Transcript Powerpoint - NPC Research

Implementation of the Ten Key
Components: Variations in Practice
Across 18 Drug Courts
Shannon Carey, Ph.D.
Mike Finigan, Ph.D.
NEADCP
October 21, 2008
Informing policy,
improving programs
4380 SW Macadam Ave., Ste. 530
Portland, OR 97239
503.243.2436
Research Team
•
•
•
•
•
Dr. Shannon Carey
Dr. Michael Finigan
Dr. Kimberly Pukstas
Sarah Martin
Rich Mackin
Funding provided by the
National Institute of Justice (NIJ).
Project Inception
• Between 1996– 2008, NPC Research
has conducted over 75 drug court
evaluations.
• Evaluations include process, outcome
and cost measures.
• Courts represent geographic diversity.
• NIJ and NPC Research partner together
to look for larger trends.
Research Questions
• How do drug courts implement the
ten key components?
• Which practices are consistently
implemented across sites?
• Which practices vary?
• Can we link variations in practice
to outcomes and costs????
Drug Court Ten Key
Components
• National Association of Drug Court
Professionals, 1997
• List of ten operational practices that
help define a drug court
• Widely accepted by drug court
administrators
• Provide guidelines – not a manual
Methods
• Select courts for
review (n = 18)
• Qualitative data
• Identify gaps and
coding
collect additional data
• Organize measures by
when appropriate
component
• Analyze data
• Standardize reporting • Identify significant
variation (75% rule)
Component #1:
Drug Courts Integrate Alcohol
and Other Drug Treatment
Services With Justice System
Case Processing
Component #1:
Similarities
• Group Counseling
(100%)
• Individual counseling
(78%)
• Support group
attendance (95%)
• Tx rep on team (89%)
• Tx members provides
written progress
reports to court (79%)
• Tx member
participates in
steering/oversight
committee (78%)
Component #1:
Differences
• 61.5% of drug courts offered more than one
tx agency to drug court participants
• 66.7% of drug courts required the treatment
rep is required to attend drug court sessions
Component #2:
Using a non-adversarial
approach, prosecution &
defense counsel promote public
safety while protecting
participants’ due process rights.
Component #2:
Similarities
• A reduction/elimination of potential jail
time is an incentive for participation
(100%).
• Prosecution & defense present a united
front in court sessions (86%).
• Defense attorney attends all sessions
(82%).
Component #2:
Differences
• Allows non-drug related
charges (56%)
• Allows both felony and
misdemeanors (53%)
• Admits participates
post-plea/conviction
(68%)
• Unsuccessful clients
receive original
sentence (29%)
• Prosecution/defense
often disagree outside
courtroom (27%)
• Prosecution attends all
team mtgs (64%)
• Prosecution attends all
court sessions (61%)
• Defense retains
traditional role (51%)
Component #3:
Eligible Participants are
Identified Early and Promptly
Placed in the Drug Court
Program
Component #3:
Similarities
• A central intake is used to pace clients
in program (100%)
• Eligibility requirements have been
agreed upon and are written down
(94%)
Component #3:
Differences
• Use substance use screening tool
(71%)
• Use mental health screen (35%)
• No more than 30 days pass from arrest
to drug court entry (61%)
• Caseload fewer than 100 (59%)
• Waitlist (41%)
Component #4:
Drug courts provide access to a
continuum of alcohol,
drug, and other related
treatment and rehabilitation
services
Component #4:
Similarities
• Offer treatment in phases (100%)
• Completion in 3-4 phases (89%)
• Offer education/employment services
(78%)
• Offer additional wraparound services
(83%)
Component #4:
Differences
• Completion takes 1 yr or longer (72%)
• Aftercare is offered (59%)
• Guidelines on the frequency of group
counseling (66%)
• Guidelines on the frequency of
individual counseling (30%)
Component #5:
Abstinence is monitored by
frequent alcohol and other
drug testing
Component #5:
Similarities
• Random schedule (100%)
• Urinalysis (100%)
• Breath tests (83%)
• Bracelet monitoring (24%)
• Hair tests (19%)
• Blood tests (6%)
Component #5:
Differences
• In phase 1, tests are collected at least 2
per week (71%)
• Tx agency collects tests (39%)
• Call-in system for clients (61%)
• Results avail within 48 hrs (53%)
• 90 days clean before graduation (47%)
Component #6:
A coordinated strategy governs
drug court responses to
participant compliance
Component #6:
Similarities
• Incarceration used as sanction (100%)
• Graduated sanctions (94%)
• Small gifts/rewards (83%)
• Policies are written (83%)
• Policies shared with client (85%)
Component #6:
Differences
• Sanctions occur in advance of
scheduled hearing (72%)
• Support groups used as sanction (50%)
• Tx sessions decreased as reward (61%)
• Testing decreased as reward (28%)
• Judge is sole provider of rewards (50%)
and sanctions (44%)
Component #7:
Ongoing judicial interaction
with each drug court
participant is essential
Component #7:
Similarities
• Judge attends all sessions (100%)
• Judge attends all team mtgs
(100%)
• Judge attends all policy mtgs
(100%)
• Judge receives written progress
reports on clients (77%)
Component #7:
Differences
• Judge assigned to court indefinitely
(50%)
• In first phase, clients appear before
judge 1 per week (39%)
• In final phase, clients appear before
judge at least 1 per month (50%)
Component #8:
Monitoring and evaluation
measure the achievement of
program goals and gauge
effectiveness
Component #8:
Similarities
• DC staff routinely collect and report
program stats (100%)
• DC has been evaluated by an
independent evaluator (100%)
• Maintain electronic database (94%)
• Database used for case mgt (81%)
Component #8:
Differences
• Critical data for evaluation maintained in
paper files (68%)
• Evaluation results have been used to
modify drug court procedures (54%)
• Participated in more than 1 evaluation
(33%)
Component #9:
Continuing interdisciplinary
education promotes effective
drug court planning,
implementation, and operations
Component #9
Similarities
• Members of drug court team receive
routine training (100%)
• Trainings are offered to team members
at least once per year (89%)
Component #9
Differences
• All new hires complete a formal training
or orientation (69%)
• All members on the received drug court
training (50%)
• Prior to the court’s implementation,
team members received training (64%)
Component #10:
Forging partnerships among drug
courts, public agencies, and
community-based organizations
generates local support
and enhances drug court program
effectiveness.
Component #10
Similarities
• Team includes: Judge (100%)
Coordinator (94%)
Public Defender (89%)
District Attorney (83%)
Treatment Rep (89%)
Community Rep (17%)
Component #10
Differences
• Team includes Probation (72%)
• Team includes Law Enforcement (41%)
• Steering Committee includes
Community Representatives (58%)
Conclusion
• Drug courts still have a lot of
discretion in how they implement the
ten key components
• Results suggest reasons
why some courts cost more
to operate
• Results suggest reasons
why some courts have
better outcomes
Next Steps
• Link process findings to cost and
outcome data
• Continue to add new courts to sample
• Look for interactions related process,
outcome, cost
Questions?
• NPC Research:
http://www.npcresearch.com
• National Institute of Justice:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/
• Contact Dr. Kimberly Pukstas:
Phone: 207-626-5013
Email: [email protected]