Key Moments in NADCP HistoryADULT DRUG COURTBEST PRACTICE STANDARDS

DOUGLAS B. MARLOWE, J.D., PH.D.

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OFDRUG COURT PROFESSIONALS

Aspirational Enforceable

Eligibility & exclusion criteria are based on empirical evidenceAssessment process is evidence‐based

Key Moments in NADCP HistoryTargetPopulation

Key Moments in NADCP HistoryTargetPopulation

0

5

10

15

20

All subjects No crim. hx Crim. hx

Lowenkamp et al., 2005

Twice the reductionin re-arrests}5%

10%*8%

HIGH RISK

Key Moments in NADCP HistoryTargetPopulation

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Drug court acceptsnon-drug charges

N=42

Drug court doesNOT accept non-

drug chargesN=24

41%

21%

Perc

ent r

educ

tions

in re

cidi

vism

Carey et al. (2012)

Twice the reductionin re-arrests} HIGH RISK

Key Moments in NADCP HistoryTargetPopulation

Carey et al. (2012)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Program excludesoffenders with serious

MH issuesN=32

Program does NOTexclude offenders with

serious MH issuesN=18

21%

37%

Nearly twice the cost benefit

} HIGH NEED

Eligibility & exclusion criteria are based on empirical evidenceAssessment process is evidence‐based

A. Objective eligibility criteria 

B. High‐risk & high‐need participants

C. Validated eligibility assessments

D. Criminal history disqualifications “Barring legal prohibitions . . .”

E. Clinical disqualifications “If adequate treatment is available . . . “

Key Moments in NADCP HistoryTargetPopulation

Equivalent opportunities to participate and succeed in Drug Court

Key Moments in NADCP HistoryHx DisadvantagedGroups

Minority RepresentationRace or Ethnicity Average % (SD) Range

Caucasian 62% (14%) 1% ‐ 98%

African‐American 21% (28%) 1% ‐ 95%

Hispanic / Latino(a) 10% (17%) 0% ‐ 95%

Native American 4% < 1% ‐ 22%

MinorityRepresentation

Minority Representation

0%

20%

40%

60%

Gen'l Pop. Arrestees DRUG COURT Probation Jail Prison

African-American

Hispanic39%

13%

29%

10%

21%

28%

44%

20%16%

?

15%14%

MinorityRepresentation

Minority Representation

0%

20%

40%

60%

Gen'l Pop. Arrestees DRUG COURT Probation Jail Prison

African-American

Hispanic39%

13%

29%

10%

21%

28%

44%

20%16%

?

15%14%

MinorityRepresentation

Poorer CJ Outcomes• Male gender• Current age < 25 years

• Delinquency or substance abuse onset < 16 years

• Drug of choice (e.g., crack cocaine)

• Lower income or chronically unemployed

• Prior rehabilitation failures

• Antisocial Personality Disorder

• Familial history of crime or addiction

• Criminal or substance abuse associations

RiskforTreatmentFailure

Poorer CJ Outcomes• Male gender• Current age < 25 years• Delinquency or substance abuse onset < 16 years

• Drug of choice (especially crack cocaine)

• Lower income or chronic unemployment

• Prior rehabilitation failures

• Antisocial Personality Disorder

• Familial history of crime or addiction

• Criminal or substance abuse associations

RiskforTreatmentFailure

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

AfricanAmerican

Caucasian w/GED

Caucasianw/o GED

n = 65 n =114 n = 56

*

Vito & Tewksbury, 1998

Successful Graduation Rates

41.5%

21.9%

7.1%

African American Males 18 to 25

*

*

CulturallyProficientTreatment

Equivalent opportunities to participate and succeed in Drug CourtA. Equivalent access (intent & impact) 

B. Equivalent retention

C. Equivalent treatment

D. Equivalent incentives & sanctions

E. Equivalent legal dispositions

F. Team training (remedial measures)

Key Moments in NADCP HistoryHx DisadvantagedGroups

Contemporary knowledge; active engagement; professional demeanor; leader among equals

Key Moments in NADCP HistoryRolesoftheJudge

JudicialTerm

Carey et al., 2012

Three times greater cost benefits}

Key Moments in NADCP HistoryConsistentDocket

0

20

40

60

80

1 2 3

39%

58%

51%

# judges presiding

Re-

arre

st ra

te

Best outcomes

*

Goldkamp et al., 2002

Key Moments in NADCP HistoryStructre

Twice the cost benefit}

Pre‐CourtStaffings

Carey et al. (2012)

Twice the cost benefits}

Key Moments in NADCP HistoryStructre

Twice the cost benefit}

StatusHearings

Carey et al. (2012)

Key Moments in NADCP HistoryStructre

Twice the cost benefit}

LengthofInteractions

Carey et al. (2012)

43%

17%

Two and a half times the reduction in crime}

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Low Medium High

Key Moments in NADCP HistoryPositiveJudicialQualities

3.6 *

0.7# C

rimes

ave

rted

Rossman et al., 2011; Zweig et al., 2012

4.2 *

* p < .05

Contemporary knowledge; active engagement; professional demeanor; leader among equalsA. Professional trainingB. Length of termC. Consistent docketD. Pre‐court staff meetingsE. Frequency of status hearingsF. Length of court interactionsG. Judicial demeanorH. Judicial decision‐making

Key Moments in NADCP HistoryRolesoftheJudge

Predictable, consistent, fair, and  evidence‐based

Key Moments in NADCP HistoryIncentives&Sanctions

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Low Medium High

Key Moments in NADCP HistoryPredictableResponses

3.9 *

1.8

# C

rimes

ave

rted 4.3 *

* p < .05

Rossman et al., 2011; Zweig et al., 2012

Predictable but flexible

JailSanctions

Carey et al., 2012

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Low Medium High

Key Moments in NADCP HistoryLegalLeverage

1.4

4.1 *

# C

rimes

ave

rted

2.0

* p < .05

Rossman et al., 2011; Zweig et al., 2012

Predictable, consistent, fair, and  evidence‐basedA. Advance noticeB. Opportunity to be heardC. Equivalent consequencesD. Professional demeanorE. Progressive sanctionsF. Licit substancesG. Therapeutic adjustmentsH. Incentivizing productivity

Key Moments in NADCP HistoryIncentives&Sanctions

Predictable, consistent, fair, and  evidence‐based. . . 

I. Phase promotionJ. Jail sanctionsK. TerminationL. Consequences of graduation and 

termination (leverage)

Key Moments in NADCP HistoryIncentives&Sanctions(cont.)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Low Medium High (> 1/wk.)

Key Moments in NADCP HistoryTreatmentServices

1.2

# C

rimes

ave

rted

Rossman et al., 2011; Zweig et al., 2012

3.0

† p < .10

4.3 †

Frequency of sessions

Based on treatment needs and evidence‐basedA. Continuum of care “if adequate care is unavailable . . .”

B. In‐custody treatment

C. Team representation

D. Treatment dosage and duration

E. Treatment modalities

F. Evidence‐based treatments

G. Medications

Key Moments in NADCP HistorySubstanceAbuseTreatment

Medically necessary or medically indicated, and reasonably available

Based on treatment needs and  evidence‐based. . . 

H. Provider training and credentials

I. Peer support groups

J. Continuing care

Key Moments in NADCP HistorySubstanceAbuseTx (cont.)

Responsivity needs, criminogenic needs, or maintenance needsA. Scope of needs in populationB. Timing and sequence of servicesC. Clinical case managementD. Mental health treatment (integrated + 

medications)E. Trauma‐informedF. Criminal thinkingG. Family & interpersonal counselingH. Vocational or educational counselingI. Medical or dental treatmentJ. Health‐risk and overdose education

Key Moments in NADCP HistoryComplementaryServices

Valid, timely and comprehensive

Key Moments in NADCP HistoryDrug&AlcoholTesting

Drug Courts That Performed Drug Testing Two or More Times Per Week Had Greater Cost Savings

Note 1: Difference is significant at p<.05

Drug Courts That Received Drug Test Results Within 48 Hours Had Greater Cost Savings

Valid, timely and comprehensiveA. Frequent testingB. Random testingC. Duration of testingD. Comprehensive panelsE. Witnessed collectionF. Valid specimensG. Valid & reliable procedures H. Rapid resultsI. Participant contract

Key Moments in NADCP HistoryDrug&AlcoholTesting

Routine monitoring of best practices and valid evaluations of effectivenessA. Adherence to best practices (annually)B. In‐program outcomes (NRAC)C. Criminal recidivism (3 yrs.)D. Independent evaluations (5 yrs.)E. Electronic databaseF. Timely & reliable data entryG. Intent‐to‐treat analysesH. Valid comparison groupsI. Equivalent time at risk

Key Moments in NADCP HistoryMonitoring&Evaluation