COLLABORATIVELY COURTING SUCCESS:

COLLABORATIVELY COURTING SUCCESS: USING DATA COLLECTION AND EVALUATION TO IMPROVE PERFORMANCE Arkansas Maryland Minnesota

DATA COLLECTION IN ARKANSAS Julie Meyer, MPS Director of Policy and Research Division of Behavioral Health Services Arkansas Department of Human Services Kari E. Powers, MLA State Drug Court Coordinator Administrative Office of the Courts

Drug Courts in Arkansas Piloted in 1994 in Pulaski County Currently there are 42 Adult Drug Courts Governed by statute 16-98-301, Section 111 of the Public Safety Act of 2013. Pre and Post Adjudicated courts. Majority post-adjudicated. Adhere to 10 Key Components Funded through the Department of Community Corrections, who provide majority of staff (probation officers, administrative, counselors). Partner with outside agencies for additional substance abuse and mental health treatment services. MIS: eomis 13 Juvenile Drug Courts 8 operational DWI Courts 3 Veterans Treatment Court 6 Mental Health Court

CATG Survey: The Questions What specific practices are being utilized? And what opportunities exist to promote best practices and improve outcomes?

The Method 38 question survey for drug court staff Questions were based on the Ten Key Components Distributed through the mail and electronically Received a 100% response rate

Collaboration Worked with a collaborative group through the Closing the Addiction Treatment Gap Administrative Office of the Courts Department of Community Corrections Department of Human Services University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences Advocates

Data Collection In 2007-2008, Arkansas began to assess the data being collected in adult drug courts: What data was being collected? Why was it being collected? What more could be done? How to use that data to further improve quality of services/program performance/outcomes? This led to partnerships and endeavors with: Closing the Addiction Treatment Gap Department of Human Services NCSC Department of Community Corrections Administrative Office of the Courts

DCC Drug Court Evaluation Report Methods Cohort approach: Analyzed all drug court participants entering/actively in Arkansas drug courts during FY 2009 Progression Types of data Electronic data from 40 pre, post, hybrid courts in 23 judicial districts Data on 3,853 offenders of which 2,949 were drug court participants Control group of 904 offenders from same period/dc eligible but didn t participate Study and Control matched by age, gender, race/ethnicity and drug related offenses Examined for period of 3yrs from date of drug court entry (or beginning date of FY) Collaboration to collect

MINNESOTA STATEWIDE ADULT DRUG COURT EVALUATION Katie Schurrer Senior Research Analyst State Court Administrator s Office MN Judicial Branch

Data Collection: Who Needs a Statewide MIS? Historical background on MN s battle for data 2007 Legislative appropriation for MIS 2008-2009 statewide budget cuts Collection of data to fill the gap Buffalo, WDCIS, nothing MNCIS, CSTS, S³ Minnesota Data Tracking Sheet

MN Data Tracking Sheet

MN Data Tracking Sheet Individual Participant Data # admissions, graduates Analyze by demographics (race, age, sex, case type) Analyze timeframes (admission to treatment)

Minnesota Statewide Adult Drug Court Evaluation Big E Comparison Group Preliminary Results Final Report 2006 Statewide Drug Court Evaluation Committee formed Jan. 2007 Dec. 2008 Comparison Group cases disposed. 2011 Preliminary results on use of cost-effective practices by MN drug courts May 2012 - Statewide Evaluation Complete. 2006 2007 2008 2011 2012 Drug Court Cohort June 2007 Dec. 2008 Drug Court Cohort enters drug court. Evaluation Plan 2008 - DCI approves MN Statewide Drug Court Evaluation Plan Evaluation Period Ends June 2011 Follow-up for participant outcomes ends

MNADCE: Background Adult Non-DWI Participants From Drug & Hybrid courts 80% of all drug court participants in MN in 2008 Statewide Approach Aggregating all participants in MN s drug courts Participants entering drug court July 2007- December 2008 16 courts, 535 participants

MNADCE: Data Collaboration Data Sources Nature of Data Organization Source DAANES Treatment admission/discharge information Department of Human Services DOC Treatment Treatment information for participants in prison Department of Corrections DOC Prison Prison admissions and discharges Department of Corrections DOC LSI-R TM Risk assessment results for Comparison Group Department of Corrections Probation/DOC Files Department of Chemical health assessments, PSI's, criminal Corrections/County Probation history, personal demographics, etc. Offices MNCIS/MNJAD New charges and convictions (recidivism); primary offense characteristics Judicial Branch MSGC Worksheet Extract Criminal history worksheets and results Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines Commission Offender Drug Court Tracking Sheet Drug court participant data Judicial Branch Statewide Supervision System Jail admissions and discharges Department of Corrections RANT Risk/Need assessment results Judicial Branch - Hennepin County Drug Court Policies Policy & Procedure Manuals Judicial Branch - Drug Courts Policies & Practices Survey Survey of drug court practices Judicial Branch Drug Court Team Member Survey Survey of drug court team members Judicial Branch

MNADCE: Primary Research Questions 24 Research Questions Reduced recidivism for drug court participants? Achievements in community functioning for drug court participants? Lower incarceration for drug court participants? Drug court program compliance with Standards and other Best Practices?

MNADCE: Profile of Participants Comparison Group 644 participants from 71 counties 85% felony drug offenders Comparison Group Drug Court Cohort 535 participants from 16 courts (23 counties) 40% Hennepin County 80% felony drug offenders Drug Court Cohort Rural, 47% Metro, 53% Rural, 49% Metro, 51%

Drug courts in Minnesota work! Reduced recidivism Fewer total days of incarceration Fewer days served in prison Improving social engagement General fidelity to the Standards

Reduced Recidivism Reduction in re-conviction rate: 47% National average reduction 18% Also reductions in new charges: 37% 50% 25% 0% 12% 9% Recidivism Rate - Convictions Comparison Group Drug Court Cohort 20% 14% 30% 32% 25% 18% 18% 17% 6 months 1 year 1 ½ years 2 years 2 ½ years

Fewer Days of Total Incarceration Fewer average days incarcerated 55 fewer days Also fewer (half of comparison group) average days in prison 69 fewer days Reduced Total Incarceration Costs Over 2 ½ years = $3,189 per participant Drug Court Cohort Costs Prison = $3,961 Jail = $4,062 Total = $7,049 Comparison Group Costs Prison = $6,948 Jail = $3,291 Total = $10,238

Fewer Days in Prison Generally, lower prison incarceration rates (38% CG; 30% Cohort) Half as many days served in prison by drug court participants 200 150 100 50 0 30 Factors related to more prison days Not receiving drug court Chemically dependent Younger age Male Non-white More prior misd./gross misd. More prior felonies Not receiving treatment Days in Prison by Participant Group Comparison Group Drug Court Cohort 105 121 84 60 2 14 27 41 52 6 Months 1 Year 1 1/2 Years 2 Years 2 1/2 Years

Improving Social Engagement Non-metro participants more likely to have a valid license at exit Three in four homeless participants had other housing at discharge (facility, apartment, etc.) All completers have at least 90 days sobriety 77% completers over 1 year of sobriety 100% 75% 50% 25% 0% 35% 63% Employed Status for Drug Court Participants Entry/Exit Entry Discharge 78% 70% With Diploma/GED 66% 49% Rent/Own 55% 52% 32% 29% Valid License Paying Child Support

Improving Social Engagement - Treatment Drug Court participants receive twice as many episodes of Treatment 94% receive treatment during drug court 80% complete at least one treatment episode More likely to complete at least one treatment episode Primary Substance Problem at Treatment Admission 26% Marijuana, 19% Meth, 19% Alcohol, 16% Heroin, 17% Cocaine/Crack Highest completion rates for Meth (76%), Cocaine powder (68%)

General fidelity to Standards Participants are high need 98% Chemically Dependent Including proper stakeholders Law enforcement Treatment provider Prosecutor and defense counsel Judge stays on team 2+ years Most courts (69%) allow non-drug offenders Most (81%) have written rules for sanctions & incentives

MARYLAND S STATEWIDE MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM Janet Romsaas Faculty Research Associate Institute for Governmental Service and Research University of Maryland Gray Barton Executive Director, Office of Problem-Solving Courts Maryland Administrative Office of the Courts

SMART State of Maryland Automated Record Tracking (SMART) A comprehensive web-based management information system for Problem-Solving Courts and Others Provides a client tracking system for problem solving courts, health departments, Parole and Probation, Department of Juvenile Services and private treatment providers. Enables users from these different agencies to collect and share (when electronic consents are in place) data such as treatment attendance and drug test results, drug court hearings, client demographics, and criminal justice supervision data.

SMART Provides Client Level and Summary Reports SMART lets users monitor and report performance and progress of individual clients (Client Progress Report) Users may also summarize outcomes for treatment providers and drug courts throughout the state for 18 different subject areas, by any requested time frame. (Examples, drug test results, sanctions, treatment attendance, etc.) (Performance Reports)

Users Search for Existing Clients or Add New Clients

Admission Information

Information Collected by Problem- Solving Court Team Court Events Attended, Phase movement Case Management Activities Contacts, Referrals, and Outcomes Employment and Education Information Drug Testing Numbers and Outcomes Tx Encounters Outcomes Incentives and Sanctions Behavior types and Outcomes In Program Recidivism

Client Progress Report Shows data entered by all agencies where a valid consent is in place. Basic Demographics (Name, DOB, Admission Date, Address, Employment, Phase, etc.) Drug Test Results Supervision Contacts Incentives and Sanctions Imposed Case Management Contact Progress Summary Note

Sample Client Progress Report

Discharge Information

Robust Reporting Data may be reported on the client level, by drug court, for regions of the state, or the entire state Maryland has 18 standard Performance Reports that show admissions, discharges, drug testing, treatment attendance, court events, sanctions and incentives etc. Each performance report may be produced for any date range and for one court, many courts, or all courts in the state

Sample Performance Report Characteristics at Admission

Sample Report Characteristics at Discharge

Negative Behaviors for One Agency

38 Sanctions Recorded for Negative Behaviors

Active Problem- Solving Court Clients in Maryland Jan-May 2013

For More Information Janet Romsaas Faculty Research Associate Institute for Governmental Service and Research University of Maryland (301) 405-6124 jbridger@umd.edu Gray Barton Executive Director, Office of Problem-Solving Courts Administrative Office of the Courts (410) 260-3617 gray.barton@mdcourts.gov

BREAK

IMPROVING COURT OUTCOMES IN ARKANSAS Julie Meyer, MPS Director of Policy and Research Division of Behavioral Health Services Arkansas Department of Human Services Kari E. Powers, MLA State Drug Court Coordinator Administrative Office of the Courts

CATG Survey Results Compiled the results to analyze adherence to best practices and evidence based practices Utilized the data to make five recommendations to the collaborating organizations

Improve Response to Positive Drug Screens Percentage of courts that operate within the designated timeframes in regards to the issuance of sanctions for positive drug tests 2-3 weeks 1-2 weeks 3-5 days 1-2 days Same day

Reduce the Use of Jail Time as a Sanction Percentage of Arkansas drug courts that utilize a variety of sanctions 120 100 95.1 97.6 80 80.5 73.2 65.9 80.5 82.9 60 46.3 40 20 34.1 26.8 17.1 0

Improve the Use of External Substance Abuse Treatment Percentage of courts that face the following barriers to providing external substance abuse treatment to their clients. Other Not applicable 12.2% 17.7% Lack of client funding 73.2% Lack of space at treatment providers 12.2% Lack of external treatment providers 36.6% Lack of resources 63.4% Geographical barriers to services 39%

Expand Eligibility to High-risk Offenders Percentage of drug courts that use the following criteria to exclude individuals from participation 82.9% 78% 95.1% 85.4% 7.3% 9.8% Current History of Repeat Sex OffenseCurrent Sex Other Violent Violent Offenders Criminal Offense Offenses Offenses History

Facilitate Rapid Program Engagement Amount of time that passes between the identification of individuals as eligible for drug court and enrollment in terms of percentage of courts. > 3 weeks 2-3 weeks 24.4% 26.8% 1-2 weeks 31.7% 3-5 days 12.2% 1-2 days 4.9% Same day 0

DCC Drug Court Evaluation Report Performance Measures: Retention Sobriety Units of service Recidivism Study will profile characteristics of adult drug court participants who were active during FY2009.

Outcomes To assess the operations and impact of AR drug courts. 1. Increased the % of drug court participants who reduce substance use while in the program. 2. Reduced % of drug court participants who reoffend in program. 3. Increased % of drug court participants who graduate the program. 4. Drug court participants met 100% of their court ordered financial obligations at the time of their exit. 5. Reduced the % of drug court participants who recidivate w/in 1yr after program completion. 6. Decreased the # of positive test results for illegal substances after program exit. Additional cost benefit analysis.

USING DATA TO IMPROVE OPERATIONS AND PERFORMANCE IN MINNESOTA Jim Eberspacher State Drug Court Coordinator State Court Administrator s Office MN Judicial Branch

Minnesota s Drug Court Administrative Structure JUDICIAL COUNCIL DRUG COURT INITIATIVE ADVISORY COMMITTEE STATE COURT ADMINISTRATOR S OFFICE STATEWIDE EVALUATION COMMITTEE DRUG COURT LIAISON GROUP LOCAL DRUG COURTS STATE JUDICIAL DISTRICT ADMINISTRATORS AND SCAO DIRECTORS

Learning from State and National Research Use of Jail Ensuring Drug Court Participants are High Risk Appropriate Screening Team Representation Judge Interaction Using Data/Evaluations at the Local Level

Improving Operations and Performance at the State Level Informing the work plan of the DCI Guidance for Strategic Planning Revision of Statewide Standards Follow-up Analysis Training & Technical Assistance

MARYLAND S STATEWIDE MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM USED ON A LOCAL LEVEL Pete Cucinotta, M.A., CAC-AD, CCFC Program Coordinator St. Mary's Co. Juvenile & Adult Drug Court Gray Barton Executive Director, Office of Problem- Solving Courts Maryland Administrative Office of the Courts

Pre-Team Meeting Coordinator / Case Manager / Treatment Counselor Use of Progress Report Compliance with Case Management (drug testing and community monitoring) Compliance with Counseling Attendance & Participation

Sample Client Progress Report shows data entered at this agency and at others

Drug Test Results display from any agency where a valid consent is in place

Criminal Justice and Sanctions and Incentives When a client attends hearings, changes phases, or has contact with CJS, users document in SMART When behaviors necessitate sanctions or incentives, these are also documented in SMART

Summary Notes

Team Meeting Judge, State s Attorney, Public Defender, Law Enforcement, Parole/Probation, Case Manager, Treatment Counselor & Coordinator Full Team Knows if Participation is in Minimal Compliance and has progress report for detailed information Team addresses behaviors with rewards or sanctions

SMART Data/Report Uses Monitor Active Clients Single Reference for Client History Easy reference for changes in drug use patterns to allow for quicker monitoring changes *Display Drug Test Table Analysis/Comparisons: Examples Graduates vs. No Graduates Length in Phases Missed UA s / Positive UA s

Client Drug Testing Outcome Report

Number of Tests Scheduled and Types of Specimens Collected

Types of Drugs Tested

Graph Showing Drug Tests by Type of Specimen

Presentations Local Government Officials Local Business & Organizations Media / Press Releases

Funding Supporting Data for Maintenance or Enhancement of Funding Local, State, or Federal Funding Sources Obtain Funding Report Statistics to Grantor Grant/Project Evaluation

For More Information Pete Cucinotta, M.A., CAC-AD, CCFC Program Coordinator St. Mary's Co. Juvenile & Adult Drug Court (301) 475-7844 X4162 Pete.Cucinotta@stmarysmd.com Gray Barton Executive Director, Office of Problem-Solving Courts Administraive Office of the Courts (410) 260-3617 gray.barton@mdcourts.gov

RESPONDING TO DATA AND RESEARCH: FROM THE COURTS Honorable Shaun R. Floerke Chief Judge, 6 th Judicial District South St. Louis County DWI Court Duluth, MN

MY DISTRICT WE CURRENTLY HAVE: DWI COURT DRUG COURT MENTAL HEALTH COURT HYBRID DRUG/ DWI COURT WE MIGHT EXPAND: Another mental health court? Another hybrid court? Multi-county courts?

LOCAL LEVEL MODIFICATIONS Evaluations Policy meetings Trainings Team and agency politicking

EXAMPLE I: RESPONDING TO THE STATEWIDE EVALUATION Evaluation: Jail Usage Targeting high-risk/high-need participants

OUR USE OF JAIL Days in Jail as a Sanction for Relapse 180 2 7 30 1st Use 2nd Use 3rd Use 4th Use Started out like this

JAIL USAGE IN STATEWIDE EVALUATION Results show that more days in jail is a statistically significant predictor of recidivism. *MN Statewide Drug Court Evaluation Sixth Judicial District Results Participants in the Sixth District s Adult Drug Courts serve an average of 38 days in jail during the first 18 months after entry. The comparison participants serve an average of 32 days.

NDCI TRAINING Ceiling effect of jail Proximal/distal goals Principles of behavior modification Reviewing the evaluation and the training, we revised our jail usage guidelines

OUR USE OF JAIL 1st Use 2nd Use 3rd Use 4th Use Now looks like this

Jail is still used, but not as often 48 hours or less, unless serious infraction or criminal behavior. Team considers proximal and distal goals when deciding sanctions.

EXAMPLE II: ASSESSMENTS Statewide policy makers should refine the Drug Court Standards to specifically define high risk and provide guidance to drug courts on the tools and factors that should be used to assess risk. Drug court teams should ensure assessments of risk are completed prior to a participant s entry in drug court. *MN Statewide Drug Court Evaluation

HOW WE ASSESS Narrative assessment by our treatment provider Collaterals Any other assessments recommended after collaboration between treatment provider, team psychologist and other team members LS/CMI performed by probation What will we change? Assessments aren t strong in assessing for risk RANT tool for DWI Courts?

EXAMPLE III: EXPANDING OUR TARGET POPULATION Originally: Only felony DWI offenders A 2011 process evaluation indicated that the DWI Court could be just as effective by accepting repeat DWI offenders with fewer priors. St. Louis County s probation agency indicated that over 25% of second-degree offenders would go on to get a felony DWI.

Applied for a federal grant to expand our population size to include: Second-degree DWI offenders who are caught using while on probation, and Glowers (repeat offenders who do not otherwise qualify but who are caught using repeatedly and we assess as high-risk/highneed).

EXAMPLE IV: TRAUMA TRAINING 1) Observed females having a more difficult time in our program 2) Consulted with providers 3) Decided to hold a day-long community-wide training on trauma As a result, we make a point in getting participant input and we interact with everyone (male and female) in a more trauma-informed way.

Great opportunities to: POLICY MEETINGS Review evaluation findings Implement changes based on trainings Use your coordinators! They can summarize evaluation findings and training ideas, and can track changes to your program.

DISTRICT-WIDE CHALLENGES Judicial leadership Punitive members or philosophy Entrenchment Resistance to data Lack of Training Assessment, client-selection issues

STRATEGIES Data and Education around results Training Politicking Communications with agency heads Judicial and administrative communication

CONTACT shaun.floerke@courts.state.mn.us 218.726.2476

2012 Courting Success Developing a Consistent Drug Court Model in Arkansas The following report presents opportunities for Arkansas drug courts to develop a consistent model throughout the state to increase effectiveness and costefficiency, and most importantly improve the quality of and increase the access to substance abuse treatment in Arkansas. Written by: Closing the Addiction Treatment Gap in Arkansas 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Drug courts emerged in the United States as a means to offer a rehabilitative alternative for adults charged with drug related offenses. These problem-solving courts combine traditional judicial and drug treatment interventions to provide offenders with an alternative to incarceration and a chance to become drug free. This alternative offers a second chance to individuals with substance abuse problems that are caught in the criminal justice system by providing a way to benefit from drug rehabilitation. Ultimately, adult drug courts aim to reduce the number of individuals who are incarcerated by treating substance abuse and reducing criminal recidivism. Drug courts are also an effective method for providing substance abuse treatment to an audience that is often difficult to reach. In 2008, the national program Closing the Addiction Treatment Gap (CATG) expanded into Arkansas through funding from the Open Society Foundation with the goal of mobilizing public support for expanding addiction treatment by increasing public funding, broadening insurance coverage, and achieving greater program efficiency. The CATG team in Arkansas has utilized an array of strategies to increase resources for Arkansans in need of treatment. Drug courts have been pinpointed as a promising means for increasing access to substance abuse treatment to a high-risk population. With this in mind, the CATG team completed an extensive research project that culminated with a statewide survey to identify promising practices in drug courts nationwide, potential drug court outcomes, and the practices utilized in Arkansas. The full report is a compilation of research conducted by the CATG team regarding drug court practices and outcomes. The full report is available on-line at http://araddictiongap.com/index.html. The full report is divided in to three sections: OPPORTUNITIES IN ARKANSAS DRUG COURTS With the goal of gaining a better understanding of the current status of drug courts in Arkansas, the CATG team collaborated with the Arkansas Department of Community Correction and the Arkansas Administrative Offices of the Courts to conduct a statewide survey to identify current and applied practices in local drug courts. This survey allowed the CATG team to gain a better understanding of court characteristics, current practices, and perceived needs, and the detailed results of this survey are included in the appendix of this report. This information allowed CATG in Arkansas and other partners and stakeholders to identify and describe successes and variations in drug court implementation across the state and to highlight opportunities for growth and potential for the adoption of specific practices that have been successfully applied in other states. We have particularly focused on six opportunities for growth in Arkansas drug courts, with the research on each area summarized in this section. 2

BEST PRACTICES The report summarizes findings from multiple national drug court evaluations to define drug court best practices. The major findings are based on data from Defining Drug Courts: The Key Components released in 1997 by the National Association of Drug Court Professionals (NADCP) in conjunction with the Drug Court Program Office at the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) that outlines the ten key components that define drug courts. Over the past decade, this list of ten key components has served as a guideline for drug courts across the country. The report closely explains and examines each of the ten suggested practices through the synthesis of findings from national drug court evaluations. This includes discussion on the effectiveness of variations in approach to each of the ten key components. NATIONAL OUTCOMES This section explores the effectiveness of drug courts, by summarizing available national research on the issue. While reducing recidivism is the most commonly studied drug court outcome, multiple performance measures are examined, including access to treatment, program graduation rates, and inprogram substance use. Most studies show a four to 28 percent point differential in criminal recidivism rates favoring drug court graduates when matched with a comparison group. Nationally, program graduation rates for drug courts typically range from nineteen to 47 percent. Additionally, the reported rates of positive in-program drug screening range from two to 71 percent. Participant demographic variability and the methodological barriers to assessing drug court effectiveness are also addressed to paint a complete picture of our current knowledge about drug court outcomes. For the full report, please visit http://araddictiongap.com/index.html OPPORTUNITIES IN ARKANSAS DRUG COURTS The following are opportunities to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of Arkansas drug courts. These opportunities have been identified through a comparison of best practice research with the survey results collected from forty-one Arkansas drug courts, which are both included in the full report available at http://araddictiongap.com/index.html, DEVELOP AND SUPPORT A CONSISTENT STATEWIDE MODEL CONSISTENT MODEL: A consistent drug court model is a programmatic model that is developed, implemented, and supported consistently across the state. Elements of a consistent model would include specific guidance to ensure a consistent approach, tailored to the needs of Arkansas, to the implementation of the ten key components of drug courts. The programmatic model could include direction on a number of court practices that have been shown to impact client outcomes and improve 3

efficiency, for example, the specific approach to client assessment and referral for external treatment, use of escalating sanctions and implementation of random drug screens. RESEARCH SHOWS: A standardized and consistent programmatic model allows for states to hold courts accountable and provide necessary support. IN ARKANSAS: Currently, the state of Arkansas lacks a consistent drug court model. While every court follows broad guidelines, each court maintains the autonomy and authority to implement the program as the court sees fit. As reflected in the survey results, this autonomy has led a wide range of drug court models being implemented in Arkansas. For example, courts vary widely on their inclusion and exclusion criteria, typical length of participation, their use of outside treatment providers, use of sanctions and more. RECOMMENDATIONS: Develop and support a consistent statewide model based on evidence based practices. Require training on Arkansas approach to include implementation of the ten key components of drug courts for all existing staff and offer recurring training opportunities for new staff. 4

IMPROVE RESPONSE TIME TO POSITIVE DRUG SCREENINGS DRUG SCREENINGS AND SANCTIONS: Most drug courts impose sanctions to discourage negative behaviors and encourage positive ones, specifically sobriety. Drug courts utilize drug screenings to ensure clients adherence to the court s strict standards of sobriety. There is often a delay between a positive drug screening and the issuance of a sanction. RESEARCH SHOWS: The time between administering drug tests, receiving the results, and having the capacity to act on those results has an impact on the effectiveness of drug courts. Drug screenings are used as a basis for determining participants progress and to determine sanctions and rewards. Therefore, the time discrepancy between testing and available results affects the immediacy of sanctions and in turn affects the court s graduation rates. Beyond improving graduation rates, speedy test results can also increase cost saving. One study showed that drug courts where drug test results are back within forty-eight hours or less had a 68 percent increase in cost savings. IN ARKANSAS: While some Arkansan drug courts process and act upon drug screening results on the same day, over a third of the courts take longer than a week for a sanction to be issued after a drug court client tests positive. Below is a depiction of the percentage of courts that operate within the designated timeframes in regards to the issuance of sanctions for positive drug tests. 5 % 33% 15% 28% 18% RECOMMENDATIONS: Increase the efficiency and timeliness of drug screening processing and the issuance of sanctions. 59 percent 5 49 percent 98 percent

REDUCE THE USE OF JAIL TIME AS A SANCTION JAIL TIME AS A SANCTION: Sanctions are used to motivate clients to complete treatment and the drug court program. Time in jail is often utilized to punish non-compliance with the rules of drug court behavior RESEARCH SHOWS: Studies have pointed to the effectiveness of graduated sanctions to promote positive behavior, but due to availability of resources and the culture of courts around the country many judges impose time in jail as a sanction for drug court clients. Studies have shown that the utilization of jail as a sanction is not effective or cost-efficient. The use of harsh sanctions for therapeutic violations, such as positive drug screens, is not consistent with recommended therapeutic methods. Jail time also interrupts treatment, interferes with jobs and/or school, and removes individuals from their families. The use of jail is also one of the most costly sanctions available and therefore overuse of jail as a sanction reduces the cost effectiveness of drug court. IN ARKANSAS: Currently, in Arkansas, almost all drug courts utilize jail as a sanction. Not only is jail time being utilized by a large number of courts, these courts utilize jail time often and impose long stays. Drug courts reported jail time ranging from twenty-four hours to fourteen days for a participant s first sanction. Similarly, Arkansas drug courts are imposing seven to thirty days in jail for a participant s final offense prior to program termination. Actions warranting sanctions range from positive drug tests, arriving late for hearings or meetings, being untruthful, an unexcused absence, or not completing assigned homework. Below is a depiction of the percentage of Arkansas drug courts that utilize a variety of sanctions. RECOMMENDATIONS: Reduce the utilization of jail time as a sanction, especially for treatment related violations. 6

IMPROVE THE USE OF EXTERNAL SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT EXTERNAL SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT: Drug courts incorporate different levels of substance abuse treatment into their daily operations through client interaction with probation officers or counselors, drug screening, and self-help groups. Drug courts also contract with external substance abuse treatment providers to facilitate additional services, such as residential, outpatient, and detoxification. RESEARCH SHOWS: Many drug court clients need more intensive substance abuse treatment services than those provided by the drug court team. It has been shown that providing access to an array of services reduces recidivism in drug court clients. Studies have shown that a variety of treatment modalities (e.g. outpatient, intensive outpatient, residential) can reduce recidivism up to thirty-four percent. A similar study shows that drug court participants who attend more treatment are less likely to be rearrested. IN ARKANSAS: Drug court participants have access to drug screening, group counseling, and selfhelp meetings in the community through the drug court programming. To receive services beyond those, participants must work with an outside provider. While most Arkansas drug courts partner with outside providers, access to treatment is limited by lack of client funding, lack of resources, and geographical barriers. Below is a depiction of the percentage of courts that face the following barriers to providing external treatment to their clients. Other Not Applicable Lack of Client Funding Lack of space at treatment providers Lack of external treatment providers Lack of Resources Geographical Barriers 12% 18% 12% 37% 39% 63% 73% RECOMMENDATIONS: Increase access to and improve the utilization of external substance treatment. 7

EXPAND ELIGIBILITY TO HIGH-RISK OFFENDERS HIGH-RISK OFFENDERS: High-risk offenders are individuals with a high likelihood of substance abuse relapse or criminal recidivism due to the severe nature of their substance abuse and/or mental health disorders, criminal history, or seriousness of offense etc. RESEARCH SHOWS: While it is common for drug courts to focus on low-risk offenders, targeting high risk offenders for drug court services is believed to be more effective and cost-efficient. In the long run, treating high-risk offenders will reduce the use of taxpayers dollars and have a greater positive impact on the individual s life and therefore the community. Due to a high-risk offender s greater propensity for recidivism and relapse, if the underlying substance abuse is not treated they will use more taxpayers dollars in costs of law enforcement, incarceration, and substance abuse treatment than a low risk offender. IN ARKANSAS: Currently, Arkansas drug courts tend to serve lower risk offenders. Due to current state policy, drug courts are unable to serve individuals who have committed a sexual or violent offense. Additionally, 44 percent do not allow individuals with mental health disorders and 22 percent do not allow individuals with substance abuse disorders deemed too severe for available treatment. Below is a depiction of the percentage of drug courts that use the following criteria to exclude individuals from participation. 85% 95% 22% 20% 29% 44% 83% 78% RECOMMENDATIONS: Expand eligibility to allow for the enrollment of high-risk offenders. 8

FACILITATE RAPID PROGRAM ENGAGEMENT PROGRAM ENGAGEMENT: For drug courts, there is a period of time that passes between determining that a client is eligible for drug court and actual client enrollment and availability of treatment. RESEARCH SHOWS: The criminal justice intake process can be tedious and drawn out. Identification, assessment, screening, and eventual drug court placement can be a lengthy process if not strategically planned. Lengthy processing can be detrimental to the drug-involved individual s progress. It has been shown that the period immediately after an arrest provides a critical window of opportunity for intervening and introducing the value of alcohol and drug treatment. Therefore, rapid initial engagement in drug court programming strongly predicts success. Participants who attend treatment soon after enrollment in drug court are more likely to be retained and have positive long-term outcomes. IN ARKANSAS: The majority of drug courts across the state of Arkansas take longer than two weeks after determining a defendant as potentially eligible for drug court until they begin participation in drug court services and/or hearings. This does not include the time after arrest until a defendant is identified as eligible for drug court. Therefore, individuals in need are waiting to receive needed services; services that would be more effective if accessible earlier in the process. Below is a depiction of amount of time that passes between the identification of individuals as eligible for drug court in Arkansas and enrollment in terms of percentage of courts. 24% 27% 32% 12% 5% 0% RECOMMENDATIONS: Increase the efficiency and timeliness of the eligibility and enrollment process. 9