4380 SW Macadam Ave., Ste. 530Portland, OR 97239503.243.2436

Informing policy, improving programs

Implementation of the Ten Key Components: Variations in Practice

Across 18 Drug CourtsShannon Carey, Ph.D.

Mike Finigan, Ph.D.NEADCP

October 21, 2008

Research Team

• Dr. Shannon Carey• Dr. Michael Finigan • Dr. Kimberly Pukstas• Sarah Martin• Rich Mackin

Funding provided by the

National Institute of Justice (NIJ).

Project Inception• Between 1996– 2008, NPC Research

has conducted over 75 drug court evaluations.

• Evaluations include process, outcome and cost measures.

• Courts represent geographic diversity.• NIJ and NPC Research partner together

to look for larger trends.

Research Questions• How do drug courts implement the

ten key components?• Which practices are consistently

implemented across sites?• Which practices vary?

• Can we link variations in practice to outcomes and costs????

Drug Court Ten Key Components

• National Association of Drug Court Professionals, 1997

• List of ten operational practices that help define a drug court

• Widely accepted by drug court administrators

• Provide guidelines – not a manual

Methods• Select courts for

review (n = 18)• Qualitative data

coding• Organize measures by

component• Standardize reporting

• Identify gaps and collect additional data when appropriate

• Analyze data• Identify significant

variation (75% rule)

Component #1:Similarities• Group Counseling

(100%)• Individual counseling

(78%)• Support group

attendance (95%)• Tx rep on team (89%)

• Tx members provides written progress reports to court (79%)

• Tx member participates in steering/oversight committee (78%)

Component #1:

Differences• 61.5% of drug courts offered more than one

tx agency to drug court participants • 66.7% of drug courts required the treatment

rep is required to attend drug court sessions

Component #2:

Similarities• A reduction/elimination of potential jail

time is an incentive for participation (100%).

• Prosecution & defense present a united front in court sessions (86%).

• Defense attorney attends all sessions (82%).

Component #2: Differences• Allows non-drug related

charges (56%)• Allows both felony and

misdemeanors (53%)• Admits participates

post-plea/conviction (68%)

• Unsuccessful clients receive original sentence (29%)

• Prosecution/defense often disagree outside courtroom (27%)

• Prosecution attends all team mtgs (64%)

• Prosecution attends all court sessions (61%)

• Defense retains traditional role (51%)

Component #3:Similarities

• A central intake is used to pace clients in program (100%)

• Eligibility requirements have been agreed upon and are written down (94%)

Component #3:Differences• Use substance use screening tool

(71%)• Use mental health screen (35%)• No more than 30 days pass from arrest

to drug court entry (61%)• Caseload fewer than 100 (59%)• Waitlist (41%)

Component #4:Similarities

• Offer treatment in phases (100%)

• Completion in 3-4 phases (89%)

• Offer education/employment services (78%)

• Offer additional wraparound services (83%)

Component #4:Differences

• Completion takes 1 yr or longer (72%)

• Aftercare is offered (59%)

• Guidelines on the frequency of group counseling (66%)

• Guidelines on the frequency of individual counseling (30%)

Component #5:

Similarities

• Random schedule (100%)

• Urinalysis (100%)

• Breath tests (83%)

• Bracelet monitoring (24%)

• Hair tests (19%)

• Blood tests (6%)

Component #5:Differences• In phase 1, tests are collected at least 2

per week (71%)• Tx agency collects tests (39%)• Call-in system for clients (61%)• Results avail within 48 hrs (53%)• 90 days clean before graduation (47%)

Component #6:

Similarities

• Incarceration used as sanction (100%)

• Graduated sanctions (94%)

• Small gifts/rewards (83%)

• Policies are written (83%)

• Policies shared with client (85%)

Component #6:

Differences• Sanctions occur in advance of

scheduled hearing (72%)• Support groups used as sanction (50%)• Tx sessions decreased as reward (61%)• Testing decreased as reward (28%)• Judge is sole provider of rewards (50%)

and sanctions (44%)

Component #7:Similarities• Judge attends all sessions (100%)• Judge attends all team mtgs (100%)• Judge attends all policy mtgs (100%)• Judge receives written progress

reports on clients (77%)

Component #7:

Differences

• Judge assigned to court indefinitely (50%)

• In first phase, clients appear before judge 1 per week (39%)

• In final phase, clients appear before judge at least 1 per month (50%)

Component #8:Similarities• DC staff routinely collect and report

program stats (100%)• DC has been evaluated by an

independent evaluator (100%)• Maintain electronic database (94%)• Database used for case mgt (81%)

Component #8:

Differences

• Critical data for evaluation maintained in paper files (68%)

• Evaluation results have been used to modify drug court procedures (54%)

• Participated in more than 1 evaluation (33%)

Component #9

Similarities

• Members of drug court team receive routine training (100%)

• Trainings are offered to team members at least once per year (89%)

Component #9

Differences• All new hires complete a formal training

or orientation (69%)• All members on the received drug court

training (50%)• Prior to the court’s implementation,

team members received training (64%)

Component #10

Similarities• Team includes: Judge (100%)

Coordinator (94%) Public Defender (89%) District Attorney (83%) Treatment Rep (89%) Community Rep (17%)

Component #10

Differences• Team includes Probation (72%)• Team includes Law Enforcement (41%)• Steering Committee includes Community

Representatives (58%)

Conclusion• Drug courts still have a lot of

discretion in how they implement the ten key components

• Results suggest reasons why some courts cost more to operate

• Results suggest reasons why some courts have better outcomes

Next Steps

• Link process findings to cost and outcome data

• Continue to add new courts to sample

• Look for interactions related process, outcome, cost

Questions?• NPC Research:

http://www.npcresearch.com

• National Institute of Justice:

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/

• Contact Dr. Kimberly Pukstas:

Phone: 207-626-5013

Email: kpukstas@usm.maine.edu