1 / 18

Drug Courts

Drug Courts. Prepared by Sheri Heffelfinger Montana Legislative Services Division For the Law and Justice Interim Committee February 2008. History . First drug court, 1989, Miami Height of crack cocaine use, related crime Corrections spending skyrocketing

danniell-klein
Télécharger la présentation

Drug Courts

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Drug Courts Prepared by Sheri Heffelfinger Montana Legislative Services Division For the Law and Justice Interim Committee February 2008

  2. History • First drug court, 1989, Miami • Height of crack cocaine use, related crime • Corrections spending skyrocketing • 60% of federal prison pop – drug offenders • Crime Bill – 1994 - Drug Court Grants • 1995-1997: $56 million • 2007: $10 million 2008: $15 million

  3. Federal Grant Program • Drug Court Discretionary Grant Program (BJA) • Local, state, tribal • direct to court or through other public/private entities • FY08 Grant: Three types • Implementation • Enhancement • Statewide

  4. Grants For FY08 • Implementation • $350,000 – 3 years • Enhancement • $200,000 – 2 years • Statewide • $200,000 – 2 years

  5. Conditions • Only for nonviolent drug offenders • Compliance w/ “10 Key Components” standards • 25% Match • Collect & report program evaluation data

  6. Proliferation • About 1,600 + drug courts nationwide • Various shapes • Adult, Juvenile, Family, Re-entry, etc. • Various sizes • City, County, District, State, Tribal

  7. Montana’s Drug Courts • 4 Adult Courts • 2 District • 1 County/JP • 1 Municipal • 4 Family Courts (District) • 4 Juvenile Courts (District)

  8. Others? • 4 Juvenile • Tribal • Chippewa Cree, Fort Peck, Cheyenne, Crow Agency • 1 Family • Tribal – Fort Peck • 1 Adult/Juvenile Combined • Tribal - Fort Belknap

  9. National Standards • 10 Key Components - Benchmarks (1997) • National Initiatives - models & guides • Planning • Training • Technical Assistance • Model Legislation

  10. 10 Key Components • Integrate legal sanctions with treatment goals • Non-adversarial • Eligibility screening after arrest • Continuum of treatment • Frequent drug testing • Judicial “face to face” – status hearings

  11. 10 Key Components - continued • Participant treatment progress closely monitored by court • Collect & report program evaluation data • Multi-disciplinary teams and partnerships • Prosecution, defense, treatment professionals, human services, corrections, community reps

  12. Drug Courts: The Second Decade • Reduces recidivism – 15 to 20% • Saves money/avoids costs – Oregon study • Saved investment costs = $1,400 • Avoided law enforcement costs = $2,300 • Avoided victimization costs = $1,300 • TOTAL = savings/avoided costs = $5,000 per participant

  13. But, words of caution • Need better data & more rigorous analysis • Time intensive for the judge • Treatment services are key to success • evidence-based, best practices, understood by court • accessible, may be provided directly by court • must address co-occurring mental and physical health • Effectiveness of juvenile courts questionable

  14. Montana Law • Drug Offender Accountability and Treatment Act • Ch. 282, L. 2005 • Title 46, Chapter 1, part 11 • Based on Model Legislation

  15. Montana vs. Model • “May” instead of “shall” establish a drug court • Not mandatory to screen every offender for drugs • Corrections officers don’t have to participate on treatment teams

  16. Montana vs. Model - continued • No statutorily assigned state-level duties • statewide training, technical assistance, standards development • No statutorily required data collection, program evaluation, or reporting requirements • No dedicated funding stream

  17. Montana Grant Program • Appropriation for Drug Courts in HB 2 • $1,345,000 in Supreme Court Operations • Section 46-1-1112, MCA, should be clarified: • Account for federal funding - confusing • 5-yr research project – not funded • Add account for state funding – institutionalize budget? • Add structure for grant process - IF to continue? • Add requirement - federal funds spent first

  18. Options A. Request draft legislation B. Request further information C. Set aside for now – other priorities

More Related