New Mexico DWI Drug Court Evaluation Year 1 Summary Report

Transcription

1 New Mexico DWI Drug Court Evaluation Year 1 Summary Report Submitted to: Angela Peinado Statewide Program Manager New Mexico Administrative Office of the Courts Submitted by: NPC Research Portland, Oregon December SW Macadam Ave., Suite 575 Portland, OR (503)

2

3 New Mexico DWI Drug Court Program Evaluation Year 1 Summary Report Submitted By NPC Research Katherine Kissick, B.A. Shannon M. Carey, Ph.D. December 2011 Informing policy, improving programs

4

5 Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS BACKGROUND... 1 Evaluation Description and Purpose... 1 YEAR 1 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS... 3 Commendations and Recommendations Across Three Programs... 3 Commendations... 3 Recommendations... 5 Commendations and Recommendations for the Administrative Office of the Courts... 7 Commendations for the AOC... 7 Recommendations for the AOC... 7 Additional Resources... 9 REFERENCES APPENDIX A: NEW MEXICO DWI DRUG COURT ASSESSMENT PROJECT STAFF APPENDIX B: LIST OF POSSIBLE PROGRAM REWARDS AND SANCTIONS APPENDIX C: SAMPLE OF DRUG COURT REWARD AND SANCTION GUIDELINES APPENDIX D: LIST OF DATA ELEMENTS FOR PROGRAM SELF-MONITORING AND EVALUATION i

6

7

8

9 Background BACKGROUND D rug courts and DWI courts are designed to guide offenders identified as drug or alcohol-addicted into treatment that will reduce substance dependence and improve the quality of life for offenders and their families. DWI courts specifically target repeat driving-while-intoxicated (DWI) offenders with the goal of protecting public safety. Benefits to society take the form of reductions in crime and future DWIs, resulting in reduced costs to taxpayers and increased public safety. DWI drug court programs follow both the 10 Key Components of Drug Courts (NADCP, 1997) and the 10 Guiding Principles of DWI Courts (NCDC, 2005). In the typical DWI drug court program, participants are closely supervised by a judge who is supported by a team of agency representatives operating outside of their traditional roles. The team typically includes a drug court coordinator, case managers, substance abuse treatment providers, prosecuting attorneys, defense attorneys, law enforcement officers, and parole and probation officers who work together to provide needed services to drug court participants. Prosecuting and defense attorneys modify their traditional adversarial roles to support the treatment and supervision needs of program participants. Drug court programs blend the resources, expertise and interests of a variety of jurisdictions and agencies. Drug courts have been shown to be effective in reducing criminal recidivism (GAO, 2005), improving the psycho-social functioning of offenders (Kralstein, 2010), and reducing taxpayer costs due to positive outcomes for drug court participants (including fewer re-arrests, less time in jail and less time in prison) (Carey & Finigan, 2004; Carey, Finigan, Waller, Lucas, & Crumpton, 2005). Some drug courts have been shown to cost less to operate than processing offenders through business-as-usual in the court system (Carey & Finigan, 2004; Carey et al., 2005). DWI courts, specifically, have been shown to be effective in reducing recidivism (both of DWIs and other crimes) and in reducing taxpayer costs due to positive outcomes for DWI court participants (including fewer re-arrests, less time in jail and less time in prison) (Carey, Fuller, Kissick, Taylor, & Zold-Kilbourn, 2008). Evaluation Description and Purpose In 2010, the New Mexico Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) was awarded a SAMHSA grant to enhance existing DWI drug courts and implement new DWI drug courts in the state. As part of the enhancement/implementation grant, the New Mexico AOC hired NPC Research to perform a process and outcome evaluation in three DWI drug courts in Dona Ana, Santa Fe, and Valencia counties. Located in Portland, Oregon, NPC Research has conducted research and program evaluation for over 20 years. Its clients have included the Department of Justice (including the National Institute of Justice and the Bureau of Justice Assistance); the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (CSAP and CSAT in particular); state court administrative offices in many states including Oregon, California, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, and Missouri; the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation; and many other local and state government agencies. NPC Research has conducted process, outcome and cost evaluations of drug courts nationally and has performed best practices research examining drug and DWI court practices related to significant reductions in recidivism and higher cost savings. Having completed over 125 drug court evalua- 1

10 New Mexico DWI Drug Court Evaluation Year 1 Summary Report tions (including adult, juvenile, DWI, reentry and family treatment drug courts), NPC is one of the most experienced firms in this area of evaluation research. The research team worked with the staff of the New Mexico AOC, as well as the individual county DWI drug court programs. The process evaluation examined the extent to which the DWI drug court programs are implementing the 10 Key Components of drug courts as well as the 10 Guiding Principles of DWI Courts and the best practices related to positive outcomes. Activities included administration of an online assessment, site visits to each of the three DWI drug courts, interviews in person and/or by telephone with the program coordinators and other team members, and facilitated meetings to review program recommendations. The methods employed for this process evaluation are described in more detail in the individual program reports. A synthesis of the information collected through these activities provided NPC with a good understanding of each of the DWI drug courts organization and current processes. An examination of the findings across all three programs provided a broader look of the performance of these programs in general, including best practices and recommendations that were common across programs as well as recommendations for the AOC at the state level. 2 December 2011

11

12

13 Year 1 Summary of Findings YEAR 1 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Commendations and Recommendations Across Three Programs The three DWI drug court programs who participated in process assessments in the first year of this three year evaluation were the Dona Ana County, Santa Fe County and Valencia County Magistrate DWI Drug Court Programs. All three programs are designed to take approximately 12 months to complete. The general program population consists of repeat DWI offenders and the programs have a reported capacity to serve approximately 30 to 36 participants at one time. Overall, all three counties have implemented their DWI drug court program within the guidelines of the 10 Key Components and 10 Guiding Principles. There were several common best practices in place across all three programs. COMMENDATIONS Participation in evaluation. Research has demonstrated that drug courts that have participate in an evaluation and make changes to the program based on the feedback have significantly better outcomes including 50% greater reductions in recidivism rate and twice the cost savings (Carey, Finigan, & Pukstas, 2008; Carey, Waller, & Weller, 2010). The recommendations in this report are based on research in many drug courts and on practical experience working with individual courts and collaborating with people who work extensively in the drug court field. All three programs reviewed the findings of their evaluations and agreed to make modifications to their programs in accordance with those recommendations that were practical and feasible for them to implement. A law enforcement representative is included on the team. All three programs have law enforcement as a regular team member. Drug court programs that included a representative from law enforcement on the drug court team had 88% greater reductions in recidivism and 44% higher cost savings compared to programs that did not include law enforcement (Carey, Mackin, & Finigan, in press). These programs demonstrate a commitment to developing and maintaining an integrated drug court team and following the bestpractice guidelines for achieving success in this area. There is a dedicated prosecuting attorney and defense attorney assigned to the DWI drug court. Research in 69 programs across the U.S. showed that programs that include a prosecutor and defense attorney at staffings and in court sessions have significantly decreased recidivism and higher cost savings (Carey, Finigan, & Pukstas, 2008; Carey, Mackin, & Finigan, in press). Even in times when there was a loss of funding and resources, these programs and teams have made an effort to maintain attorneys on the team and keep them trained, when possible. The whole drug court team, they are behind me. DWI Court Participant Drug and alcohol treatment is coordinated through a single organization. Research shows that having one or two treatment providing agencies is significantly related to better program outcomes including higher cost savings and lower recidivism (Carey, Fini- 3

14 New Mexico DWI Drug Court Evaluation Year 1 Summary Report gan, & Mackin, in process). These programs should be commended for following best practices in this area. Court appearances are required every other week. Two of the three programs required court appearances every two weeks. Research has shown that programs with court appearances once every 2 weeks have better outcomes (Marlowe, Festinger, Lee, Dugosh, & Benasutti, 2006; Carey, Finigan, & Pukstas, 2008; Carey, Mackin, & Finigan, in press) except in very high-risk highly drug dependant populations where weekly court appearances may be appropriate. The judge has been presiding over the program for at least two years. Recent research demonstrates that drug courts where judges preside over the program for at least two years have significantly lower recidivism. Experience and longevity are correlated with more positive participant outcomes and significantly higher cost savings (Carey, Finigan, & Pukstas, 2008; Finigan, Carey, & Cox, 2007). Everybody on the team really is helpful and [works] with you. They treat you with respect; they treat you like a person. Focus Group Participants The programs have recruited back up judges. Those programs that did not already have a back-up judge at the time of the evaluation have now recruited a back-up judge. Having a back-up judge who is familiar with and trained in the drug court model is highly recommended. In the case of illness or vacation of the current judge a trained back-up judge can provide some consistency and sureness for the program participants. Also, if the current judge eventually wishes to leave the program, having a back up DWI drug court judge allows an easier transition from the current to the incoming judge. The backup judge will already understand the drug court model (and understand his/her role in the program). If possible, allow the incoming judge to observe DWI drug court hearings and learn directly from the experience of the sitting judge. And, in the event of a transition in the future, try to arrange time for the current judge to be available for consultation or questions from the new judge. Participants are required to stay through the entire court hearing to take full advantage of the hearing as a learning experience for participants. Because DWI drug court hearings are a forum for educating all participants and impacting their behavior, it is recommended that the court continue to require all participants to stay for the entire hearing both to observe consequences (both good and bad) and to see how some people who have many challenges are able to succeed and make positive, healthy choices and changes in their lives. The DWI drug court teams collect and analyze electronic data about participants. These programs have successfully integrated the AOC s electronic database into their practices. Best practices research shows that programs that collect and review their data to make changes that will enhance their program practices have very large reductions in recidivism and much higher cost savings that program that do not collect data (Carey, Mackin, & Finigan, in press). These programs should continue to use data for program reviews and planning, such as to inform the team about the types of participants who are 4 December 2011

15 Year 1 Summary of Findings most and least successful in the program. A list of data important for participant case management, program self-monitoring and evaluation is included in Appendix D. Rapid results from drug testing. All three teams reported receiving drug tests results within 48 hours of submission. Research has shown that obtaining drug testing results within 48 hours is associated with higher graduation rates and lower recidivism (Carey, Pukstas and Finigan, 2008; Carey, Mackin, & Finigan, in press). Regular training for all team members. All three programs have invested in regular training for staff and are commended on their dedication to educating team members on a regular basis. Programs that train all drug court team members have significantly better outcomes (Carey, Finigan, & Pukstas, 2008; Carey, Finigan, & Mackin, in press). Community partnerships. All three programs have successfully established partnerships across community agencies and should continue to look for additional community support as well as foster and build-upon current partnerships I finally realized I can t do both. I either do the drugs and go to jail or do the program. I chose the program and I m glad I did because it really changed my life. I m a better father, I m a better son, I m a better boss; I m just a better person in general. DWI Court Participant Although all three programs are functioning well within the 10 Key Components, NPC s review of program operations resulted in some recommendations for program enhancements. It is recognized that it will not always be feasible to implement all recommendations due to budgetary, policy or infrastructure limitations. It is important for the team to be as flexible as possible and do what they can to work around the barriers that are not changeable, in order to accomplish the ultimate goal of doing what is best for the participants. RECOMMENDATIONS The following recommendations represent the primary areas of suggested program improvement that arose for all three programs during the interviews, focus groups and observations during the site visits. Background information, more detailed explanations, and additional recommendations are presented within each of the 10 Key Components and 10 Guiding Principles in each of the individual site reports. There were only four areas where there were recommendations that were consistent across the three programs. Rewards and Sanctions: Perform a regular review of the sanctions and rewards process. It is common for programs to regularly adjust their sanctions and incentives process to fit their participant population and to continue to refine and standardize their process. Recommendations include explaining the reasons for rewards and sanctions in court, increasing the frequency of incentives, including low cost tangible rewards in court, using jail sparingly and having a written schedule of potential incentives and sanctions for specific target behaviors. Because drug courts often impose rewards and sanctions on an individualized basis, teams needs to take into consideration the appearance of equal treatment for similar infractions and the importance and challenge of repeatedly communicating the rationale behind decisions regarding both sanctions and 5

16 New Mexico DWI Drug Court Evaluation Year 1 Summary Report incentives. Participants need to be as clear as possible on which of their behaviors result in rewards and which behaviors result in sanctions and why so that they can learn how to change their behavior in positive ways. Although sanctions are integral to decreasing or eliminating negative behaviors, incentives are the key to learning appropriate and positive behaviors to replace the negative ones. Swift program entry: Consider ways to shorten arrest to entry time for eligible participants. This is a common issue across the majority of drug and DWI court programs in the U.S. Research has shown that the shorter the time between arrest and entry (i.e., within 50 days), the better the recidivism and cost outcomes. Although it is not always feasible to decrease this time frame to the 50 day mark, programs can always strive to make the time as brief as possible in their jurisdiction. These programs should review their referral and assessment process on a regular basis (perhaps once per year) to determine if any changes have occurred that would result in places in the process where time could be saved. While it may not be possible to shorten the time from arrest to referral, there might be strategies to identify people earlier in the adjudication proceedings, making the time from sentencing to entry considerably shorter. Some teams already discussed the possibility of a better screening process with the defense attorney and the DA s office. Training: Train all team members specifically on the drug court model, incentives and sanctions, collaboration and drug court roles. Although all three programs have invested time in training and were commended on this, there were some team members in each program who either had not received recent training, or had not been trained on some important drug court topics. The drug court model requires specialized training for all team members to understand their specific roles on the drug court team, and the science and techniques underlying behavior effective behavior modification and treatment of addiction. Training for all team members has been demonstrated to produce significantly lower recidivism and greater program completion rates, as well as to save criminal justice system resources that can then be used to support the processing of greater numbers of offenders (Carey, Finigan, & Pukstas, 2008; Carey, Mackin, & Finigan, in press). The AOC will continue to work to offer needed trainings and the DWI court staff may also want to make special requests where they see a training need and look into other low cost training opportunities. Evaluation: Share evaluation and assessment results. The site specific reports recommended that the teams set aside time to discuss the overall findings and recommendations in their reports, both to appreciate their accomplishments, and determine what program adjustments will be made. The teams at all three sites did set aside this time and made decisions about what recommendations they intended to implement and how they would implement them. As described earlier in this report, research has shown that programs that participate in evaluation and make adjustments in their programs in response to feedback have significantly better participant outcomes. Overall, the Dona Ana, Santa Fe, and Valencia County DWI Drug Courts have implemented programs that follow the guidelines of the 10 Key Components of drug courts and 10 Guiding Principles of DWI courts. In addition to the site specific commendations and recommendations, the interviews with program and AOC staff resulted in recommendations at the state level for the New Mexico AOC. The following section of the report lists the state level commendations and recommendations. 6 December 2011

17 Year 1 Summary of Findings Commendations and Recommendations for the Administrative Office of the Courts In accordance with our contract with the AOC, NPC Research has completed interviews, observations and process reviews of the Valencia County, Santa Fe County and Dona Ana County DWI drug courts and has provided site specific feedback to each of the three programs. In addition, the following commendations and recommendations were developed based on repeated observations of program staff and their activities as well as from combined feedback received across all three sites that participated in our evaluation. The goal of these commendations and recommendations is to increase DWI drug court effectiveness and improve the relationship between the AOC and the DWI drug courts. COMMENDATIONS FOR THE AOC 1. Evaluation. The New Mexico Administrative Office of the Courts secured funding to engage in program evaluation of their DWI drug courts and has supported the programs in implementing recommended enhancements. In addition, the AOC received state level feedback and responded by making enhancements to their own practices. These activities have been shown to be related to substantial improvements in program outcomes including significant reductions in recidivism and increased cost savings. 2. Training and technical assistance. The AOC has provided regular training and technical assistance including information on best practices to all the New Mexico DWI drug court programs. Training for drug court team members is related to significantly better participant outcomes. We suggest that the AOC continue to provide trainings and work to ensure that all DWI drug court team members, regardless of role, receive regular training. 3. State level oversight. Oversight of the DWI drug court programs at the state level helps to ensure consistency in quality and best practices across programs and also provides access to training and technical assistance for all programs to continue to maintain and improve program operations. This oversight also provides a forum for programs to ask questions and request assistance as needed. 4. Data Collection. The New Mexico AOC has provided a template Access based database for programs to use for participant tracking. This database collects all of the basic data elements recommended by best practices. The data is uploaded quarterly to the AOC. All three sites included in this evaluation use the AOC database to collect information on participant tracking. These data include treatment information entered by the DWI drug court coordinator. The program monitors the information it collects on program participants to assess whether the program is moving towards its goals. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE AOC The following recommendations were originally provided to the AOC in September In the three months since that time, the AOC has already implemented the majority of these suggestions and the program team members have communicated how much they appreciate these changes and how much it has improved their job satisfaction as well as improved the functioning of the programs. 1. Remove supervision from the role of the Magistrate s DWI Drug Court Program Supervisor and move it to a centralized individual such as the Statewide Program Manager. 7

18 New Mexico DWI Drug Court Program Evaluation Summary Report Year 1 The program coordinators at all three DWI drug courts are educated professionals that do not need day to day supervision for time management or for how best to complete their tasks. Because the coordinators at each site are most familiar with the daily needs of their program, they are best able to determine how to spend their time effectively. The need for any improvement in coordinator and program effectiveness can be determined by whether the program is meeting specific goals for DWI drug court programs as outlined by the AOC. If and when day to day oversight or direction is necessary, this can be best performed collaboratively by the Statewide Program Manager with local staff who understand the local context and the needs of their specific program, such as the DWI drug court judge. 2. When the AOC is communicating their requirements to the program (e.g., to implement best practices), we recommend that they communicate the standards (with input from the program teams) and then allow the local programs to determine how best to implement those standards in their jurisdictions. Allow for community and team individuality. Methods that work for one program, may not work for the others. 3. Decrease the frequency of AOC site visits and video calls with program coordinators. For example, a visit from AOC staff every other month or quarterly along with monthly conference calls should be sufficient to determine whether the program is meeting its goals. This will allow coordinators to focus on their programs and allow the Magistrate DWI Drug Court Program Supervisor to focus on finding resources for the programs she works with and other training and technical assistance opportunities. 4. The AOC should plan site visits in advance and work with the coordinator and judge to determine what date would be least disruptive to their regular work. This shows respect and understanding for their busy schedules and the professional work they do. 5. Take advantage of the expertise that exists within each of the DWI court team members and seek input in decision making about standards as well as the allocation of grant funds to meet program specific needs. 6. The AOC has provided regular training, which is a best practice. Continue to provide training and allow sites to decide which team members are in the most need of training. (Best practices show that training for all team members is related to the best outcomes including larger reductions in recidivism and higher cost savings). In particular provide opportunities for the full teams to be trained together to address their specific needs either by bringing trainers into the local jurisdiction or by sending the full team to specific trainings. (Encourage the teams to collaborate with the AOC to apply for grant funding for training.) 7. Continue to research best practices, and also research funding opportunities and community resources. We suggest providing an newsletter to the drug courts (possibly written by the Magistrate s DWI Drug Court Program Supervisor) with the latest news in funding/grant opportunities, research updates, upcoming training, etc. A sample newsletter from another state is available from NPC. 8. The job description and duties of the Magistrate s DWI Drug Court Program Supervisor could be adjusted in the following ways to address the above recommendations. Duties would include: Researching the latest information on drug court best practices and providing the New Mexico DWI drug court programs with this information (e.g., through a newsletter) 8 December 2011

19 Year 1 Summary of Findings Researching new funding sources (e.g., grant opportunities and community resources) and providing that information to the DWI drug court teams statewide. Obtaining necessary skills in grant writing when funding opportunities arise. Collaborating with the teams to assist them in determining ways that the programs, within their local context, can most effectively and feasibly perform best practices Providing reminders to the coordinators for each program of any reporting requirements required by grants and/or the AOC and providing any necessary technical assistance in the reporting process. Other duties as determined to be helpful to the AOC/Statewide Program Manager (e.g., monitoring budgets, managing grant requirements, state requirements). 9. Recognize program successes so that programs will know what to continue doing as well as areas where they can improve. Taken as a whole, the DWI drug courts in New Mexico that participated in this evaluation are following the 10 Key Components of drug courts and the 11 Guiding Principles of DWI Courts as well as learning about and following the latest research based best practices available in the literature. The New Mexico Administrative Office has demonstrated their commitment to evaluation and program improvement and has shown itself to be open to feedback and improvement not only for the DWI drug court programs it oversees but of its own practices. New Mexico is truly on the cutting edge in implementing programs that are proven repeatedly in research to decrease criminal justice recidivism, improve the lives of the offenders that participate in them as well as substantially increase public safety. Additional Resources The appendices at the end of this document contain resources to assist drug court programs in making any changes based on the feedback and recommendation in this report. Appendix B contains a list of incentives and sanctions used in drug court programs across the country for use in developing new ideas for court and treatment responses that will change participant behavior in more positive directions. Appendix C provides an example from a currently operating drug court of their reward and sanction guidelines. Appendix D provides a list of data elements that programs should collect for case management, self-monitoring and evaluation. Other important and useful resources for drug courts are available at this Web address: 9

20

21 References REFERENCES Carey, S. M., & Finigan, M. W. (2004). A detailed cost analysis in a mature drug court setting: a cost-benefit evaluation of the Multnomah County Drug Court. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 20(3), Carey, S. M., Finigan, M. W., & Pukstas, K. (2008). Exploring the Key Components of Drug Courts: A Comparative Study of 18 Adult Drug Courts on Practices, Outcomes and Costs. Submitted to the U. S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, May NIJ Contract 2005M114. Carey, S. M., Finigan, M. W., Waller, M. S., Lucas, L. M., & Crumpton, D. (2005). California drug courts: A methodology for determining costs and benefits, Phase II: Testing the methodology, final report. Submitted to the California Administrative Office of the Courts, November Submitted to the USDOJ Bureau of Justice Assistance in May Carey, S. M., Fuller, B. E., Kissick, K., Taylor, E., & Zold-Kilbourn, P. (2008). Michigan DUI Courts Outcome Evaluation, final report. Submitted to Michigan Supreme Court. Carey, S. M., Mackin, J. R., & Finigan, M. W. (in press). What Works? The 10 Key Components of Drug Courts: Research Based Best Practices. NDCI Drug Court Review. Carey, S. M., Waller, M. S., & Weller, J. M. (in process). California Drug Court Cost Study: Phase III: Statewide Costs and Promising Practices, final report. Submitted to the California Administrative Office of the Courts April Finigan, M. W., Carey, S. M., & Cox, A. (2007). The impact of a mature drug court over 10 years of operation: Recidivism and costs. Final report submitted to the U. S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, July NIJ Contract 2005M073. Government Accounting Office (GAO) (2005). Adult Drug Courts: Evidence indicates recidivism reductions and mixed results for other outcomes. February 2005 Report. Available at Kralstein, D. (2010, June). The impact on drug use and other psychosocial outcomes: Results from NIJ s Multisite Adult Drug Court Evaluation. Presentation at the 16 th Annual Training Conference of the National Association of Drug Court Professionals, Boston, MA. Marlowe, D. B., Festinger, D. S., Lee, P. A., Dugosh, K. L., & Benasutti, K. M. (2006). Matching Judicial Supervision to Client Risk Status in Drug Court. Crime and Delinquency, 52(1), National Association of Drug Court Professionals Drug Court Standards Committee (1997). Defining drug courts: The key components. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Drug Court Programs Office. NCDC (2005). National Center for DWI Courts: 10 Guiding Principles of DWI Courts. 11

22

23 APPENDIX A: NEW MEXICO DWI DRUG COURT ASSESSMENT PROJECT STAFF 13

24

25 Shannon M. Carey, Ph.D. Dr. Shannon Carey, Vice President of Development and Senior Research Associate at NPC Research, has worked in the areas of criminal justice and substance abuse treatment for over 10 years, particularly in the area of drug courts and cost analyses. Her experience includes managing, designing, and implementing evaluations of programs related to substance abuse prevention and treatment, and adult criminal justice and juvenile justice policy. Altogether, she has been involved in performing process, outcome and/or cost evaluations in over 100 adult, juvenile, family and DWI drug courts in California, Indiana, Michigan, Oregon, Maryland, Missouri, Vermont, and Guam. Dr. Carey has also performed several NIJ-funded projects including a detailed cost-benefit analysis of the drug court in Portland, Oregon; an examination of 10 years of data from the same Portland drug court; a study investigating changes in drug courts with the implementation of Prop 36 in California; and a paper exploring the 10 Key Components, outcomes, and cost in 18 drug courts in four different states. She is currently involved in building Web-based tools in California and Michigan that drug courts can use to determine their own costs and benefits. Dr. Carey has also acted as consultant for the Portland Police Bureau on economic crime (such as identity theft) and juvenile offender issues. Kate Kissick Kate Kissick, Project Coordinator and Data Manager at NPC Research, joined the company in June Since then, she has contributed to multiple process, outcome and cost studies of problem solving courts around the country including a statewide evaluation of Oregon courts. She has worked with a variety of programs including family, drug, DUI and re-entry courts. Ms. Kissick has experience coordinating research and evaluation projects. Her primary responsibilities include conducting site visits, creating and managing database and data storage systems, extracting and collecting data from large administrative data sources, cleaning and analyzing qualitative and quantitative data, conducting key stakeholder interviews, conducting focus groups and writing reports. Additional duties include: hiring, training, and supervising project staff; data entry; quality control; and proposal writing. 15

26

27 APPENDIX B: LIST OF POSSIBLE PROGRAM REWARDS AND SANCTIONS 17

28

29 Examples of Rewards and Sanctions Used By Other Drug Courts Drug Court Responses to Participant Behavior (Rewards and Sanctions) Ideas and Examples The purpose of rewards and sanctions in drug court programs is to help shape participant behavior in the direction of drug court goals and other positive behaviors. That is, to help guide offenders away from drug use and criminal activity and toward positive behaviors, including following through on program requirements. Drug court teams, when determining responses to participant behavior, should be thinking in terms of behavior change, not punishment. The questions should be, What response from the team will lead participants to engage in positive, pro-social behaviors? Sanctions will assist drug court participants in what not to do, while rewards will help participants learn they should do. Rewards teach that it can be a pleasant experience to follow through on program requirements and in turn, to follow through on positive life activities. It is important to incorporate both rewards and sanctions. Below are some examples of drug court team responses, rewards and sanctions that have been used in drug courts across the United States. Rewards No cost or low cost rewards Applause and words of encouragement from drug court judge and staff Have judge come off the bench and shake participant s hand. Photo taken with Judge A Quick List. Participants who are doing well get called first during court sessions and are allowed to leave when done. A white board or magnetic board posted during drug court sessions where participants can put their names when they are doing well. There can be a board for each phase so when participants move from one phase to the next, they can move their names up a phase during the court session. Decrease frequency of program requirements as appropriate fewer self-help (AA/NA) groups, less frequent court hearings, less frequent drug tests. Lottery or fishbowl drawing. Participants who are doing well have their names put in the lottery. The names of these participants are read out in court (as acknowledgement of success) and then the participant whose name is drawn receives a tangible reward (candy, tickets to movies or other appropriate events, etc.) Small tangible rewards such as bite size candies. Key chains, or other longer lasting tangible rewards to use as acknowledgements when participants move up in phase. More visitation with children 19

30 Higher cost (generally tangible) rewards Fruit (for staff that would like to model healthy diet!) Candy bars The Basket which is filled with candy bars awarded drug court session when participant is doing everything right Coffee bucks Gift certificates for local stores. Scholarships to local schools. Tokens presented after specified number of clean days given to client by judge during court and judge announces name and number of clean days. Swimming pass to local pool Treatment Responses Increasing frequency of self-help groups, (for example, 30 AA/NA meetings in 30 days or 90 AA/NA meetings in 90 days). Increasing frequency of treatment sessions Residential treatment. Increase one-on-one meetings with treatment counselors Increase meetings with case manager Sanctions for Non-Compliant Behavior Require participants to write papers or paragraphs appropriate to their non-compliant behavior and problem solve on how they can avoid the non-compliant behavior in the future. Showing the judge s back. During a court appearance, the judge turns around in his or her chair to show his/her back to the participants. The participant must stand there waiting for the judge to finish their interaction. (This appears to be a very minor sanction but can be very effective!) Being reprimanded by the judge Sit sanctions. Participants are required to come to drug court hearings (on top of their own required hearings) to observe. Or participants are required to sit in regular court for drug offenders and observe how offenders are treated outside of drug court. Increasing frequency of drug court appearances One day or more in jail. (Be careful, this is an expensive sanction and is not always the most effective!) Impose/suspend sentence. The judge can tell a participant who has been non-compliant that he or she will receive a certain amount of time in jail (or some other sanction) if they do not comply with the program requirements and/or satisfy any additional requirements the staff requests by the next court session. If the participant does not comply by the next session, the judge imposes the sentence. If the participant does comply by the next ses- 20

31 sion, the sentence is suspended and held over until the next court session, at which time, if the participant continues to do well, the sentence will continue to be suspended. If the participant is non-compliant at any time, the sentence is immediately imposed. Community service. The best use of community service is to have an array of community service options available. If participants can fit their skills to the type of service they are providing and if they can see the positive results of their work, they will have the opportunity to learn a positive lesson on what it can mean to give back to their communities. Examples of community service that other drug courts have used are: helping to build houses for the homeless (e.g., Habitat for Humanity), delivering meals to hungry families, fixing bikes or other recycled items for charities, planting flowers or other plants, cleaning and painting in community recreation areas and parks. Cleaning up in a neighborhood where the participant had caused harm or damage in the past can be particularly meaningful to the participants. Rather than serve jail time, or do a week of community service, the participant works in the jail for a weekend. 21

32

33 APPENDIX C: SAMPLE OF DRUG COURT REWARD AND SANCTION GUIDELINES 23

34

35 SANCTIONS I. Testing positive for a controlled substance Increased supervision Increased urinalysis Community service Remand with a written assignment Incarceration (1 to 10 days on first; 1 week on second) Discharge from the program TREATMENT RESPONSE: GOAL: II. Review treatment plan for appropriate treatment services Write an essay about your relapse and things you will do differently Write and present a list of why you want to stay clean and sober Write and present a list of temptations (people, objects, music, and locations) and what you plan to put in their place. Make a list of what stresses you and what you can do to reduce these stresses. Residential treatment for a specified period of time (for more than 2 positive tests) Additional individual sessions and/or group sessions Extension of participation in the program Repeat Program Phase Obtain/Maintain Sobriety Failing or refusing to test Increased supervision Increased urinalysis Remand with a written assignment Increased court appearances (If in Phase II-IV) Incarceration (1 to 10 days on first; 1 week on second) Discharge from the program TREATMENT RESPONSE: Review treatment plan for appropriate treatment services Residential treatment for a specified period of time Extension of participation in the program Repeat Program Phase 25

36 GOAL: III. Obtain/Maintain Sobriety and Cooperation to comply with testing requirements Missing a court session without receiving prior approval for the absence GOAL: Community service Jury-box duty" Remand with a written assignment Increased court appearances Extension of participation in the program IV. Responsible Behavior and Time Management Being late to court, particularly if consistently late with no prior approval from the Court or Case Manager GOAL: Community service Jury-box duty" Increased court appearances Extension of participation in the program Responsible Behavior V. Failure to attend the required number of AA/NA meetings or support group meetings Increased supervision Community service Jury-box duty" Increased court appearances Extension of participation in the program Written Assignment TREATMENT RESPONSE: GOAL: Review treatment plan for appropriate treatment services Written assignment on the value of support groups in recovery. Additional individual sessions and/or group sessions Improved Treatment Outcome 26

37 VI. Failure to attend and complete the assigned treatment program Increased supervision Community service Remand with a written assignment Extension of participation in the program Repeat Program Phase TREATMENT RESPONSE: GOAL: One or more weeks set back in previous Phase for additional support Attend Life Skills Group Residential treatment for a specified period of time (consist occurrence) Additional individual sessions and/or group sessions Improved Treatment Outcome VII. Demonstrating a lack of response by failing to keep in contact and/or cooperate with the Case Manager or Counselor Community service Jury-box duty" Remand with a written assignment Extension of participation in the program Repeat Program Phase TREATMENT RESPONSE: GOAL: Make up missed sessions Review treatment plan to ensure clients needs are being met Additional individual sessions and/or group sessions Demonstrate respect and responsibility VIII. Convicted of a new crime Increased supervision Remand with a written assignment Increased court appearances Extension of participation in the program Repeat Program Phase Incarceration 27

38 Discharge from the program TREATMENT RESPONSE: Additional individual sessions and/or group sessions GOAL: To promote a crime free lifestyle IX. Violence or threats of violence directed at any treatment staff or other clients Discharge from the program X. Lack of motivation to seek employment or continue education Jury-box duty" Remand with a written assignment Increased court appearances Extension of participation in the program TREATMENT RESPONSE: Additional individual sessions and/or group sessions GOALS: Graduation and Job Preparedness XI. Refusing to terminate association with individuals who are using Increased supervision Community service Jury-box duty" Increased court appearances Extension of participation in the program Written Assignment TREATMENT RESPONSE: GOALS: Additional individual sessions and/or group sessions Develop a social network with clean and sober friends 28

39 XII. Failure to comply with court directives Increased supervision Community service Jury-box duty" Remand with a written assignment Increased court appearances Extension of participation in the program Repeat Program Phase Remand into custody all free time Written assignment GOALS: Develop a social network with clean and sober friends XIII. Lack of motivation to seek safe housing Increased supervision Community service Written assignment XIV. Forging documentation required by the court for proof of compliance Incarceration Discharge from the program (If it appears to the prosecuting attorney, the court, or the probation department that the defendant if convicted of a misdemeanor that reflects the defendant's propensity for violence, or the defendant is convicted of a felony, or the defendant has engaged in criminal conduct rendering him or her unsuitable for participation in Drug Treatment Court, the prosecuting attorney, the court on its own, or the probation department may make a motion to terminate defendant's conditional release and participation in the Drug Treatment Court. After notice to the defendant, the court shall hold a hearing. If the court finds that the defendant has been convicted of a crime as indicated above, or that the defendant has engaged in criminal conduct rendering him or her unsuitable for continued participation in Drug Treatment Court, the court shall revoke the defendant's conditional release, and refer the case to the probation department for the preparation of a sentencing report.) 29

40 REWARDS If the participant complies with the program, achieves program goals and exhibits drug -free behavior, he/she will be rewarded and encouraged by the court through a series of incentives. Participants will be able to accrue up to 50 points to become eligible to receive a reward. After accruing 50 points, the participant will start over in point accrual until he/she reaches 50 points again. The points are awarded as follows: Achievement Points Awarded Step Walking (12 step) 3 All required AA/NA Meetings Attended 1 AA/NA Sheet turned in on time 1 Attended all required treatment activities at the program 1 Phase Change 5 3 Month Chip 2 6 Month Chip 4 9 Month Chip 6 1 year Chip 8 Obtained a job (part time) 3 Obtained a job (full time) 5 Graduated from Vocational Training 5 Obtained a GED 5 Graduated from Junior College 5 Obtained a Driver s License 4 Bought a Car 4 Obtained Safe Housing (Renting) 4 Obtained Safe Housing (Buying) 5 Taking Care of Health Needs 3 Finding A Sponsor 3 Helping to interpret 1 Promotion/raise at work 3 Obtaining MAP/Medi-Cal/Denti-Cal 3 Parenting Certificate 2 Judge s Discretion 1 to 5 30

41 Incentive items that are given to the participants (upon availability) include but are not limited to: Bus passes A donated bicycle that may b kept for the duration of time in Drug Court. After completion of drug court, the bicycle must be returned. (A terminated participant must return the bicycle forthwith.) Pencils, key chains: awarded for Phase changes Personal hygiene products Framing any certificate of completion from other programs, or certificates showing length of sobriety Haircuts Eye Wear Movie Passes Food Coupons 31

42

43 APPENDIX D: LIST OF DATA ELEMENTS FOR PRO- GRAM SELF-MONITORING AND EVALUATION 33

44

45 DRUG COURT PROGRAM DATA NPC Data Elements Worksheet Variable/Data element DEMOGRAPHICS & ID (collect from all possible sources) Where located/ who collects? (electronic/ written records?) When agency began collecting or plans to begin? Notes 1a Name 2 SSN, state ID, FBI ID, DL#, DC case number, state TX number 2a 2b 2c o Birth Date o Gender o Race/Ethnicity CLIENT INFORMATION 2d 2e 2f 2g 2h 2i 2j 2k 2l o Employment status at drug court entry o Employment status at drug court exit o Highest grade of school completed at time of drug court entry o Number and ages of children o Housing status at entry o Housing status at exit o Income at entry (if selfsupporting) o Income at exit (if selfsupporting) o Other demographics 35

46 Variable/Data element DRUG COURT SPECIFIC DATA Where located/ who collects? (electronic/ written records?) When agency began collecting or plans to begin? Notes 3 Drug court entry date 4 Drug court exit date 5 Date of drug court eligible arrest 5a 5b Charge for DC arrest Arresting agency 6 Court case number for case leading to drug court participation 7 Date of referral to drug court program and referral source 8 Drug court status on exit (e.g., graduated, revoked, terminated, dropped out) 9 If participation in drug court is revoked or terminated, reason 10 Dates of entry into each phase 11 Criminal/Juvenile justice status on exit (e.g., on probation, charge expunged, etc.) 12 Dates of UAs 13 Dates of positive UAs 36

47 Variable/Data element 14 Dates of other drug tests Where located/ who collects? (electronic/ written records?) When agency began collecting or plans to begin? Notes 15 Dates of other positive drug tests 15a Agency provided test results 16 Drugs of choice (primary and secondary) 17 Dates of drug court sessions 18 Attitude toward treatment/readiness to change at entry 19 Dates of services received with types of service received (see examples below) [Note: If dates not available, at least need different types of services rec d and approximate time periods or the # of times the individual received a particular service]. 19a 19b 19c o Group A&D sessions o Individual A&D sessions o Mental health services 19e Agency providing TX 20 Mental health or A&D diagnoses 21 Aftercare services (dates and types), if applicable 37