EFFECTIVE RESPONSES TO SUBSTANCE ABUSE IN MINNESOTA COURTS MARCH 21, 2007 MINNESOTA JUDICIAL BRANCH

EFFECTIVE RESPONSES TO EFFECTIVE RESPONSES TO SUBSTANCE ABUSE IN SUBSTANCE ABUSE IN MINNESOTA COURTSMINNESOTA COURTS

MARCH 21, 2007MARCH 21, 2007

MINNESOTA JUDICIAL BRANCH

HISTORYHISTORY

• LOCAL LEVELLOCAL LEVEL

RAMSEY COUNTY SUBSTANCE ABUSE RAMSEY COUNTY SUBSTANCE ABUSE INITIATIVE---1999INITIATIVE---1999

STEERING COMMITTEE FORMEDSTEERING COMMITTEE FORMEDKEY STAKEHOLDERSKEY STAKEHOLDERS

COUNTY ADMINISTRATIONCOUNTY ADMINISTRATIONCOUNTY ATTORNEYCOUNTY ATTORNEYCOUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDERCOUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDERCOUNTY COMMISSIONERCOUNTY COMMISSIONERCOUNTY SHERIFFCOUNTY SHERIFFDIRECTORS OF: COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS, DIRECTORS OF: COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS,

HUMAN SERVICES, PUBLIC HEALTH. HUMAN SERVICES, PUBLIC HEALTH.

HISTORY HISTORY (cont’d)(cont’d)

• DISTRICT WIDE CONFERENCEDISTRICT WIDE CONFERENCE• FOCUS GROUPS FORMED FROM FOCUS GROUPS FORMED FROM

PARTICIPANTSPARTICIPANTS• MADE FINDINGS AND MADE FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS TO STEERING RECOMMENDATIONS TO STEERING COMMITTEE IN 2000COMMITTEE IN 2000

• STANDARDS DEVELOPED BY STANDARDS DEVELOPED BY STEERING COMMITTEESTEERING COMMITTEE

RAMSEY COUNTY DISTRICT COURT RAMSEY COUNTY DISTRICT COURT STANDARDS ON SUBSTANCE STANDARDS ON SUBSTANCE

ABUSEABUSE

• STANDARD 1: JUDGE AS LEADER IN STANDARD 1: JUDGE AS LEADER IN COURT’S REPONSE TO SUBSTANCE ABUSECOURT’S REPONSE TO SUBSTANCE ABUSE

• STANDARD 2: COURTHOUSE AS STANDARD 2: COURTHOUSE AS INFORMATION AND REFERRAL CENTERINFORMATION AND REFERRAL CENTER

• STANDARD 3: ACCESS TO CONTINUING STANDARD 3: ACCESS TO CONTINUING EDUCATIONEDUCATION

• STANDARD 4: COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS STANDARD 4: COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS RESPONSIBILITIESRESPONSIBILITIES

• STANDARD 5: ORDERING TREATMENTSTANDARD 5: ORDERING TREATMENT

RAMSEY COUNTY DISTRICT COURT RAMSEY COUNTY DISTRICT COURT STANDARDS ON SUBSTANCE STANDARDS ON SUBSTANCE ABUSE (cont’d)ABUSE (cont’d)• STANDARD 6: INDICATIONS OF STANDARD 6: INDICATIONS OF

SUBSTANCE ABUSESUBSTANCE ABUSE• STANDARD 7: SCREENINGSTANDARD 7: SCREENING• STANDARD 8: CHEMICAL HEALTH STANDARD 8: CHEMICAL HEALTH

ASSESSMENTASSESSMENT• STANDARD 9: TREATMENT MATCHINGSTANDARD 9: TREATMENT MATCHING• STANDARD 10: RECOMMENDATION TO STANDARD 10: RECOMMENDATION TO

STATE CORRECTIONAL AUTHORITIESSTATE CORRECTIONAL AUTHORITIES

RAMSEY COUNTY DISTRICT COURT RAMSEY COUNTY DISTRICT COURT STANDARDS ON SUBSTANCE STANDARDS ON SUBSTANCE ABUSE (cont’d)ABUSE (cont’d)• STANDARD 11: MANDATORY STANDARD 11: MANDATORY

ABSTINENCEABSTINENCE• STANDARD 12: MONITORING STANDARD 12: MONITORING

COMPLIANCECOMPLIANCE• STANDARD 13: RELAPSESTANDARD 13: RELAPSE• STANDARD 14: STANDARDS FOR STANDARD 14: STANDARDS FOR

TREATMENT PROVIDERSTREATMENT PROVIDERS• STANDARD 15: TREATMENT STANDARD 15: TREATMENT

DIRECTORYDIRECTORY

RAMSEY COUNTY DISTRICT COURT RAMSEY COUNTY DISTRICT COURT STANDARDS ON SUBSTANCE STANDARDS ON SUBSTANCE ABUSE (cont’d)ABUSE (cont’d)• STANDARD 16: COMMUNITY RESOURCESSTANDARD 16: COMMUNITY RESOURCES• STANDARD 17: COMMUNICATION AND STANDARD 17: COMMUNICATION AND

COLLOBORATION WITHIN THE COURT AND COLLOBORATION WITHIN THE COURT AND WITH THE COMMUNITYWITH THE COMMUNITY

• STANDARD 18: USE OF THE COURTHOUSE STANDARD 18: USE OF THE COURTHOUSE FOR RECOVERY AND EDUCATION FOR RECOVERY AND EDUCATION SESSIONSSESSIONS

• STANDARD 19: SUBSTANCE ABUSE STANDARD 19: SUBSTANCE ABUSE WITHIN THE COURTSWITHIN THE COURTS

• STANDARD 20: SUBSTANCE ABUSE STANDARD 20: SUBSTANCE ABUSE AMONG ATTORNEYS AND JUDGESAMONG ATTORNEYS AND JUDGES

PROBLEM SOLVING COURTS IN PROBLEM SOLVING COURTS IN RAMSEY COUNTYRAMSEY COUNTY

• Juvenile Substance Abuse Court (JSAC)Juvenile Substance Abuse Court (JSAC) Began in 2001Began in 2001 Target population: Ramsey County Resident, non-violent Target population: Ramsey County Resident, non-violent

offender, substance abuse problem, avoidance of out-of-offender, substance abuse problem, avoidance of out-of-home placementhome placement

• Cost-benefit analysis completed in 2006Cost-benefit analysis completed in 2006• Graduates had the lowest cost of any group averaging Graduates had the lowest cost of any group averaging

$12,000 less than the comparison group over a two years.$12,000 less than the comparison group over a two years.• Comparison group costs were 41% higher per juvenile.Comparison group costs were 41% higher per juvenile.• JSAC Participants had significantly less contact with the JSAC Participants had significantly less contact with the

court system after their participation including less than court system after their participation including less than half the number of subsequent offenses; only 40% of the half the number of subsequent offenses; only 40% of the number of days in out-of-home placement and only half number of days in out-of-home placement and only half the number of days on probation.the number of days on probation.

PROBLEM SOLVING COURTS IN PROBLEM SOLVING COURTS IN RAMSEY COUNTY RAMSEY COUNTY (cont’d)(cont’d)

• Adult Substance Abuse Court (ASAC)Adult Substance Abuse Court (ASAC) Began in 2002Began in 2002 Target Population: Ramsey County resident, non-violent Target Population: Ramsey County resident, non-violent

offender, substance abuse problem, felony level offenses (to offender, substance abuse problem, felony level offenses (to include 5include 5thth/4/4thth Degree drug offenses and other non-drug related Degree drug offenses and other non-drug related case types)case types)

Length of program: 12-24 months.Length of program: 12-24 months.

• Traditionally 1Traditionally 1stst/2/2ndnd Degree drug cases excluded and 3 Degree drug cases excluded and 3rdrd Degree Degree considered on a case-by-case basis.considered on a case-by-case basis.

• Initially very few methamphetamine addicts in program. Currently Initially very few methamphetamine addicts in program. Currently at least half indicate methamphetamine as their drug of choice.at least half indicate methamphetamine as their drug of choice.

• Co-occurring disorders evident due to affects of Co-occurring disorders evident due to affects of methamphetamine.methamphetamine.

• Court Clinic created to address unmet mental health needs of this Court Clinic created to address unmet mental health needs of this population.population.


• Total participants for ASAC from 2002 to present: Total participants for ASAC from 2002 to present: 171171

• Successful completions and graduates: 44Successful completions and graduates: 44• Currently Active: 62Currently Active: 62• Over 90% of ASAC participants who stay in the Over 90% of ASAC participants who stay in the

program remain arrest free.program remain arrest free.• Program retention rate is 83%.Program retention rate is 83%.• To date 10 drug-free babies have been born.To date 10 drug-free babies have been born.• ASAC has saved at least $750,000 in jail bed savings.ASAC has saved at least $750,000 in jail bed savings.• ASAC has saved at least $204,400 in prison costs for ASAC has saved at least $204,400 in prison costs for

one female participant.one female participant.


• Ramsey County DWI CourtRamsey County DWI Court Began January, 2005Began January, 2005 Target population: Ramsey County resident, Target population: Ramsey County resident,

charged by the City of St. Paul, three or more alcohol charged by the City of St. Paul, three or more alcohol related driving offenses (Gross Misdemeanor), non-related driving offenses (Gross Misdemeanor), non-violent offender, substance abuse problem.violent offender, substance abuse problem.

Length of program: 24 monthsLength of program: 24 months

• Currently active: 25Currently active: 25

• Successful completions and graduates: 2Successful completions and graduates: 2


• Ramsey County Mental Health CourtRamsey County Mental Health Court Began in 2005Began in 2005 Target Population: Ramsey County resident, Target Population: Ramsey County resident,

Misdemeanor/Gross Misdemeanor charges, 3 Misdemeanor/Gross Misdemeanor charges, 3 or more law enforcement contacts in the last or more law enforcement contacts in the last two years, diagnosis of SMI (serious mental two years, diagnosis of SMI (serious mental illness).illness).

• Currently Active: 19Currently Active: 19

• Successful completions and graduates: 12Successful completions and graduates: 12

PROBLEM SOLVING COURTS IN PROBLEM SOLVING COURTS IN RAMSEY COUNTY (RAMSEY COUNTY (cont’d)cont’d)

• Ramsey County Community CourtRamsey County Community Court

Began in 2001Began in 2001

Target Population: Misdemeanor Target Population: Misdemeanor “livability” crimes including “livability” crimes including Underage Consumption cases.Underage Consumption cases.

PHILOSOPHICAL DEBATEPHILOSOPHICAL DEBATE

• COURTS AS PROBLEM SOLVERSCOURTS AS PROBLEM SOLVERS

• COURTS AS ADJUDICATORSCOURTS AS ADJUDICATORS

COURTS AS PROBLEM-COURTS AS PROBLEM-SOLVERSSOLVERS

““EFFECTIVE TRIAL COURTS ARE RESPONSIVE EFFECTIVE TRIAL COURTS ARE RESPONSIVE TO EMERGENT PUBLIC ISSUES SUCH AS TO EMERGENT PUBLIC ISSUES SUCH AS DRUG ABUSE…A TRIAL COURT THAT MOVES DRUG ABUSE…A TRIAL COURT THAT MOVES DELIBERATELY IN RESPONSE TO EMERGENT DELIBERATELY IN RESPONSE TO EMERGENT ISSUES IS A STABILIZING FORCE IN SOCIETY ISSUES IS A STABILIZING FORCE IN SOCIETY AND ACTS CONSISTENTLY WITH ITS ROLE AND ACTS CONSISTENTLY WITH ITS ROLE OF MAINTAINING THE RULE OF LAW” OF MAINTAINING THE RULE OF LAW”

BUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE’S TRIAL COURT PERFORMANCE STANDARDS, BUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE’S TRIAL COURT PERFORMANCE STANDARDS, 19971997

COURTS AS PROBLEM COURTS AS PROBLEM SOLVERSSOLVERS(cont’d)(cont’d)

NATIONAL RESOLUTIONS OF SUPPORTNATIONAL RESOLUTIONS OF SUPPORT

THE NATIONAL DISTRICT ATTORNEYS ASSOCIATIONTHE NATIONAL DISTRICT ATTORNEYS ASSOCIATIONTHE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATIONTHE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION

THE NATIONAL SHERIFFS ASSOCIATIONTHE NATIONAL SHERIFFS ASSOCIATIONINTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICEINTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE

THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF COUNTY ORGANIZATIONSTHE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF COUNTY ORGANIZATIONSGOVERNORS HIGHWAY SAFETY ASSOCIAITONGOVERNORS HIGHWAY SAFETY ASSOCIAITON

MOTHERS AGAINST DRUNK DRIVING MOTHERS AGAINST DRUNK DRIVING

PHILOSOPHICAL BASIS OF CRIMINAL PHILOSOPHICAL BASIS OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEMJUSTICE SYSTEM

PUNISHMENTPUNISHMENT

OROR

REHABILITATIONREHABILITATION

PRISON?PRISON?

29.9% of prisoners released in 29.9% of prisoners released in 1998 in 15 states were rearrested 1998 in 15 states were rearrested within six months and 68% were within six months and 68% were rearrested within three years.rearrested within three years.(Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2002)(Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2002)

95% relapse to substance95% relapse to substanceabuse in three years.abuse in three years.

(Treatment Research Institute, 2002)(Treatment Research Institute, 2002)

PRISON? PRISON? (cont’d)(cont’d)

• Inmates Releasedfrom Federal

•and State Prisons473003

,

635,000

1995 2001

TREATMENT?TREATMENT?

AttritionAttrition• 50% to 67% don’t show for intake50% to 67% don’t show for intake• 40% to 80% drop out in 3 months40% to 80% drop out in 3 months• 90% drop out in 12 months90% drop out in 12 months

OutcomesOutcomes• 40% to 60% of clients abstinent at 1 40% to 60% of clients abstinent at 1

yearyearTreatment Research Institute, 2003Treatment Research Institute, 2003

PUNISHMENT OR REHABILITATIONPUNISHMENT OR REHABILITATION

• ANSWER IS BOTH---ALTHOUGH THE ANSWER IS BOTH---ALTHOUGH THE NATURE AND EXTENT OF NATURE AND EXTENT OF PUNISHMENT SHOULD DEPEND UPON PUNISHMENT SHOULD DEPEND UPON THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE CRIMETHE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE CRIME

THE ANSWERTHE ANSWER

• NEED TO DISTINQUISH BETWEEN NEED TO DISTINQUISH BETWEEN THE VIOLENT AND REPEAT THE VIOLENT AND REPEAT OFFENDER WHO IS AN ADDICT ANDOFFENDER WHO IS AN ADDICT AND

• THE ADDICT WHO COMMITS A NON-THE ADDICT WHO COMMITS A NON-VIOLENT CRIME BECAUSE OF THE VIOLENT CRIME BECAUSE OF THE DRUG ADDICTIONDRUG ADDICTION

THE ANSWER (cont’d)THE ANSWER (cont’d)

• NEED TO LOCK UP THE VIOLENT AND NEED TO LOCK UP THE VIOLENT AND REPEAT OFFENDER ANDREPEAT OFFENDER AND

• EMPHASIZE TREATMENT ALONG EMPHASIZE TREATMENT ALONG WITH SANCTIONS AND INCENTIVES WITH SANCTIONS AND INCENTIVES FOR THE LATTERFOR THE LATTER

A National A National PhenomenonPhenomenon

DRUG COURTSDRUG COURTS

DRUG COURTS - NeedDRUG COURTS - Need

• A large percentage of criminal cases are A large percentage of criminal cases are AOD offenses, or AOD addiction is the AOD offenses, or AOD addiction is the underlying reason for the crime.underlying reason for the crime.

• Addiction to drugs or alcohol affects the Addiction to drugs or alcohol affects the offender’s family members, particularly offender’s family members, particularly children.children.

• Many drug addicted criminal offenders are Many drug addicted criminal offenders are poly-drug users (meaning they use multiple poly-drug users (meaning they use multiple drugs and alcohol).drugs and alcohol).– Many also suffer from mental health Many also suffer from mental health

problems.problems.

DRUG COURTS - DRUG COURTS - DefinitionDefinition

What is a drug court? What is a drug court?

A specialized court that processes cases involving A specialized court that processes cases involving drug-using offenders through utilization of drug-using offenders through utilization of comprehensive supervision, drug testing, comprehensive supervision, drug testing, treatment services and immediate sanctions and treatment services and immediate sanctions and incentives. incentives.

Types of drug courts:Types of drug courts:– AdultAdult– JuvenileJuvenile– FamilyFamily– DWIDWI

Drug Courts - PurposeDrug Courts - Purpose

• Designed to:Designed to:– Provide Provide greater system oversightgreater system oversight and and

support for appropriate offenderssupport for appropriate offenders– Emphasize Emphasize treatment and rehabilitationtreatment and rehabilitation

with escalating sanctions for continuing with escalating sanctions for continuing alcohol or drug usealcohol or drug use

– Bring hope back into the lives of addicted Bring hope back into the lives of addicted criminal offenderscriminal offenders, allowing them a real , allowing them a real opportunity to put their drug addiction opportunity to put their drug addiction and life of crime behind them.and life of crime behind them.

Drug Courts Must Include Drug Courts Must Include TreatmentTreatment

• The length of time a patient spent in The length of time a patient spent in treatment was a reliable predictor of his or treatment was a reliable predictor of his or her post-treatment performance.her post-treatment performance. Beyond a Beyond a ninety-day threshold, treatment outcomes ninety-day threshold, treatment outcomes improved in direct relationship to the length improved in direct relationship to the length of time spent in treatment, with one year of time spent in treatment, with one year generally found to be the minimum effective generally found to be the minimum effective duration of treatment.duration of treatment.

• Coerced patients tended to stay longer.Coerced patients tended to stay longer. This This was true even though most of the legally was true even though most of the legally coerced addicts had more crime and gang coerced addicts had more crime and gang involvement, more drug use, and worse involvement, more drug use, and worse employment records than their non-coerced employment records than their non-coerced counterparts.counterparts.

Treatment Research Treatment Research Findings:Findings:

DRUG COURTS - BenefitsDRUG COURTS - Benefits

CorrectCorrect implementation of drug courts: implementation of drug courts:– Interrupts the cycle of recidivismInterrupts the cycle of recidivism of drug of drug

using offenders and helps them sustain using offenders and helps them sustain recoveryrecovery

– Increases public safetyIncreases public safety by holding offenders by holding offenders accountable through increased supervision accountable through increased supervision and drug testingand drug testing

– Results in all aspects of the criminal justice Results in all aspects of the criminal justice system system working togetherworking together for the benefit of for the benefit of both the public and the offenderboth the public and the offender


• Reduce criminal activity Reduce criminal activity by addicted offenders.by addicted offenders.

““The body of literature on The body of literature on recidivism is now strong enough recidivism is now strong enough

to conclude that completing a to conclude that completing a drug court program reduces the drug court program reduces the likelihood of further involvement likelihood of further involvement in the criminal justice system.”in the criminal justice system.”

Vera: Vera: Fluellen & Trone, 2000Fluellen & Trone, 2000

Graduation is Key


• Avoided victim costsAvoided victim costs

• Improved public safetyImproved public safety

• Fewer children in need of child Fewer children in need of child protection and more drug-free protection and more drug-free babiesbabies

• Greater employability of Greater employability of offendersoffenders (which results in lower (which results in lower recidivism)recidivism)

In addition to avoided criminal In addition to avoided criminal justice costs, Drug Courts result justice costs, Drug Courts result in:in:

““To put it bluntly, we know To put it bluntly, we know that drug courts outperform that drug courts outperform virtually all other strategies virtually all other strategies that have been attempted that have been attempted

for [high risk] drug-involved for [high risk] drug-involved offenders.”offenders.”

Marlowe, DeMatteo, Marlowe, DeMatteo, Festinger (2003)Festinger (2003)

DRUG COURTS - Success

DRUG COURTS - DRUG COURTS - Anticipated OutcomesAnticipated Outcomes

• Improved outcomes for AOD offendersImproved outcomes for AOD offenders– NY – 29% decrease in recidivismNY – 29% decrease in recidivism

• Reduction in costsReduction in costs– CA - $14M investment avoided CA - $14M investment avoided

$43.3M cost$43.3M cost

• Greater state-level collaboration Greater state-level collaboration regarding policy and funding allocation regarding policy and funding allocation

• Ongoing evaluation and assessment of Ongoing evaluation and assessment of effortsefforts

DRUG COURTS - DRUG COURTS - Anticipated Outcomes Anticipated Outcomes (Cont’d)(Cont’d)

•Periodic performance measure Periodic performance measure reportsreports

•Greater statewide consistency Greater statewide consistency through the establishment of through the establishment of standards and more centralized standards and more centralized oversightoversight

•Drug Courts save moneyDrug Courts save money – – but not right awaybut not right away. . – Example of front-end loadingExample of front-end loading– Require a substantial initial Require a substantial initial

investmentinvestment– Most cost savings based on Most cost savings based on

lower recidivism of lower recidivism of participating offenders.participating offenders.

DRUG COURTS - CostsDRUG COURTS - Costs

DRUG COURTS - DRUG COURTS - ResearchResearch

““The The re-conviction ratere-conviction rate among among a sample of almost a sample of almost 2,500 2,500

drug court participantsdrug court participants in six in six sites across New York State sites across New York State was, on average, was, on average, 29% lower29% lower over three years after the over three years after the

initial arrest than the initial arrest than the comparison group.”comparison group.”

Rempel, et. Rempel, et. al. 2003al. 2003

DRUG COURTS - DRUG COURTS - ResearchResearch

U.S. GAO 2005 Evaluation Review: U.S. GAO 2005 Evaluation Review:

• Lower rearrest and reconviction rates than comparison group Lower rearrest and reconviction rates than comparison group members.members.

• Fewer recidivism events/incidents than comparison group Fewer recidivism events/incidents than comparison group members.members.

• Longer time intervals until re-arrest or reconviction than Longer time intervals until re-arrest or reconviction than comparison group members.comparison group members.

• Recidivism reductions in various categories of offenses. Recidivism reductions in various categories of offenses.

• Decreased involvement in substance abuse.Decreased involvement in substance abuse.

• Positive cost/benefit ratio.Positive cost/benefit ratio.

DRUG COURTS – Reduced DRUG COURTS – Reduced CostsCosts

• New York - New York - $254 million in $254 million in incarceration costs were savedincarceration costs were saved by diverting 18,000 non-violent by diverting 18,000 non-violent drug offenders.drug offenders.

• Washington – Washington – Average drug court Average drug court participant produced $6,779 in participant produced $6,779 in benefits - benefits - $3,759 in avoided $3,759 in avoided criminal justice costs paid criminal justice costs paid directly by taxpayers and $3,020 directly by taxpayers and $3,020 in estimated avoided costs to in estimated avoided costs to victimsvictims

DRUG COURTS – Reduced DRUG COURTS – Reduced Costs Costs (cont’d)(cont’d)

• California - Investment of $14 California - Investment of $14 million created a total million created a total cost cost avoidance of $43.3 millionavoidance of $43.3 million over a over a two-year period - 425,014 jail two-year period - 425,014 jail days/$26 million cost and 27,894 days/$26 million cost and 27,894 prison days/$13 million were prison days/$13 million were avoided.avoided.

• Multnomah County, Oregon - $10 Multnomah County, Oregon - $10 saved for every $1 spent; saved for every $1 spent; $1,521,471 saved per year$1,521,471 saved per year

DRUG COURTS - National DRUG COURTS - National MovementMovement

•Began in 1989. By 2004 there Began in 1989. By 2004 there were were 1,6211,621 Drug CourtsDrug Courts in in operation in the United States, operation in the United States, including:including:

– 811 Adult Drug Courts811 Adult Drug Courts– 357 Juvenile Drug Courts 357 Juvenile Drug Courts – 153 Family Dependency Treatment Courts 153 Family Dependency Treatment Courts – 176 DWI Courts 176 DWI Courts – 54 Tribal Healing/Wellness Courts54 Tribal Healing/Wellness Courts– 68 Re-entry Drug Courts 68 Re-entry Drug Courts – 1 Campus Drug Court1 Campus Drug Court– 1 Federal Drug Court1 Federal Drug Court

HISTORY STATE LEVELHISTORY STATE LEVEL

• 2000---ALL MN. COURTS POLLED 2000---ALL MN. COURTS POLLED

REGARDING STRATEGIC PRIORITIESREGARDING STRATEGIC PRIORITIES

• MN. JUDICIAL ADOPTED AS ONE OF TOP MN. JUDICIAL ADOPTED AS ONE OF TOP

PRIORITIES “IMPACT OF AOD ISSUES PRIORITIES “IMPACT OF AOD ISSUES

ON COURTS”ON COURTS”

HISTORYHISTORYSTATE LEVEL (cont’d)STATE LEVEL (cont’d)

• MINNESOTA SUPREME COURT CREATION OF MINNESOTA SUPREME COURT CREATION OF CHEMICAL DEPENDENCY TASK FORCE MARCH, CHEMICAL DEPENDENCY TASK FORCE MARCH, 20052005

• MEMBERSHIP: STATE COMMISSIONER OF MEMBERSHIP: STATE COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTIONS, PUBLIC SAFETY, HUMAN CORRECTIONS, PUBLIC SAFETY, HUMAN SERVICES, PUBLIC HEALTH, COUNTY ATTORNEY, SERVICES, PUBLIC HEALTH, COUNTY ATTORNEY, STATE PUBLIC DEFENDER, COUNTY SHERIFF, STATE PUBLIC DEFENDER, COUNTY SHERIFF, CHIEF OF POLICE, COURT ADMINISTRATORS, CHIEF OF POLICE, COURT ADMINISTRATORS, COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS, STATE COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS, STATE REPRESENTATIVE, STATE SENATOR, JUDGES, REPRESENTATIVE, STATE SENATOR, JUDGES, SUPREME COURT JUSTICESUPREME COURT JUSTICE

PURPOSEPURPOSE

1. CONDUCT BACKGROUND RESEARCH ON SPECIFIC 1. CONDUCT BACKGROUND RESEARCH ON SPECIFIC

ISSUES CONCERNING AOD DEPENDENT PERSONS,ISSUES CONCERNING AOD DEPENDENT PERSONS,

PARTICULARLY AOD OFFENDERSPARTICULARLY AOD OFFENDERS

2. CONDUCT AND INVENTORY OF CURRENT MULTI-2. CONDUCT AND INVENTORY OF CURRENT MULTI-

AGENCY, STATE-LEVEL AOD EFFORTS IN MINNESOTAAGENCY, STATE-LEVEL AOD EFFORTS IN MINNESOTA

AS WELL AS IN OTHER STATESAS WELL AS IN OTHER STATES

PURPOSE (cont’d)PURPOSE (cont’d)

3.3. IDENTIFY AND RECOMMEND APPROACHES, IDENTIFY AND RECOMMEND APPROACHES,

SOLUTIONS AND OPPORTUNITIES FORSOLUTIONS AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR

COLLABORATIONCOLLABORATION

REPORTSREPORTS

ADULT AND JUVENILE AOD OFFENDERSADULT AND JUVENILE AOD OFFENDERS

FEBRUARY, 2006 FEBRUARY, 2006

OVERALL IMPACT OF AOD ACROSS ALL OVERALL IMPACT OF AOD ACROSS ALL CASE TYPESCASE TYPES

NOVEMBER, 2006NOVEMBER, 2006

PHILSOPHICAL BASISPHILSOPHICAL BASIS

TASK FORCE ACCEPTED THAT ADDICTION IS A TASK FORCE ACCEPTED THAT ADDICTION IS A BRAIN DISEASE CHARACTERIZED BY BRAIN DISEASE CHARACTERIZED BY COMPULSIVE, AT TIMES, UNCONTROLLABLE DRUG COMPULSIVE, AT TIMES, UNCONTROLLABLE DRUG CRAVING, SEEKING AND USE THAT PERSIST EVEN CRAVING, SEEKING AND USE THAT PERSIST EVEN IN THE FACE OF EXTREMELY NEGATIVE IN THE FACE OF EXTREMELY NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES. FOR MANY PEOPLE, DRUG CONSEQUENCES. FOR MANY PEOPLE, DRUG ADDICTION BECOMES CHRONIC, WITH RELAPSES ADDICTION BECOMES CHRONIC, WITH RELAPSES POSSIBLE EVEN AFTER LONG PERIODS OF POSSIBLE EVEN AFTER LONG PERIODS OF ABSTINENCE.ABSTINENCE.

ALAN I. LESHNER, NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON DRUG ABUSEALAN I. LESHNER, NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON DRUG ABUSE

RECOMMENDATIONSRECOMMENDATIONS

• IMPLEMENT PROBLEM SOLVING APPROACHES FOR ADULT IMPLEMENT PROBLEM SOLVING APPROACHES FOR ADULT AND JUVENILE OFFENDERSAND JUVENILE OFFENDERS

• IMPLEMENT PROBLEM SOLVING APPROACHES FOR OTHER IMPLEMENT PROBLEM SOLVING APPROACHES FOR OTHER CASE TYPESCASE TYPES

CHIPS, DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, DWI OFFENDERS, CHIPS, DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, DWI OFFENDERS, CIVIL COMMITMENTCIVIL COMMITMENT

• RESTORATIVE JUSTICE/OTHER INTERVENTIONSRESTORATIVE JUSTICE/OTHER INTERVENTIONS

• FUNDING AND RESOURCESFUNDING AND RESOURCES

• FEASIBILITY OF TAKING PROBLEM SOLVING APPROACHES FEASIBILITY OF TAKING PROBLEM SOLVING APPROACHES STATEWIDESTATEWIDE

KEYKEY

The Three C’sThe Three C’s

COLLABORATION, COORDINATION, AND COLLABORATION, COORDINATION, AND COOPERATIONCOOPERATION

CURRENT PICTURECURRENT PICTURE

• MINNESOTA JUDICIAL BRANCH CREATED A DRUG COURT INITIATIVE MINNESOTA JUDICIAL BRANCH CREATED A DRUG COURT INITIATIVE ADVISORY COMMITTEE (DCI)ADVISORY COMMITTEE (DCI)

• PURPOSE AND CHARGEPURPOSE AND CHARGE 1. OVERSEE AND ADVISE POLICY FORMULATION AND 1. OVERSEE AND ADVISE POLICY FORMULATION AND

IMPLEMENTATIONIMPLEMENTATION A. DRUG COURT STANDARDSA. DRUG COURT STANDARDS B. DRUG COURT GRANT DISTRIBUTION PROCESS ANDB. DRUG COURT GRANT DISTRIBUTION PROCESS AND STRUCTURE STRUCTURE C. MUTI-DISCIPLINARY AND STATE-WIDE TRAININGC. MUTI-DISCIPLINARY AND STATE-WIDE TRAINING D. KEY PERFORMANCE MEASURES FOR DRUG COURTS, D. KEY PERFORMANCE MEASURES FOR DRUG COURTS,

EVALUATION, EVALUATION, MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM (MIS)MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM (MIS) E. OTHER DUTIES AS ASSIGNED BY JUDICIAL COUNCILE. OTHER DUTIES AS ASSIGNED BY JUDICIAL COUNCIL

CURRENTCURRENT PICTUREPICTURE ( (cont’dcont’d))

• STUDY OF FUNDING STREAMS AND SERVICE STUDY OF FUNDING STREAMS AND SERVICE PROVISIONS TO MN. DWI & ADULT DRUG COURTSPROVISIONS TO MN. DWI & ADULT DRUG COURTS Identify service & funding structures for drug courts Identify service & funding structures for drug courts

compared to traditional case processingcompared to traditional case processing Identify obstacles to optimal service delivery for Identify obstacles to optimal service delivery for

drug courts compared to traditional case processingdrug courts compared to traditional case processing Determine reasons for funding inequitiesDetermine reasons for funding inequities Recommend alternatives for funding & service Recommend alternatives for funding & service

structuresstructures Develop a methodology for a cost-benefit analysis Develop a methodology for a cost-benefit analysis

of MN drug courtsof MN drug courts

LEGISLATIVE INITIATIVELEGISLATIVE INITIATIVE

• JUDICIAL BRANCH BUDGET REQUESTJUDICIAL BRANCH BUDGET REQUEST INCLUDES FUNDING FOR ALL CRITICAL INCLUDES FUNDING FOR ALL CRITICAL JUSTICE PARTNERS FOR PROBLEM SOLVINGJUSTICE PARTNERS FOR PROBLEM SOLVING APPROACHESAPPROACHES

• SENTENCING GUIDELINES COMMISSIONSENTENCING GUIDELINES COMMISSION RECOMMENDED:RECOMMENDED: 1. RE-RANK 11. RE-RANK 1STST AND 2 AND 2ndnd DEGREE DEGREE OFFENSES ANDOFFENSES AND 2. FUND THE JUDICIAL BRANCHES2. FUND THE JUDICIAL BRANCHES INITIATIVE FOR THE EXPANSIONINITIATIVE FOR THE EXPANSION OF DRUG COURTSOF DRUG COURTS

CONTACT INFORMATIONCONTACT INFORMATION

The Honorable Joanne M. SmithThe Honorable Joanne M. Smith

Judge of District CourtJudge of District Court

15 West Kellogg Boulevard, Suite 153015 West Kellogg Boulevard, Suite 1530

St. Paul, Minnesota 55102St. Paul, Minnesota 55102

651-266-9190651-266-9190

Documents

EFFECTIVE RESPONSES TO SUBSTANCE ABUSE IN MINNESOTA COURTS MARCH 21, 2007 MINNESOTA JUDICIAL BRANCH