N ASSOCIATION OF DRUG COURT PROFESSIONALS€¦ · Caucasian African American Hispanic or Latino Native American Marlowe et al. (2016) ... by the drug court. Impact of Pretrial Detention

1

Key Moments in NADCP HistoryEQUITY AND INCLUSION

IN TREATMENT COURTS

DOUGLAS B. MARLOWE, JD, PHD

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF DRUG

COURT PROFESSIONALS

Disclosure

• This project was supported by Grant No. 2016-DC-BX-K007 awarded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance. TheBureau of Justice Assistance is a component of theDepartment of Justice’s Office of Justice Programs, whichalso includes the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the NationalInstitute of Justice, the Office of Juvenile Justice andDelinquency Prevention, the Office for Victims of Crime,and the SMART Office.

• Points of views or opinions in this document are those ofthe author and do not necessarily represent the officialposition or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

2

Equity and Inclusion Toolkit

• https://www.ndci.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Equity-and-Inclusion-Toolkit.pdf

Key Moments in NADCP HistoryAccess & Representation

0%

20%

40%

60%

Caucasian African American Hispanic or Latino Native American

Marlowe et al. (2016)

https://www.ndci.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Equity-and-Inclusion-Toolkit.pdf

3


62%

0%

20%

40%

60%




62%

17%

0%

20%

40%

60%



4


62%

17%

10%

0%

20%

40%

60%




62%

17%

10%

5%

0%

20%

40%

60%



~ 30% arrestees and

probationers

~ 15% arrestees and

probationers

5

Key Moments in NADCP HistoryGraduation Rates

59%

39%

32%

39%

0%

20%

40%

60%

ALL African American Hispanic or Latino Women


➢ Duty to avoid disparate access, services, andimpacts regardless of intent

➢ Affirmative obligation to know whetherdisparities exist (annual monitoring)

➢ Take corrective actions unless doing sowould demonstrably threaten public safetyor program effectiveness

➢ Evaluate success of the corrective actionsand adjust, as necessary, until disparities areeliminated (annual monitoring)

Key Moments in NADCP HistoryBEST PRACTICE STANDARDS

www.AllRise.org

http://www.nadcp.org/sites/default/files/nadcp/best-practice-standards/index.html

6

Poorer CJ Outcomes

Effects are cumulative and subtractive:

• Pre-trial release vs. detention

• Public defender philosophy and private counsel

knowledge (6th Amendment applies)

• Plea offer from prosecution

• Plea acceptance by defendant

• Screening tools (?)

• Eligibility criteria

• Suitability determinations

Pre-Entry Attrition

} Directly within

control of the

drug court

Can be influenced

but not controlled

by the drug court

Key Moments in NADCP HistoryImpact of Pretrial Detention

• Approximately two thirds of jail inmates are

(presumed innocent) pretrial detainees

• Approximately 70% are charged with nonviolent,

non-weapon-related crimes

• Approximately 80% cannot pay $2,500 bail/bond

• Compared to matched released defendants:

– More likely to plead guilty or be convicted

– More likely to receive a jail or prison sentence

– Receive longer incarceration or probation sentences

– Have lower employment and educational attainments

– Earn lower salaries

– Are less likely to own a home

– Experience greater family conflict and dysfunction

7

Key Moments in NADCP History

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

Caucasion (non-Hispanic) African American (non-

Hispanic)

Hispanic (any race)

State (1990-2004) Federal (2008-2010)

BJS (2007; 2012)

Pre

-tri

al R

ele

ase

Disparities

68%65%

55%

20%

62%

43%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

National (1990-2004)

Pretrial services > bond (KY, 2010)

Complaint-summons (NJ, 2017)

BJS (2012); COSCA (2013); NJ-AOC (2018); VanNostrand & Lowenkamp, 2013)

Released pretrial Failure to appear New arrest

Pretrial Release Outcomes

8

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%







62%

23%

17%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%







62%

23%

17%

73%

10% 11%

DC = 80%

9

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%







62%

23%

17%

73%

10% 11%

71%

11%14%

DC = 80%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%







62%

23%

17%

73%

10% 11%

71%

11%14%

DC = 80%

Racial Disparities Reduced but not Eliminated

10

Triggering Event

Paper Eligibility

Refer for Screening

Clinical Assessment

Admission Decision

Case not examined

Case deemed ineligible

Individual screened out

Clinical needs don’t match with program

Decision made for non-admission.

Someone

believes

Individual is

unsuitable

The Access Process

Triggering Event

Paper Eligibility

Refer for Screening

Clinical Assessment

Admission Decision

Case not examined

Case deemed ineligible

Individual screened out

Clinical needs don’t match with program

Decision made for non-admission.

Someone

believes

Individual is

unsuitable

The Access Process

11


0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Prosecutor

Decision

Defendant

Refusal

Ineligible Judge

Override

Case

Dismissed

Medical or

Mental Health

African American males (n=385)

Caucasian males (n=492)

Janku (2016)

68%

Reasons for Non-Admission

10%8%

28%

“Paper-Eligible Candidates”

29%

20%

1%

27%

3%1%

5%

1%


0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

U.S. Census All Arrests Violent

Arrests

Property

Arrests

Drug

Arrests

Non-Hispanic Caucasian

African American

Uniform Crime Reports (FBI, 2017)

60%

Exclusionary Charges

13%

12


0%

20%

40%

60%

80%


Arrests

Property

Arrests

Drug

Arrests


African American


60%

13%

69%

27%



0%

20%

40%

60%

80%


Arrests

Property

Arrests

Drug

Arrests


African American


60% 59%

13%

38%

69%

27%


13


0%

20%

40%

60%

80%


Arrests

Property

Arrests

Drug

Arrests


African American


60% 59%

68%

13%

38%

29%

69%

27%



0%

20%

40%

60%

80%


Arrests

Property

Arrests

Drug

Arrests


African American


60% 59%

70%68%

13%

38%

29%

69%

27% 27%


14


0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

ALL PRISONERS Violent Index

Offense

Property Index

Offense

Drug Index

Offense

Any Offense

Violent Offense

BJS: Alper & Durose (2018)

Re-A

rrest

Rate

Recidivism RatesRe-Arrest Rate: 2005 - 2014 (9-year follow-up)

Excludes sex offenders


0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


Offense

Property Index

Offense

Drug Index

Offense

Any Offense

Violent Offense


Re-A

rrest

Rate

83%

Recidivism RatesRe-Arrest Rate: 2005 - 2014 (9-year follow-up)

39%


15


0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


Offense

Property Index

Offense

Drug Index

Offense

Any Offense

Violent Offense


Re-A

rrest

Rate

83%

Recidivism Rates

79%

Re-Arrest Rate: 2005 - 2014 (9-year follow-up)

39%43%



0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


Offense

Property Index

Offense

Drug Index

Offense

Any Offense

Violent Offense


Re-A

rrest

Rate

83%

Recidivism Rates

79%

88%


39%43% 40%


16


0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


Offense

Property Index

Offense

Drug Index

Offense

Any Offense

Violent Offense


Re-A

rrest

Rate

83%

Recidivism Rates

*

79%


39%43% 40%

*


84%

34%

* p < .05

88%


0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


Offense

Property Index

Offense

Drug Index

Offense


Re-A

rrest

Rate

fo

r D

iffe

ren

t O

ffen

se

77%

Arrested for Different Offense

75% 77%83%


17

Developed by Anne Janku, Ph.D., 2016

Marketing & Outreach

Social Marketing Surveys

• What is the word on the street about drug court?

• Why did you decide to (not to) participate?

• Why did other people you know decide to (not to)

participate?

• When did you first hear about drug court?

• Who first told you about drug court?

• What was their attitude about it?

• What might make it more appealing?

Poorer CJ Outcomes

• Already served a portion of their sentence

or held pretrial for more than a month

• Heard drug court was a trap for the unsuspecting

• Heard about drug court from someone they didn’t trust

(e.g., prosecutor)

• Heard about it from defense counsel late in the case

• Orientation focused on rules and lists of obligations

• Alienating or disrespectful style during orientation

• Emphasis on intrinsic vs. concrete benefits

• Labeling or stigma

Turn-offs

18

WHICH AD REFLECTS SOCIAL

MARKETING?

▪ Favorable views of frequent drug testing and contactswith the judge (100%)

▪ Negative views of treatment providers (70%)▪ Pressure to accept label of addiction

▪ Ultimatums to comply with treatment

▪ Judgmental responses

▪ Negative views of treatment quality (66%)▪ Exclusively group-based interventions

▪ Unaddressed mental health needs (trauma, depression)

▪ Prefer natural recovery supports (e.g., church) over 12-Step groups

▪ Unaddressed employment & educational needs (64%)

Key Moments in NADCP HistoryParticipant Views (N=70)

Gallagher, 2013; Gallagher & Nordberg, 2016; Gallagher et al., 2016; Gallagher &

Wahler, in press; Dannerbeck-Janku et al., in press

19

Key Moments in NADCP HistoryOutcome Variation

Most had 10% to 30%

better outcomes for

Caucasians

Some had better outcomes

for African Americans

N = 21,008 participants in 142 Treatment Courts

Ho et al., in press

18

12

2

10

22

8

1

87 courts (61%) had

equivalent outcomes by race

> 30% 20% -

30%

10% -

20%

< 10%< 10% > 30%20% -

30%

10% -

20%

➢ Community members on Steering Committee

➢ Arrest for drug possession does not lead totermination from the program (police presence)

➢ Program routinely offers family counseling

➢ All team members, including treatment anddefense counsel, attend staffings and hearings

➢ Program regularly reviews data on services andoutcomes and makes modifications as needed

➢ Program census is less than 125 participants

➢ 90 days of sobriety is required for graduation

Key Moments in NADCP HistoryBest Practices

Ho et al., in press

20

➢ Staff and organizational readiness for change;managerial & supervisor supportiveness

➢ Treatment programs located in community

➢ Emphasize vocational & educational services

➢ Provide cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT)

➢ Focus on drugs of choice in affected community

➢ Prepare participants for peer support groups

➢ Administer gender-specific groups

➢ Staff personally involved in community

➢ Linkages and resources in community

➢ Professionally trained mentors

Key Moments in NADCP HistoryOther Best Practices

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

African

American

Caucasian w/

GED

Caucasian

w/o GEDn = 65 n =114 n = 56

*

Successful Graduation Rates

41.5%

21.9%

7.1%

African American Males 18 to 25

*

*

Culturally Proficient Treatment

Vito & Tewksbury (1998)

Replicated: Beckerman & Fontana 2001; Marlowe et al., 2018

21

• Culturally tailored, strength-based, trauma informed

• African American males 18 to 29 years of age

• Not presumed to be drug or alcohol dependent

• 80 sessions over 9 months:

1. Self – prevalent myths, stereotypes andmisconceptions of African American manhood

2. Family – unrecognized and unacknowledged trauma

3. Community – neighborhood challenges and threats

4. Spirituality – natural and preferred recovery communities

5. Mentoring and employment

Key Moments in NADCP HistoryH.E.A.T.

• Avg. 10 previous convictions

• Avg. 22 months of incarceration

• 90% of charges included drug trafficking

• Wide range of substances used

• 81% avg. session attendance rate

• Avg. of 65 sessions attended (SD=10 sessions)

• Avg. length of stay = 264 days

• 90% completed HEAT

• 71% on track to complete drug court

• Ratings of treatment satisfaction, counselingrapport, and peer support > 75th percentile

Key Moments in NADCP HistoryStudy 1: Feasibility

22

• Reentry drug court

• Condition of parole

• Administrative discharge from parole

• Contemporary comparison group

• Matched comparison group

Key Moments in NADCP HistoryStudy 2: Effect Size

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

HEAT (n=19) Contemporary TAU (n=38) Matched TAU (n=38)

Graduated MCRC & completed parole Completed parole only Terminated from MCRC & parole revoked

42%

29%24%

• Reentry drug court

• Condition of parole

• Administrative discharge from parole

• Contemporary comparison group

• Matched comparison group

Key Moments in NADCP HistoryStudy 2: Effect Size

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

HEAT (n=19) Contemporary TAU (n=38) Matched TAU (n=38)

Graduated MCRC & completed parole Completed parole only Terminated from MCRC & parole revoked

26%

45%

66%

Effect Size:

Cramer’s V > 0.30 (moderate)

p < .05

23

Key Moments in NADCP HistoryConclusions

• Racial, ethnic and gender disparities permeatetreatment courts

• Pretrial detention and bond contribute todisparities without protecting public safety

• Exclusionary charges (especially violence)contribute to disparities without protecting publicsafety

• Suitability determinations (especially by theprosecution) contribute to disparities

• Drug courts make poor efforts to sell their product

• Reflecting participants’ community-of-originimproves outcomes and reduces disparities

Key Moments in NADCP HistoryConclusions (cont.)

• Following best practices improves outcomes andreduces disparities

• Culturally proficient interventions improveoutcomes and reduce disparities

• There is no evidence that standardized andvalidated risk and need assessment toolsexacerbate disparities, and substantial evidencethey likely reduce disparities

• Ignoring these findings is a violation of theAdult Drug Court Best Practice Standards

Documents

N ASSOCIATION OF DRUG COURT PROFESSIONALS€¦ · Caucasian African American Hispanic or Latino Native American Marlowe et al. (2016) ... by the drug court. Impact of Pretrial Detention