Southern Illinois Meth and Other Drugs Awareness Conference

1. Southern Illinois Meth and Other Drugs Awareness Conference Drug Courts in Illinois Judge Doug Simpson 7082324649 Bigred1955@aol.com

2. Who is this guy from Chicago? • Former adult probation officer • Former prosecutor • Former assistant attorney general • Former assistant public defender • Felony trial court Judge with Drug Court • Board member Illinois Assoc. of Drug Court Professionals

3. GOALS OF PRESENTATION • Disclaimer: please excuse my passion for Drug Court • Answer the why question ie “why do we need it, we already drug test……” • Answer the how question ie “ how can we do it with layoffs..” • Answer the cost question ie “ we cant afford it, we are a poor county….”

4. A bit about the Association.. 5 Officers 14 member Board of Directors Multidiciplinary model with probation, treatment and Judiciary Representing both large and small counties Annual training conference

5. Drug Courts: A Brief History Drug use in the US expanded with the crack cocaine epidemic of the mid-1980’s; the number of drug arrests skyrocketed The initial Criminal Justice System response was stricter laws that filled the US prisons As drug use was not influenced by the new laws, court dockets were overwhelmed and new strategies were developed to deal with the increase Expedited Drug Case Management, the early “Drug Courts” dealt with case processing issues only Even when mandated into treatment, most did not successfully complete.

6. Illinois Association of Drug Court ProfessionalsIADCP.ORG • Fall Conference September 16, 2010 • Holiday Inn Conference Center • Tinley Park, Illinois

7. NATIONAL DC INSTITUTE • Since 1998, NDCI has trained 18,652 drug court professionals in all fifty states and U.S. Territories; • Developed and disseminated 37 professional publications and fact sheets; • Over 351,000 total publications distributed through trainings, mailing list dissemination and personal requests.

9. With over 580 face-to-face congressional meetings in 2007, a letter of support signed by 49 members of the House of Representatives and a second letter of support signed by 34 Senators, coupled with literally thousands of letters and e-mails from you to your Members of Congress, we did the impossible. • 50% increase in Federal Drug Court Funding!

10. The Current Stateof Drug Courts

11. ILLINOIS • 33/100 Active drug courts • In urban, mid sized and rural counties • Southern / Central Illinois counties of Effingham, Jersey, Madison, Mason, Champaign, Saline, and St. Clair

12. Expansion of Drug Courts    (b) Whenever the county boards of 2 or more counties within the same judicial circuit shall determine that a single drug court program would best serve those counties, the county board of each such county shall adopt a resolution to the effect that there shall be a single drug court program serving those counties, and shall provide a copy of the resolution to the Chief Judge of the judicial circuit. Upon receipt of those resolutions, the Chief Judge shall establish or, in the case of an existing drug court program, re-organize a single drug court program to serve those counties. Public Act 96-0776, 730 ILCS 166/15, effective 1/1/10

13. Treatment Courts in Illinois • (730 ILCS 168/1)     Sec. 1. Short title. This Act may be cited as the Mental Health Court Treatment Act. • Illinois legislation mandated and created a committee to draft a “ Veterans Court Treatment Act”, which is House Bill 5241

14. TAKING DRUG COURTS TO SCALE • As of December 31 2008, more than 2,300 drug courts were operating in all 50 states. • Drug Courts annually serve approximately 120,000 people

15. 14,094,186 adult arrests were recorded in the United Statesin 2005 2/3 of Adults Test Positive for Drugs at Arrest

16. COST TO LOCK UP • National expenditures on corrections well exceed $60 Billion annually. • On average, stated spend $65,000 per bed per year to build new prisons and $ 23,876 per bed per year to operate them.

17. AFTER RELEASE • 60 to 80 percent of drug abusers commit a new crime (typically a drug-driven crime) after release from prison • Approximately 95 percent return to drug abuse after release from prison

18. PROVIDING TREATMENT WITHOUT ACCOUNTABILITY • Unless they are regularly supervised by a Judge, 60 to 80 percent drop out of treatment prematurely and few successfully graduate. • Rewards and sanctions imposed by Judge in open court with other participants present

19. DRUG COURTS • Quickly identify substance abusing offender • Place them under strict monitoring and supervision • Coupled with effective, individual and long term treatment services.

20. Essential Elements of Drug Court Non-adversarial process Non-traditional courtroom dynamic Intensive probation supervision Frequent and random drug testing Treatment partners with the probation Focus on collaboration among agencies and other parts of the court system Holistic approach to dealing with the drug addicted criminal offender

21. DC Benefits Team members… Collaboration by team members vitally important Focus on relationships between agencies can improve service delivery Focus on training for staff can educate them in their dealings with all addicted offenders Improved morale, job satisfaction and ability to “make a difference”

22. THERE IS NO “I” IN TEAM • Judiciary • Prosecution • Defense bar • Probation • Law enforcement • Mental health • Social service • Treatment communities

23. PROBATION’S ROLE • Ongoing and intensive (random) drug testing • Reporting to regularly scheduled status hearing before a judge and a drug court team with specialized expertise in the drug court model • Collaborate w tx and other social services for benefit of offender and family

24. DRUG COURT WORKS • In February 2005, the GAO issued a report confirming that Drug Courts • significantly improve substance abuse treatment outcomes • Substantially reduce crime • Produce greater cost benefits than other justice strategies

25. DRUG COURTS REDUCE CRIME • 75% of Drug Court graduates remain arrest-free at least two years after leaving the program. • Five independent “meta-analysis” have concluded that Drug Courts significantly reduce crime by as much as 35% in comparison to traditional case dispositions.

26. 20 Years of Research(Journal of American Medical Association) Not treating the offender is not an option Treating the offender improves public health Punishment alone is a futile and ineffective response to drug abuse failing as a public safety intervention for offenders whose criminal behavior is directly related to drug abuse. Treatment merged with judicial oversight in courts, prisons and jail-based treatment and reentry programs works Individuals receiving these services are 7 times more likely to be drug free and 3 times less likely to be rearrested than those not receiving treatment Only a small percentage of this population seek help voluntarily, in light of this, the criminal justice system provides a unique opportunity to intervene and disrupt the cycle of drug use. (Published January 2009)

27. THE GOOD NEWS... • In 2007, 16,000 individuals graduated from Drug Courts and more that 840 babies were born drug-free to Drug Court clients • A National Institute of Justice study found that a sample of 2,000 Drug Court graduates nationwide showed that only 16.4 percent were re-arrested and charged with a felony within one year.

28. DRUG COURTS SAVE MONEY • Eighteen rigorous cost/benefit studies have found average cost savings range from $4,000 to $12,000 per client. • The cost/benefit ration has been estimated to be as high as $3.36 for every $1.00 invested.

29. In California, Guam, Indiana, Michigan, Maryland, Missouri, New York, Nevada Oregon and Vermont Who is NPC Research? • In the past 10 years NPC has completed evaluation and research in over 75 drug courts • Adult, Juvenile and Family Treatment • (Dependency) Drug Courts

30. Team Involvement The Burning Questions • Does it matter if the treatment provider attends court sessions? • Is it important for the attorneys to attend team meetings (“staffings”)?

31. Courts That Required a Treatment Representative at Drug Court Sessions Had 9 Times Greater Savings Note: Difference is significant at p<.05

32. Drug Courts Where the Public Defender was Expected to Attend All Drug Court Team Meetings Had 8 Times Greater Savings Note: Difference is significant at p<.05 May 2008 NADCP 32

33. Drug Courts Where the Prosecutor was Expected to Attend Drug Court Team Meetings Had more than 2 Times Greater Savings Note: Difference is significant at p<.05 May, 2008 NADCP 33

34. The Judge The Burning Questions • How often should participants appear before the judge? • Is it more effective if rewards come from the judge? • How long should the judge stay on the drug court bench? Is longevity better or is it better to rotate regularly?

35. Drug Courts That Have the Judge be the Sole Provider of Rewards Had 2 Times Greater Cost Savings Note: Difference is significant at p<.05

36. Drug Court - Methamphetamine In one study comparing 8 different treatment programs for methamphetamine addiction, drug court produced the highest rates of abstinence from methamphetamine as measured by urine drug screen tests. In that same study, drug court produced the longest period of consecutive abstinence from methamphetamine, in some instances doubling, tripling and even quadrupling the length of time clients avoided using methamphetamine compared to other programs. In another study, abuse of methamphetamine was reduced by more than 50% for clients in a drug court program as compared to outpatient treatment alone without drug court supervision

37. Meth Study Cont… Attendance in treatment was also increased by over 40% for methamphetamine abusers in drug court as compared to other programs. Successful graduation rates from treatment increased by nearly 80% for clients in the drug court

38. WHAT CAN MY COUNTY DO? • Apply for planning /implementation grants • Seek training/ assistance from IADCP etc • Apply current resources • DC does not increase cases into the system, but allow better use of limited resources • Form “team” who all realize current system of arrest, IDOC, release, arrest isn’t working • Collaborate w local elected officials who see the scope of the problem and drug ct as a partial solution. ATTEND A GRADUATION TO SEE THE RESULTS. • Use innovative ways to make an impact (Pike counties box of candy)

40. Drug Court Related Links • http://www.ndci.org or www.nadcp.org • http://www.american.edu/justice • http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.org • http://www.samhsa.gov/csat • http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov.BJA • http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJS

41. REMEMBER WHEN…. YOU WERE YOUNG AND THINKING ABOUT “WHAT YOU WANT TO DO WHEN YOU GROW UP?” AND YOU DECIDED THAT YOU DIDN’T WANT TO MAKE THE BIG BUCKS BUT WANTED TO INSTEAD HELP PEOPLE ALL “PEOPLE”, WHETHER VICTIMS, ADDICTS, FAMILIES, COMMUNITIES, OFFENDERS

42. HOW BOUT THEM DAWGS?

43. REMEMBER WHEN… • AND TO HELP PEOPLE, YOU DECIDED TO GO INTO LAW ENF., MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES, LAW, ADDICTION COUNSELING….. • THE EVIDENCE IS CLEAR…………. DRUG COURT REDUCES REOFFENDING, KEEPS THE COMMUNITY SAFER AND BRINGS FAMILIES BACK TOGETHER

44. Missouri Chief Justice Price • Delivered speech to the joint session of Missouri legislature on the State of the Judiciary • “ We may have been tough on crime, but we have not been smart on crime.. We need to expand our drug courts now- two million dollars a year- until we reach capacity”