Key Moments in NADCP History ADULT DRUG COURT BEST PRACTICE STANDARDS
DOUGLAS B. MARLOWE, J.D., PH.D.
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF DRUG COURT PROFESSIONALS
Aspirational Enforceable
Citation Institution(s) No. Drug Courts
Arrests Reduced
Wilson et al. (2006)Campbell Collaborative
55 14%
Latimer et al. (2006)Canada Dept. ofJustice
66 9%
Shaffer (2010)University of Nevada
76 9%
Lowenkamp et al.(2005)
University of Cincinnati
22 8%
8%Aos et al. (2006)Washington State Inst. for Public Policy
57
Mitchell et al. (2012)U.S.F., G.M.U.& Penn. State
92 12%
Rempel et al. (2012)Urban Institute, CCI & RTI
23 13%
Adult Drug Courts
Substance Use
Any Drug Any Serious Drug
Marijuana Cocaine Opiates Amphetamines PCP0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
29%**
20%
12%+15%
6%
1% 0%**
46%
27%
21% 21%
7%
2% 2%
Drug Court (N = 764)Comparison Group (N = 383)
Saliva tests at 18 months
Rossman et al., 2011
0
10
20
30
40
50
Key Moments in NADCP HistoryIncarceration Rates
50%
Inc
arc
era
tio
n r
ate
*p < .05
Alternativebase rate
Drug Court:jail
Drug Court:prison
Sevigney et al., 2013
0
10
20
30
40
50
Key Moments in NADCP HistoryIncarceration Rates
50%
42%*
Inc
arc
era
tio
n r
ate 38%*
*p < .05
Alternativebase rate
Drug Court:jail
Drug Court:prison
Sevigney et al., 2013
Eligibility & exclusion criteria are based on empirical evidence
Assessment process is evidence-based
Key Moments in NADCP HistoryTarget Population
Key Moments in NADCP HistoryTarget Population
0
5
10
15
20
All subjects No crim. hx Crim. hx
Lowenkamp et al., 2005
Twice the reduction in re-arrests}
5%
10%*8%
HIGH RISK
Key Moments in NADCP HistoryTarget Population
0%
20%
40%
41%
21%
Pe
rce
nt
red
uc
tio
ns
in
re
cid
ivis
m
Carey et al. (2012)
Twice the reduction in re-arrests}
HIGH RISK
Key Moments in NADCP HistoryTarget Population
Carey et al. (2012)
0%10%20%30%40%50%
21%
37%
Nearly twice the cost benefit
} HIGH NEED
Eligibility & exclusion criteria are based on empirical evidence
Assessment process is evidence-basedA. Objective eligibility criteria
B. High-risk & high-need participants
C. Validated eligibility assessments
D. Criminal history disqualifications “Barring legal prohibitions . . .”
E. Clinical disqualifications “If adequate treatment is available . . . “
Key Moments in NADCP HistoryTarget Population
Equivalent opportunities to participate and succeed in Drug Court
Key Moments in NADCP HistoryHx Disadvantaged Groups
Minority RepresentationRace or Ethnicity Average % (SD) Range
Caucasian 62% (14%) 1% - 98%
African-American 21% (28%) 1% - 95%
Hispanic / Latino(a) 10% (17%) 0% - 95%
Native American 4% < 1% - 22%
Minority Representation
Minority Representation
0%
20%
40%
60%
Gen'l Pop. Arrestees DRUG COURT Probation Jail Prison
African-American
Hispanic39%
13%
29%
10%
21%
28%
44%
20%
16%
?
15%14%
Minority Representation
Minority Representation
0%
20%
40%
60%
Gen'l Pop. Arrestees DRUG COURT Probation Jail Prison
African-American
Hispanic39%
13%
29%
10%
21%
28%
44%
20%
16%
?
15%14%
Minority Representation
Poorer CJ Outcomes• Male gender
• Current age < 25 years
• Delinquency or substance abuse onset < 16 years
• Drug of choice (e.g., crack cocaine)
• Lower income or chronically unemployed
• Prior rehabilitation failures
• Antisocial Personality Disorder
• Familial history of crime or addiction
• Criminal or substance abuse associations
Risk for Treatment Failure
Poorer CJ Outcomes• Male gender
• Current age < 25 years
• Delinquency or substance abuse onset < 16 years
• Drug of choice (especially crack cocaine)
• Lower income or chronic unemployment
• Prior rehabilitation failures
• Antisocial Personality Disorder
• Familial history of crime or addiction
• Criminal or substance abuse associations
Risk for Treatment Failure
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
AfricanAmerican
Caucasian w/GED
Caucasianw/o GED
n = 65 n =114 n = 56
*
Vito & Tewksbury, 1998
Successful Graduation Rates
41.5%
21.9%
7.1%
African American Males 18 to 25
*
*
Culturally Proficient Treatment
Equivalent opportunities to participate and succeed in Drug CourtA. Equivalent access (intent & impact)
B. Equivalent retention
C. Equivalent treatment
D. Equivalent incentives & sanctions
E. Equivalent legal dispositions
F. Team training (remedial measures)
Key Moments in NADCP HistoryHx Disadvantaged Groups
Contemporary knowledge; active engagement; professional demeanor; leader among equals
Key Moments in NADCP HistoryRoles of the Judge
Judicial Term
Carey et al., 2012
Three times greater cost benefits}
Key Moments in NADCP HistoryConsistent Docket
0
20
40
60
80
1 2 3
39%
58%
51%
# judges presiding
Re
-arr
es
t ra
te
Best outcomes
*
Goldkamp et al., 2002
Key Moments in NADCP HistoryStructre
Twice the cost benefit}
Pre-Court Staffings
Carey et al. (2012)
Twice the cost benefits}
Key Moments in NADCP HistoryStructre
Twice the cost benefit}
Status Hearings
Carey et al. (2012)
Key Moments in NADCP HistoryStructre
Twice the cost benefit}
Length of Interactions
Carey et al. (2012)
43%
17%
Two and a half times the reduction in crime}
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Low Medium High
Key Moments in NADCP History Positive Judicial Qualities
3.6 *
0.7# C
rim
es
av
ert
ed
Rossman et al., 2011; Zweig et al., 2012
4.2 *
* p < .05
Contemporary knowledge; active engagement; professional demeanor; leader among equalsA. Professional trainingB. Length of termC. Consistent docketD. Pre-court staff meetingsE. Frequency of status hearingsF. Length of court interactionsG. Judicial demeanorH. Judicial decision-making
Key Moments in NADCP HistoryRoles of the Judge
Predictable, consistent, fair, and evidence-based
Key Moments in NADCP HistoryIncentives & Sanctions
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Low Medium High
Key Moments in NADCP History Predictable Responses
3.9 *
1.8
# C
rim
es
av
ert
ed 4.3 *
* p < .05
Rossman et al., 2011; Zweig et al., 2012
Predictable but flexible
Jail Sanctions
Carey et al., 2012
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Low Medium High
Key Moments in NADCP History Legal Leverage
1.4
4.1 *
# C
rim
es
av
ert
ed
2.0
* p < .05
Rossman et al., 2011; Zweig et al., 2012
Predictable, consistent, fair, and evidence-basedA. Advance noticeB. Opportunity to be heardC. Equivalent consequencesD. Professional demeanorE. Progressive sanctionsF. Licit substancesG. Therapeutic adjustmentsH. Incentivizing productivity
Key Moments in NADCP HistoryIncentives & Sanctions
Predictable, consistent, fair, and evidence-based
. . .
I. Phase promotionJ. Jail sanctionsK. TerminationL. Consequences of graduation and
termination (leverage)
Key Moments in NADCP HistoryIncentives & Sanctions (cont.)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Low Medium High (> 1/wk.)
Key Moments in NADCP HistoryTreatment Services
1.2
# C
rim
es
av
ert
ed
Rossman et al., 2011; Zweig et al., 2012
3.0
† p < .10
4.3 †
Frequency of sessions
Based on treatment needs and evidence-basedA. Continuum of care
“if adequate care is unavailable . . .”
B. In-custody treatment
C. Team representation
D. Treatment dosage and duration
E. Treatment modalities
F. Evidence-based treatments
G. Medications
Key Moments in NADCP HistorySubstance Abuse Treatment
Medically necessary or medically indicated, and reasonably available
Based on treatment needs and evidence-based
. . .
H. Provider training and credentials
I. Peer support groups
J. Continuing care
Key Moments in NADCP HistorySubstance Abuse Tx (cont.)
Responsivity needs, criminogenic needs, or maintenance needsA. Scope of needs in populationB. Timing and sequence of servicesC. Clinical case managementD. Mental health treatment (integrated +
medications)E. Trauma-informedF. Criminal thinkingG. Family & interpersonal counselingH. Vocational or educational counselingI. Medical or dental treatmentJ. Health-risk and overdose education
Key Moments in NADCP HistoryComplementary Services
Valid, timely and comprehensive
Key Moments in NADCP HistoryDrug & Alcohol Testing
Drug Courts That Performed Drug Testing Two or More Times Per Week Had Greater Cost Savings
Note 1: Difference is significant at p<.05
Drug Courts That Received Drug Test Results Within 48 Hours Had Greater Cost Savings
Valid, timely and comprehensiveA. Frequent testingB. Random testingC. Duration of testingD. Comprehensive panelsE. Witnessed collectionF. Valid specimensG. Valid & reliable procedures H. Rapid resultsI. Participant contract
Key Moments in NADCP HistoryDrug & Alcohol Testing
Routine monitoring of best practices and valid evaluations of effectivenessA. Adherence to best practices (annually)B. In-program outcomes (NRAC)C. Criminal recidivism (3 yrs.)D. Independent evaluations (5 yrs.)E. Electronic databaseF. Timely & reliable data entryG. Intent-to-treat analysesH. Valid comparison groupsI. Equivalent time at risk
Key Moments in NADCP HistoryMonitoring & Evaluation