIONS (cont’d)

  • IMPLEMENT PROBLEM SOLVING APPROACHES FOR ADULT AND JUVENILE OFFENDERS

  • IMPLEMENT PROBLEM SOLVING APPROACHES FOR OTHER CASE TYPES

    CHIPS, DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, DWI OFFENDERS,

    CIVIL COMMITMENT

  • RESTORATIVE JUSTICE/OTHER INTERVENTIONS

  • FUNDING AND RESOURCES

  • FEASIBILITY OF TAKING PROBLEM SOLVING APPROACHES STATEWIDE


Slide48 l.jpg
KEY (cont’d)

The Three C’s

COLLABORATION, COORDINATION, AND COOPERATION


Current picture l.jpg
CURRENT PICTURE (cont’d)

  • MINNESOTA JUDICIAL BRANCH CREATED A DRUG COURT INITIATIVE ADVISORY COMMITTEE (DCI)

  • PURPOSE AND CHARGE

    1. OVERSEE AND ADVISE POLICY FORMULATION AND IMPLEMENTATION

    A. DRUG COURT STANDARDS

    B. DRUG COURT GRANT DISTRIBUTION PROCESS AND

    STRUCTURE

    C. MUTI-DISCIPLINARY AND STATE-WIDE TRAINING

    D. KEY PERFORMANCE MEASURES FOR DRUG COURTS, EVALUATION,

    MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM (MIS)

    E. OTHER DUTIES AS ASSIGNED BY JUDICIAL COUNCIL


Current picture cont d l.jpg
CURRENT (cont’d)PICTURE (cont’d)

  • STUDY OF FUNDING STREAMS AND SERVICE PROVISIONS TO MN. DWI & ADULT DRUG COURTS

    • Identify service & funding structures for drug courts compared to traditional case processing

    • Identify obstacles to optimal service delivery for drug courts compared to traditional case processing

    • Determine reasons for funding inequities

    • Recommend alternatives for funding & service structures

    • Develop a methodology for a cost-benefit analysis of MN drug courts


Legislative initiative l.jpg
LEGISLATIVE INITIATIVE (cont’d)

  • JUDICIAL BRANCH BUDGET REQUEST

    INCLUDES FUNDING FOR ALL CRITICAL

    JUSTICE PARTNERS FOR PROBLEM SOLVING

    APPROACHES

  • SENTENCING GUIDELINES COMMISSION

    RECOMMENDED:

    1. RE-RANK 1ST AND 2nd DEGREE

    OFFENSES AND

    2. FUND THE JUDICIAL BRANCHES

    INITIATIVE FOR THE EXPANSION

    OF DRUG COURTS


Contact information l.jpg
CONTACT INFORMATION (cont’d)

The Honorable Joanne M. Smith

Judge of District Court

15 West Kellogg Boulevard, Suite 1530

St. Paul, Minnesota 55102

651-266-9190


ad