DWI/Drug Courts: Defining a National Strategy

Transcription

1 DWI/Drg Corts: Defining a National Strategy Jdge Jeff Taber (Ret.) Director C. West Hddleston Depty Director March 1999

2 DWI/Drg Corts: Defining a National Strategy Prepared by the National Drg Cort Institte, the edcation, research and scholarship affiliate of the National Association of Drg Cort Professionals. Copyright 1999, National Drg Cort Institte; reprinted May 2004 NATIONAL DRUG COURT INSTITUTE This docment was prepared in cooperation with the American Concil on Alcoholism; the National Commission Against Drnk Driving; the National Sheriffs Association; the Drg Corts Program Office, Office of Jstice Programs, U.S. Department of Jstice; and the National Association of Drg Cort Professionals. This docment was prepared nder Cooperative Agreement Nmber 1999-DC-VX-K001 from the Brea of Jstice Assistance, U.S. Department of Jstice, with the spport of the Office of National Drg Control Policy, Exective Office of the President. Points of view or opinions in this docment are those of the athors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the U.S. Department of Jstice or the Exective Office of the President. All rights reserved. No part of this pblication may be reprodced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, withot the prior written permission of the National Drg Cort Institte. Printed in the United States of America. Drg corts perform their dties withot manifestation, by word or condct, of bias or prejdice, inclding, bt not limited to, bias or prejdice based pon race, gender, national origin, disability, age, sexal orientation, langage or socioeconomic stats. ii

3 A CKNOWLEDGEMENTS Wide-scale implementation of corts offering a treatment-based approach to DUI cases cold be the next important step in a challenging series of initiatives that have broght abot remarkable redctions in both DUI arrests and alcohol-related traffic deaths in the last two decades. In 1987, nearly 24,000 people died in alcohol-related crashes. Ten years later, that nmber had dropped by a third. DUI/Drg Corts can help s achieve the U.S. Department of Transportation s goal of 11,000 by The National Drg Cort Institte and the DUI/Drg Cort Advisory Panel wish to acknowledge all those who have contribted to this important initiative. Special thanks to the organizations that worked in partnership with NDCI to convene the panel: the American Concil on Alcoholism, the National Commission Against Drnk Driving, the National Sheriffs Association, the Drg Corts Program Office, Office of Jstice Programs, U.S. Department of Jstice, and the National Association of Drg Cort Professionals. We also wish to express or gratitde to the jrisdictions who participated in this project, having the vision to lead this important movement: Bakersfield, California Bernalillo Conty, New Mexico Btte Conty, California Dona Ana Conty, New Mexico Hancock Conty, Indiana Maricopa Conty, Arizona Payne Conty, Oklahoma Finally, we extend or appreciation to the following organizations and individals for their participation and interest American Atomobile Association American Beverage Institte American Prosectors Research Institte Ms. Brenda Beach Center for Sbstance Abse Treatment Centry Concil Linda Connelly & Associates, Inc. Office of Jstice Programs, U.S. Department of Jstice The Distilled Spirits Concil of the United States The General District Cort and the City of Fredericksbrg, Virginia Mr. Pal Gavaghan Department of Emergency Medicine, George Washington University Medical Center Indian Health Service, U.S. Department of Health and Hman Services Health Commnications, Inc. Join Together Life Sciences Corporation MADD of Northern Virginia Mid-America Research Institte Mobil Corporation National Concil on Alcoholism and Drg Dependence National Criminal Jstice Association National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation National Institte on Alcohol Abse and Alcoholism National Licensed Beverage Association National Traffic Law Center Rappahannock (Virginia) Regional Jail Rtgers University Center of Alcohol Stdies National Center for Alcohol Policies National Center for State Corts National Institte of Jstice Office of Demand Redction, Office of National Drg Control Policy State Jstice Institte Therapetic Commnities of America Office of Tribal Jstice, U.S. Department of Jstice Department of Veterans Affairs Virginia Alcohol Safety Action Program Rappahannock Area Washington Regional Alcohol Program. TABLE OF C ONTENTS

4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY #ii DUI and Drg Cort Practice Compared Challenges of Establishing DUI/Drg Corts Recommendations DUI/DRUG C OURTS: D EFINING A N ATIONAL S TRATEGY A Nation Still at Risk 1 Drg Corts: A Model for DUI 4 The DUI/Drg Cort Mission 5 Comparison of DUI and Drg Cort Practice 6 Clearing a Path 10 DUI/Drg Cort National Strategy Framework 12 REFERENCES 13 A PPENDIX A: A DVISORY P ANEL J URISDICTIONS Bakersfield Mnicipal Cort 17 Bernalillo Conty Metropolitan Cort 20 Btte Conty Sperior Cort of California 23 Dona Ana Conty DWI Drg Cort 26 Sperior Cort No.2 of Hancock Conty 28 Payne Conty Drg Cort 30 A PPENDIX B: R EV IA P ROJECT The Btte Conty ReVia Project 31 A PPENDIX C: SWOT A NALYSIS O UTCOMES 41 E XECUTIVE SUMMARY

5 America s drg corts are working. Taking a rehabilitative approach to jstice that is based on intensive drg treatment, close spervision, and a demand for offender accontability, drg corts offload nonviolent drg offenders from traditional cort systems and place them in programs designed to get them off drgs, redce recidivism, save money, and slow the revolving door that has come to characterize the nation s criminal jstice system. The positive otcomes for drg corts beg the qestion: Can the drg cort model be applied with eqal effectiveness to other poplations? More specifically, can it work with drnk drivers? Stiff criminal penalties, a massive pblic awareness campaign, and other initiatives spanning nearly two decades have had an impact on drnk driving. In 1987, alcohol-related crashes acconted for 51 percent of all fatalities; a decade later, the percentage is down more than 12 points (Brea of Jstice Statistics, 1998). Arrests for driving while intoxicated or nder the inflence of alcohol are also on the decline, bt nfortnately, the impact of these initiatives has been disproportionately limited to social drinkers. Problem drinkers, i.e., serios, habital absers of alcohol, contine to kill people on the highways. Those who are addicted are ndeterred by pnishment; those who live in denial are nswayed by media campaigns. Some jrisdictions are already applying the drg cort model or portions of it to DUI cases. Some operate corts established solely to hear DUI cases. In other jrisdictions, drg cort programs have expanded to inclde DUI cases. In November 1998, practitioners from seven sch jrisdictions formed a DUI/Drg Cort Advisory Panel to explore and compare the needs of DUI and drg offenders and assess the applicability of the drg cort model to repeat DUI offenders. The panel convened at the invitation of the National Drg Cort Institte (NDCI), in partnership with the American Concil on Alcoholism, the National Commission Against Drnk Driving, the National Sheriffs Association, the Drg Corts Program Office, U.S. Department of Jstice, and the National Association of Drg Cort Professionals. The Advisory Panel began by reaching consenss on a draft mission statement for DUI/Drg Corts. It reads... to make offenders accontable for their actions, bringing abot a behavioral change that ends DUI recidivism, stops the abse of alcohol, and protects the pblic; to treat the victims of DUI offenders in a fair and jst way; and to edcate the pblic as to the benefits of DUI corts for the commnities they serve. DUI and Drg Cort Practice Compared The panel agreed that the typical mltiple DUI offender shares some common characteristics with the typical drg offender participating in a drg cort program today. Each has a serios sbstance abse problem, and each reqires treatment, a strong spport system, and the ability to come to terms with his or her problem before real change can occr. Some distinctions between the two offender grops also exist. DUI offenders tend to be male, employed, slightly older than drg offenders, and able to draw on emotional resorces (family, edcation, etc.) that are helpfl to recovery. They have a legal orientation (the sbstance they ingest is legal), and are often in denial abot their addiction. Freqently ot of work and nable to spport themselves, drg offenders have little financial or emotional spport. They have a more realistic perception of their addiction, and they recognize that their actions are illegal. They are nearly as likely to be female as male. In terms of goals and poplations served, a comparison of DUI corts and drg corts also yielded nmeros similarities. A comparison of the state of the practice in the two areas, however, revealed several distinctions. Some are to be expected, given differences in pblic opinion and poplations served. Others may be indicators of the benefits of collaboration between the DUI and drg cort commnities. The distinctions inclde the following:

6 While abot half of all drg corts have diversion programs, pblic perceptions and the natre of the DUI offense place limits on DUI pre-adjdication options. Drg corts operate in a nonadversarial, collaborative environment. Maintaining this environment poses a challenge to DUI offenders and their attorneys, who face the pressres of mandatory sentencing laws and pblic calls for severe penalties. Incentives draw drg offenders into drg cort programs. Becase the incentives that can be offered to DUI offenders are more limited, engaging DUI offenders in a DUI/Drg Cort program can be more challenging. Althogh access to treatment sites may be limited for DUI offenders who have lost driving privileges, these offenders have the advantage of an added i.e., victim-impact panels. rehabilitation service, Drg corts monitor participants more closely than other commnity-based treatment programs. DUI-offender monitoring calls for even greater coordination, more freqent testing, more innovative technologies, and a high level of personal commnication. Professional edcation opportnities, sch as those that are available to drg cort practitioners, are extremely limited in the DUI cort commnity. Gaining commnity spport for DUI corts calls for a higher level of organizational spport, different edcational approaches, and greater deference to social concerns. Challenges of Establishing DUI/Drg Corts The panel felt that even thogh offender characteristics and the realities of the law and circmstances clearly indicate a need to modify the drg cort model for application to DUI cases, drg corts do in fact hold promise for DUI offenders. In order to apply the drg cort model to DUI cases, a nmber of obstacles mst be overcome. They inclde the following: Edcation/Recritment. Limited nderstanding of what DUI corts can achieve and a perception that the DUI corts lack prestige make it difficlt to attract practitioners to the field. Fnding. Dollars are scarce, and competition for fnding prevents agencies from working together toward a common goal. The Soft on Crime Perception. Contering the perception that DUI/Drg Corts are soft on crime will reqire a concentrated, carefl, endring pblic edcation effort. The Scope of Need. The need for this model is vast. Any jrisdiction committing to a program will face major challenges in finding fnding and qalified practitioners to spport it and will have to make difficlt choices as to whom to serve. Existing DUI Corts. The vast majority of existing DUI corts are neither patterned after nor do they resemble the drg cort model. These programs need to be mapped and assessed. Need for a National Strategy. A national strategy mst be formlated to gide efforts to establish and instittionalize DUI/Drg Corts and convince the pblic that the model can work for DUI offenders.

7 Delay Syndrome. Delaying adjdication is a common defense tactic in traditional DUI corts. This tactic cold prevent defendants from entering a DUI/Drg cort program qickly and beginning treatment. Recommendations The Advisory Panel made two recommendations 1. Establish DUI corts that are based on the drg cort model, or widen the focs of existing drg corts to inclde DUI cases. 2. With NDCI as coordinator, develop a National DUI/Drg Cort Strategy that makes provision for: national standards of practice and an advisory board; practitioner edcation, pblications, and an information repository; DUI/Drg Cort mentor sites; and the establishment of one clear pblic voice to speak on behalf DUI/Drg corts. DUI/DRUG C OURTS: D EFINING A N ATIONAL STRATEGY A Nation Still at Risk In 1987, more than half of all people killed on or nation s roadways died in alcohol-related crashes. Of the 46,390 traffic deaths that year, almost 24,000 might have been avoided had someone not absed alcohol. Today, those nmbers are down. Despite increased traffic loads, fewer people are dying, and fewer deaths can be linked to alcohol. In 1997, alcohol-related fatalities declined to 16,189, or 38.6 percent of total traffic fatalities (NHTSA, 1998). DUI arrests are also on the decline. Police made 1,467,300 arrests in 1996, one for every 122 licensed drivers; that nmber is down considerably from an all-time high reached in 1983, when 1,921,100 arrests were made (one for every 80 licensed drivers) (Brea of Jstice Statistics, 1998). Or roads are safer today for a nmber of reasons, all of them stemming from an awakening of pblic and legislative consciosness to the deadly seriosness of drnk driving. Stirred by a massive pblic awareness campaign that began in the early 1980s, we have taken steps to crb DUI. Stiff penalties, inclding license sspension and incarceration, are often mandated by law. Enforcement has been stepped p, in the form of sobriety checkpoints and satration patrols. The minimm drinking age has been raised to 21 in every state. And a different way of thinking has led to a decrease in the per capita rate of alcohol consmption (Fell, 1998).

8 The sccess of the movement to stop drinkers from driving is notable, bt disproportionately limited to social drinkers and those who are too yong to by alcohol (Brea of Jstice Statistics, 1998). The progress achieved with repeat offenders and heavy drinkers is far less significant. Despite severe penalties, problem drinkers who go ntreated contine to drink and drive, tie p or cort systems, and kill people on or highways. Of the 38.6 percent of traffic deaths that were alcohol related in 1996, three-qarters involved someone who had a BAC (blood alcohol content) of 0.1 or higher.* To date it has largely been left to traditionally-styled corts and or prisons to deal with those arrested for DUI (driving nder the inflence of alcohol) or DWI (driving while intoxicated.)** It has become clear, however, that the traditional process is not working for repeat offenders and other problem drinkers. Pnishment, naccompanied by treatment, is an ineffective deterrent for addicted persons. The otcome for the addicted offender is contined dependence on alcohol; the otcome for the commnity is contined peril. The time has come to find a new approach to addressing this very old problem, and the drg cort model is a strong contender. In 1998, practitioners from seven jrisdictions in for states formed a DUI/Drg Cort Advisory Panel to consider application of drg cort-type programs in the DUI arena, weigh the costs and benefits of wide-scale implementation of DUI corts (or DUI/Drg Cort combinations), and lay a fondation for constrcting a viable National DUI/Drg Cort Strategy. Each jrisdiction represented on the panel is already applying the drg cort model in some form to DUI cases, and achieving promising otcomes Maricopa Conty (Phoenix), Arizona operates a federally-fnded cort that applies drg cort principles bt focses solely on DUI cases. Dona Ana Conty (Las Crces and Mesilla), New Mexico has established three DWI drg corts to hear both DUI and more traditional drg cort cases; the majority of defendants are charged with DUI offenses. The Bernalillo Conty, New Mexico DWI drg cort also works primarily with DUI offenders; 101 of 118 offenders accepted into the program since it began operating in Jly 1997 were DUI cases. Bakersfield, California operates a drg cort that has broadened its prview to inclde DUI cases. Payne Conty (Stillwater), Oklahoma does the same in both its adlt and jvenile drg corts. Hancock Conty, Indiana Sperior Cort remands all DUIs, all alcohol offenses, and most drg cases to the same cortroom. It applies drg cort- like principles to DUI cases, bt clearly disassociates its DUI and drg programs. Btte Conty, California also applies drg cort principles to DUI cases heard in Sperior Cort. Depending pon need, offenders can be assigned to any of a nmber of different treatment regimens, inclding an innovative Naltrexone test program that has been in place since The DUI/Drg Cort Advisory Panel met in November 1998 in Washington, D.C., at the invitation of the National Drg Cort Institte (NDCI), in partnership with the American Concil on Alcoholism, the National Commission Against Drnk Driving, the National Sheriffs Association, the Drg Corts Program Office, of the U.S. Department of Jstice, and the National Association of Drg Cort Professionals. For two days, the panelists participated in a series of concentrated exercises designed to draw comparisons between DUI and traditional drg cort cases and bild a National DUI/Drg Cort Strategy. Together, they considered a wide variety of isses and challenges, among them the state of the practice in each area; offender characteristics and treatment needs; pblic and jdicial perceptions; legally mandated incarceration; and the impact of treatment-based programs on pblic safety and commnity economics. Observing the panel s activities and providing inpt were representatives of federal and state government, research organizations, and advocacy grops. Among them were the Rtgers University Center of Alcohol Stdies, The Distilled

9 Spirits Concil of the United States, the American Atomobile Association, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), the American Prosectors Research Institte, the Center for Sbstance Abse Treatment, MADD of Northern Virginia, the National Institte of Jstice, and the National Center for State Corts. The panel emerged from the conference having Created a workable DUI/Drg Cort mission ; Made a detailed comparison of DUI and drg case needs formlated arond the ten key components of drg corts; and Identified challenges to overcome in establishing and maintaining sccessfl DUI/drg cort programs. These otcomes are presented on the following pages. The panel also emerged with recommendations to prse on a broad scale the establishment of new DUI corts based on the drg cort model and/or the expansion of existing drg corts to inclde DUI cases, and to prepare a national strategy for the implementation of DUI/Drg Corts. Recommendations for points to be considered in preparing a national strategy conclde this report. Drg Corts: A Model for DUI A qiet revoltion has taken place within or criminal jstice system. The first rond was fired in 1989, when the Nation s first drg cort was established. Today, some 550 drg corts are operating or being planned in commnities across the United States (American University, 1999). Drg cort programs vary from one jrisdiction to another depending pon the resorces and needs of the commnities they serve. The typical program participant is a nonviolent offender, charged with a drg-related crime. He or she agrees to ndergo comprehensive drg abse treatment, and is sbjected to close spervision and freqent drg testing. Sanctions and incentives are employed to keep the offender on track. They are imposed by the jdge of the cort, who becomes a constant fixtre in the life of the offender dring his or her stay in the program. Abot half of all drg corts are diversion programs. Those who do not gradate face prosection and sentencing for their original charges. Charges against those who sccessflly complete the program may be redced or dropped. Drg corts represent an innovative jdicial experiment in which offenders are held accontable for their actions bt afforded the tools they need to break the patterns of drg abse that so damage their lives and the commnities in which they live. Typical drg cort goals are to redce drg se and associated criminal behavior by engaging and retaining drginvolved offenders in programmatic and treatment services; to concentrate drg-case expertise into a single cortroom; to address other defendant needs throgh clinical assessment and effective case management; and to remove nonviolent drg offenders from traditional cortrooms and jails, freeing these instittions to focs on more serios crimes and criminals. Early indications are that drg corts are achieving their goals, and that they offer great hope for long-term redction in drg-related crime. In a critical review of 30 evalations of two dozen drg cort programs, the National Center on Addiction and Sbstance Abse at Colmbia University (CASA) conclded that drg corts lower recidivism, redce drg se, and redce both direct and indirect costs of investigating and adjdicating drg-related crime (Belenko, 1998). They scceed becase they manage to engage offenders, and keep them engaged, in their programs. In a 1996 srvey condcted by the

10 Drg Cort Clearinghose and Technical Assistance Project, six reporting jrisdictions reported retention rates from 62 percent to 90 percent (Drg Strategies, 1997). As monting evidence proves time and again that drg corts work, the drg cort model has been adapted to other criminal jstice poplations. Domestic violence corts, mental illness corts, and even deadbeat dad corts have patterned themselves after drg corts. Perhaps the most important spinoff is the application of drg cort principles to DUI cases. The DUI/Drg Cort Mission As a framework on which to bild their discssions, the DUI/Drg Cort Advisory Panel formlated a working mission for the nation s DUI/Drg Corts. The mission, which was formed by consenss, is to make offenders accontable for their actions, bringing abot a behavioral change that ends DUI recidivism, stops the abse of alcohol, and protects the pblic; to treat the victims of DUI offenders in a fair and jst way; and to edcate the pblic as to the benefits of DUI corts for the commnities they serve. The missions of a DUI cort, a drg cort, and a cort that hears both DUI and drg cases are nearly interchangeable. Offender accontability is key in every case, as are the goals to change offender behavior, eliminate sbstance abse, end recidivism, and treat victims with fairness and sensitivity. Distinctions do arise in a cople of areas. First, drg corts mst strive to give drg offenders the means to become prodctive members of society. DUI offenders, on the other hand, are often prodctive in spite of their alcohol abse. They already have jobs, families, and homes, and the goal becomes more one of providing the tools they need to keep what they have. Second, althogh both corts mst endeavor to edcate the pblic abot the benefits of these systems for the commnities they serve, proving their case can be a greater challenge for the DUI commnity. The pblic nderstands that a part of drg cort jstice is treatment, and many believe that treatment is an effective way to conter drg abse. Fewer people believe that treatment will solve the DUI problem. It is important to convince the pblic that the greatest danger today comes from repeat offenders, i.e., people with alcohol addictions who, like drg addicts, reqire treatment to change their behavior. Comparison of DUI and Drg Cort Practice The DUI/Drg Cort Advisory Panel qestioned whether drg corts, or separate DUI corts based on the drg cort model, can provide an effective mechanism for treating repeat offenders. In working towards a consenss on this qestion, the panel nearthed nmeros similarities between DUI and drg offenders, and some distinctions as well. A comparison of DUI and drg cort practice yielded similar reslts. It is both the similarities and the distinctions that provide the grondwork for beginning the process of adapting the drg cort model for se with DUI offenders.

11 Characteristics of the DUI and Drg Cort Poplations Redced to their common denominators, the poplation of a drg cort can be defined as persons who have a drg problem, are charged with a drg offense or another offense motivated by a drg problem, and are nonviolent. The DUI cort poplation can be defined as persons charged with a DUI offense and who have indicators of a serios alcohol problem (e.g., prior alcohol arrests or convictions, or high BAC at the time of arrest). Offenders in both grops share some commo n personal characteristics. Each offender has a sbstance abse problem that is taking control of his or her life. Each reqires comprehensive treatment, a strong spport system, and the ability to come to terms with his or her problem before real change can occr. The personal characteristics typical of the two classes of offender differ in some ways. DUI offenders tend to be employed, and to have emotional resorces that are helpfl to recovery, sch as family, edcation, or religion. Drg offenders are often ot of work and nable to spport themselves. With the exception of social assistance, they have little in the way of financial or emotional spport. DUI offenders have a legal orientation, and drg cort offenders an illegal orientation. That is, becase alcohol is legal, DUI offenders see themselves as being on the right side of the law, even thogh they se alcohol in an illegal way. Drg offenders ingest an illegal sbstance, and have few illsions abot the side of the law on which they stand. The DUI offender who is likely to be a candidate for a DUI cort program is a repeat offender arrested two, three, or more times for an alcohol-related traffic offense. Repeat offenders accont for abot one-third of the arrests made annally; they are considered good candidates in part becase limited resorces translate into a limited nmber of seats in DUI/Drg Cort, bt also becase serios DUI offenders are more likely to be in need of a DUI/Drg Cort program. Conversely, a typical drg cort defendant (charged with a drg-related offense) may not be facing his or her first offense, bt is less likely to be considered a serios offender. DUI offenders are predominantly male (78 percent) and tend to be slightly older (25-44) than drg offenders (18-44). In fact, while the DUI arrest rates for all age grops have declined in recent years, the declines for persons aged are mch smaller than those for other grops. For instance, from 1990 to 1996 DUI arrest rates declined 23.5 percent for drivers at age 23 and 18.5 percent for driver s age 50 or older. Rates for drivers in the and age grops went down only 7.6 percent and 6.7 percent respectively (Brea of Jstice Statistics, 1998). Finally, DUI offenders are often in a state of denial abot their sbstance abse. Their drg-sing conterparts, abot half of whom are male and half female, tend to have a more realistic perception of their addiction. DUI Corts Defined: The Key Components In 1997, the Drg Cort Standards Committee of the National Association of Drg Cort Professionals, with the spport of the Drg Corts Program Office, designated the ten key components of drg corts (NADCP, 1997) and established these components as benchmarks for performance describing the very best practices, designs, and operations of drg corts. In their effort to define DUI corts, the DUI/Drg Cort Advisory Panel explored the goals of DUI cort proponents and the state of DUI corts operating today, and compared them to drg corts in terms of the ten key components. They identified a nmber of similarities between DUI and drg corts in terms of goals and poplations served. Across the board, they also cited nmeros differences. In some cases, the differences are necessary responses to distinctions between the two poplations. In other cases, the differences point to needs of the DUI cort commnity that can be met by collaborating with the drg cort commnity. The principal findings follow. Drg Cort Component 1: Drg corts integrate alcohol and other drg treatment services with jstice system case processing.

12 Treatment is a critical factor in redcing recidivism among both drg and DUI offenders, and so is accontability for crimes committed. The diversion and post-plea programs fond in drg corts do not free offenders from taking responsibility for their actions, bt they do enable offenders to enter treatment programs with minimal delay. Sentencing laws and pblic perceptions make these programs workable for drg cases. Timely admission to a DUI/Drg Cort program for DUI offenders can be more of a challenge, where mandatory sentencing, a lack of pre-adjdication options, and pblic perceptions may prove to be obstacles. Drg Cort Component 2: Using a nonadversarial approach, prosection and defense consel promote pblic safety while protecting participants de process rights. All drg cort practitioners jdge, prosector, defense attorney, treatment specialist, probation officer work together toward the common goals of redcing recidivism and rehabilitating offenders. It is this collaborative environment that nderlies the sccess of drg cort programs. Maintaining a nonadversarial approach can be more challenging in DUI cases, where there is increased pressre to imprison offenders. Defense attorneys in DUI cases often resort to delay tactics in order to keep their clients ot of jail. One nfortnate otcome of this tactic is that they are also kept ot of treatment. Drg Cort Component 3: Eligible participants are identified early and promptly placed in the drg cort program. Prompt placement in a drg cort program and a qick start on treatment are key drg cort principles. Drg corts typically offer incentives to encorage offenders to enter a drg cort program, e.g., redced or sspended jail time. In many cases, the ability to make sch an offer to a DUI offender has been legislated ot of a jdge s hands (i.e., mandatory jail time). Incentives are available in DUI cases in some jrisdictions, however, inclding early driver s license reinstatement and presentence release from jail on the offender s own recognizance. Drg Cort Component 4: Drg corts provide access to a continm of alcohol, drg, and other related treatment and rehabilitation services. In many respects, access to a continm of treatment and related services is as available to DUI offenders as it is to drg offenders, althogh DUI offenders (who are accstomed to driving their own vehicles bt who have lost driving privileges) may find it more difficlt to get to treatment sites. In one respect, DUI offenders may have an advantage over drg cort offenders in that they have an additional rehabilitation service, i.e., the opportnity to listen to victim-impact panels and se what they hear to better nderstand the severity of their actions. Drg Cort Component 5: Abstinence is monitored by freqent alcohol and other drg testing. Urine testing is by no means a perfect technology, bt its relative simplicity and accracy give practitioners working with absers of drgs other than alcohol a clear advantage. Administered weekly or twice weekly, rine testing will often detect a drg relapse, bt where most drgs can remain in a ser s system for several days, alcohol can be ndetectable within a few hors after ingestion. Frthermore, the se of alcohol by a DUI offender poses a threat of immediate danger to the pblic. Therefore, the monitoring of DUI offenders calls for greater coordination, more freqent testing, more innovative technologies, and a high level of personal commnication. Testing technologies employed in DUI corts arond the contry inclde state-of-the-art voice recognition and testing (i.e., testing devices that can detect alcohol se via telephone), interlock devices on atomobiles, and hand-held testers. Testing is sally random and freqent; some jrisdictions reqire offenders to call in daily and to sbmit to testing on demand. The advantages of personal relationships between practitioners and offenders take on increased meaning when working with alcohol offenders, especially in low-poplation areas where residents tend to know each other by sight. Cort practitioners and law enforcement officers develop an awareness of who is in their programs; they visit with offenders often, and observe their activities both in their homes and arond town.

13 Drg Cort Component 6: A coordinated strategy governs drg cort responses to participants compliance. Even the best treatment programs take time to work, and drg corts recognize that an early relapse is only a slip it does not signify program failre. Nevertheless, contined se of alcohol or other drgs cannot be condoned, and drg corts tilize a system of sanctions and incentives to foster program compliance. The law and pblic opinion narrow the list of sanctions and incentives that can be sed in DUI cases and give a jdge less flexibility in imposing them. Qicker imposition and the se of more severe sanctions are often mandated by law or demanded by the commnity. Incentives are also limited. Case dismissal may not be an option, and close spervision and testing are essential for pblic safety. One effective incentive that can sometimes be tilized is the lessening of driver s license restrictions. Drg Cort Component 7: Ongoing jdicial interaction with each drg cort participant is essential. Jdicial interaction with offenders is eqally important to the sccess of both drg and DUI programs. In either program, the jdge is the focs in both the cortroom and the commnity, and a direct relationship between jdge and offender is central to program sccess. In some corts, the jdge may have less discretion in levying sanctions and incentives on DUI offenders than he or she wold have when working with drg cases. In other corts, the rles of the cort leave the jdge little discretion in these matters regardless of the offense. Drg Cort Component 8: Monitoring and evalation measre the achievement of program goals and gage effectiveness. Coordinated management, monitoring, and evalation systems are fndamental to the effective operation of drg corts, whether the cases before it are drg-related or DUI offenses. In either case, periodic evalation is necessary in order to validate a program s effectiveness and improve it over time. At this time, DUI corts patterned after or resembling the drg cort model toch only a fraction of all DUI cases. Most cases are heard in corts where comprehensive treatment and close spervision are not part of the program. Adeqate evalation systems and accrate docmentation of evalation efforts are necessary if the inflence of the drg cort model on DUI offenders is to be expanded. Drg Cort Component 9: Contining interdisciplinary edcation promotes effective drg cort planning, implementation, and operations. Professional edcation is as important to DUI cort practitioners as it is for those who work with drg offenders, bt the state of edcation for DUI corts is far less developed. No national training or national conference mechanism is in place. Pblications that disseminate information to the field do not exist, and cross-training is only in the beginning stages. In addition, no standards have been developed for the field. Drg Cort Component 10: Forging partnerships among drg corts, pblic agencies, and commnity-based organizations generates local spport and enhances drg cort program effectiveness. Drg corts are making significant inroads in engaging the commnity and gaining pblic spport. Becoming a commnity-based instittion is a goal of eqal importance to DUI corts, bt a greater challenge becase DUI cases can garner little pblic sympathy. In addition, a single DUI offender relapse cold reslt in a traffic crash and death (and disastros conseqences for a DUI program) while a drg offender s relapse will more likely go nnoticed. Gaining sbstantial commnity spport for DUI corts and for drg corts that hear DUI cases calls for a higher level of organizational spport, different edcational approaches, and greater deference to social concerns. Clearing a Path

14 The benefits of expanding the scope of drg corts to inclde DUI cases are clear. The traditional system is a setp for failre when it comes to adjdicating the cases of mltiple DUI offenders. When levied, pnishment can be severe, bt the adversarial process is conterprodctive and can limit the accontability of defendants. These defendants are left with inadeqate sanctions, limited (or no) treatment or rehabilitation, and little incentive to change. The practitioners in the cortroom derive little satisfaction from their jobs, and have limited opportnity to develop comprehensive expertise in the DUI field. The drg cort model, as applied to DUI cases, is an opportnity to take a proactive approach to jstice. It can free traditional corts to concentrate on other cases and close the revolving door of a criminal jstice system dominated by sbstance-absing repeat offenders. It offers practitioners the opportnity to reach more offenders with a program that combines accontability with the hope for change, and the chance to develop specialized knowledge in a specific area of the law. It can provide DUI defendants with the treatment and close spervision that chronic offenders need, and still hold them accontable for their actions. The need for a DUI/Drg Cort system is apparent, as are the advantages the system wold offer. Several obstacles, however, lie in the path that leads from the conventional DUI cort system to the DUI/Drg Cort model. Removal of these obstacles will reqire meeting challenges in several areas. Among them are the following: Edcation and Recritment. Little information and few edcational resorces are available to jdges and other practitioners on the sbject of DUI/Drg Corts, and sitting on the bench of any DUI cort, regardless of its strctre, is not perceived as either a prestige position or a career bilder. Attracting qalified practitioners to DUI cort on either side of the bench calls for 1) a solid edcation program and 2) raising the level of satisfaction that comes from being a part of the system. Fnding. As always, fnding is scarce, and competition for dollars can prevent agencies from working together toward a common goal. Some jrisdictions have been innovative in finding new fnding sorces; for instance, one jrisdiction imposed a tax on liqor to fnd its program. The offenders themselves are also a valid sorce of program financial spport. The Soft on Crime Perception. This perception is difficlt to fight, and will reqire a concentrated, carefl, and endring pblic edcation effort. The Scope of the Need. To date, specialized DUI corts toch only a tiny percentage of those offenders who cold benefit from the drg cort model. The scope of the need for this model is vast. Once a jrisdiction commits to a program, it will face major challenges to finding adeqate fnding and qalified practitioners to spport it. It will also need to make difficlt decisions abot who to help, and who to trn away. Existing DUI Corts. DUI corts already exist in nearly every jrisdiction in the nation. The vast majority, however, take a traffic cort approach to adjdication. Accontability is not necessarily a critical component of these corts, and they bear no resemblance to the drg cort model. A need exists to inventory and map all existing programs, to determine what is, and is not, working, and to set standards for accontability, effectiveness, and coordination among existing DUI corts. Need for a National Strategy. No DUI/Drg Cort national strategy exists today. Sch a strategy is needed in order to increase awareness and convince the pblic that the drg cort model can work for DUI offenders. Delay Syndrome. Delay tactics are commonly believed to inre to the benefit of a defendant in criminal cases. In DUI cases, however, delay tactics and an adversarial defense can reslt in a defendant not getting the qality of

15 treatment and spervision reqired for rehabilitation and real change. There is a need for consistency in DUI jstice and for incentives to proceed withot delay. DUI/Drg Cort National Strategy Framework The DUI/Drg Cort Advisory Panel made two recommendations. The first is to establish DUI corts that are based on the drg cort model, and/or to expand existing drg corts to inclde DUI cases. Second, noting the lack of a DUI policy that parallels or national drg cort policy, the participants recommended development of a National DUI/Drg Cort Strategy, and nanimosly approved a motion to move forward with development. In the interests of bilding on the fondation already in place and avoiding dplication of effort, the panel recommended that NADCP coordinate the formlation of a National DUI/Drg Cort Strategy. The following shold be considered key elements the National DUI/Drg Cort Strategy. Edcation. Targeted edcation opportnities for practitioners in the DUI cort field is important, and as yet ndeveloped. The National DUI/Drg Cort Strategy shold inclde a plan for developing ongoing edcational opportnities for the field. As a beginning, the National Association of Drg Cort Professionals will add a track on DUI Cort practice to its next Annal Training Conference, slated for Jne 1999 in Miami, Florida. Pblications. A need exists for a newsletter, a blletin, and/or other mechanisms for the periodic dissemination of news and information to practitioners in the DUI field. The strategy shold inclde a dissemination plan. This monograph is the first step of this dissemination effort. Standards. The DUI/Drg Cort Advisory Panel to work in concert with NDCI, the National Association of Drg Cort Professionals, the American Concil on Alcoholism, the National Commission Against Drnk Driving, the National Sheriffs Association, and the Drg Corts Program Office, U.S. Department of Jstice to begin the process of setting standards for DUI/Drg Corts. Advisory Board. An advisory board shold be established to gide development of a national strategy. Information Repository. A clearinghose for information on state-of-the-art techniqes of DUI Cort practice and treatment mst be established. NADCP may be the appropriate body to serve in that role. A Clear Pblic Voice. It is critical that the DUI/Drg Cort commnity speaks with a clear and nified voice when commnicating its needs, mission, and roles to the media and the pblic. It may be appropriate for NADCP to take the lead in pblic otreach efforts. R EFERENCES American University, AU Drg Cort Clearinghose and Technical Assistance Project.

16 Belenko, S., Research on Drg Corts: A Critical Review. New York: The National Center on Addiction and Sbstance Abse, Colmbia University. Pblished in the National Drg Cort Institte Review, I/1, Smmer Brea of Jstice Statistics, April Alcohol and Crime: An Analysis of National Data on the Prevalence of Alcohol Involvement in Crime. Prepared for the Assistance Attorney General s National Symposim on Alcohol Abse and Crime. Washington, D.C.: Office of Jstice Programs, Brea of Jstice Statistics, U.S. Department of Jstice. Pblication No. NCJ Drg Strategies, Ctting Crime: Drg Corts in Action. Washington, D.C.: Drg Strategies. Fell, James C., What s New in Alcohol, Drgs and Traffic Safety in the U.S. Shaffer Library of Drg Policy. (Internet: HYPERLINK # National Association of Drg Cort Professionals, Drg Cort Standards Committee, Janary Defining Drg Corts: The Key Components. Washington, DC: Drg Corts Program Office, Office of Jstice Programs, U.S. Department of Jstice. Grant No. 96-DC-MX-K001. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Traffic Safety Facts Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation. Pb. DOT HS A PPENDIX A: A DVISORY P ANEL J URISDICTIONS The Advisory Panel is composed of practitioners from seven jrisdictions that are already applying the drg cort model to DUI cases in some way. Descriptions of the programs of each of these jrisdictions follow. Bakersfield Mnicipal Cort Bakersfield, California The Bakersfield Drg Cort has accepted mltiple drnk driving offenders since its inception in Jly The Bakersfield Drg Cort is a post-plea cort and has approximately 300 participants. It calls a calendar of approximately 70 participants for days each week. The drg cort sees the participants weekly for the first three months of the program, twice a month for the next three months, monthly for two to three months, and then weekly for the last month of the program.

17 After gradation, participants are reqired to attend once a month for three months. There are some variations based on individal need from this basic otline. The cort has many DUI (alcohol and/or drg) drivers. Once enrolled in drg cort, participants are assessed by drg cort staff (certified drg and alcohol abse specialists) and referred to varios commnity-based treatment providers based on individal needs. In addition to conseling, 12-step, or other self-help meetings, they are also reqired to sbmit to rine tests for alcohol and street drgs and to attend drg cort hearings. After gradation, the cort deletes the fine and works with participants to deal with mandatory minimm sentences. Typically, the cort will allow work release, electronic monitoring, or any other acceptable alternative to jail time. The recording of the conviction and state-mandated license restrictions imposed by the state department of motor vehicles (DMV) are not affected by participation in drg cort. To flly nderstand the process by which the Bakersfield Drg Cort handles DUI alcohol cases, it helps to have a basic nderstanding of California State law. If there is a grant of probation pon a first conviction for driving nder the inflence, state law mandates a minimm of 48 hors in jail (which is not normally done in actal cstody), a very large fine of approximately $1,400 and 12 weeks of alcohol awareness classes. The conviction is expensive, bt it actally involves no real jail time. There is almost always a driver s license sspension of from for to six months, which is imposed by the California DMV and not by the cort. A second conviction within seven years (if probation is granted) mandates a minimm of 96 hors in cstody (again sally not done in actal cstody), the same large fine, an 18-month license sspension (reqiring the offender to enroll in and complete a 12-month driving-nder-the-inflence school to have the license reinstated), and the installation of an interlock ignition device on the offender s vehicle. This conviction also involves little or no actal jail time. The mandatory loss of the driver s license for an extended period of time is the sanction most often complained of by the offenders. In the experience of the Bakersfield Drg Cort, first and second offenders seldom reqest drg cort. Once the reqirements of drg cort are explained and the offender has the opportnity to compare those reqirements with the standard sentence, they normally opt to be sentenced. It shold be noted that the Drg Cort has many first and second offenders, bt those persons normally have pled gilty to driving nder the inflence of a controlled sbstance, which reqires a mandatory minimm of 90 days in jail. A third conviction for DUI within seven years mandates a minimm for-month jail sentence, a three-year license sspension, the same fine, and other standard conditions of probation. A forth conviction is a felony in California. The Bakersfield Drg Cort, typically sees third offenders. The Cort is very aware that mltiple DUI offenders are of great concern to the commnity in that they are (with considerable jstification) perceived to be extremely dangeros. In addition, they tend to be in a mch greater state of denial than the typical drg cort client, a controlled-sbstance addict. It has been decided that anyone convicted of DUI with two or more priors mst serve 30 days in jail or in a legitimate 24-hor residential treatment facility, dring which time they will receive alcohol conseling prior to beginning the standard drg cort program. This reqired 30-day sentence reslts in the offender being away from alcohol for 30 days. The participant receives significant conseling dring that period and the period of confinement has significant affect pon thoght processes with regard to alcohol. Most persons convicted of this offense have never really been to jail (except possibly overnight). A 30-day commitment tends to give them time to think and realize that alcohol has a very real adverse effect on their lives. They tend to be mch more willing to accept that they have an alcohol problem and become more focsed pon recovery after the commitment. According to the Drg Cort Jdge, the likelihood of having a mltiple offender who is not an alcoholic is very remote. Upon release from cstody the DUI offenders go throgh the normal intake process for drg cort. They are made very aware that if they come to drg cort with an odor of alcohol abot their person, there is a strong chance they will be taken

18 into cstody on the spot. It is also pointed ot that they will be held absoltely accontable for all cort-ordered AA meetings, conseling, and any other orders the cort sees fit to impose. The rationale behind this is that the half-life of alcohol in the rine is only a few hors. As a reslt, the only way to monitor program performance is in areas other than rine testing. It is made clear that the cort has no choice except to deal with these offenders in a more strict fashion than the typical drg cort client. Dring the entire drg cort process the client is monitored closely, and if the drg cort specialist feels the participant is not progressing satisfactorily he or she is immediately referred to the probation officer. If there is any reason to sspect recent se of alcohol the client is also referred to the probation officer for a Breathalyzer test. In the event alcohol is detected, the drg cort team staffs the case to determine the corse of treatment or sanctions to impose. At that time the cort may take the client into cstody if it becomes necessary. On average these clients are reqired to be in drg cort two months longer than the typical client. Analysis of DUI With Priors Referred to Drg Cort From May 1, 1996 to April 30, 1998 Althogh defendants convicted of DUI with priors were referred to Bakersfield Drg Cort since December 1993, this analysis only covers cases referred to drg cort for May 1, 1996 to April 30, The tracking system that monitors drg cort activities was not implemented ntil Dring this time frame, 64 misdemeanor DUI and 1 felony DUI with prior were referred to Drg Cort. Of the cases referred (does not inclde active participants) 30 defendants (46 percent) completed the program. 5 defendants who completed the program (17 percent) were rearrested. 1 defendant was rearrested while in the program. The length of time defendants were in the program varied from a minimm of 6 months to 24 months. Of the defendants rearrested: 33 percent were in the program for 6 months. 19 percent were in the program from 7 months to 12 months. 17 percent were in the program from 13 months to 18 months. 0 percent were in the program from 19 months to 24 months. It appears that the longer defendants are in the program, the likelihood of rearrest diminishes. Bernalillo Conty Metropolitan Cort Bernalillo Conty, New Mexico Overview