1 / 50

“We cannot solve the problems we have created with the same thinking that created them”

“We cannot solve the problems we have created with the same thinking that created them” Albert Einstein. The Promise of DWI Courts (a.k.a. DUI/Drug Courts). Developed by the National Drug Court Institute (NDCI) C. West Huddleston, Director.

brinda
Download Presentation

“We cannot solve the problems we have created with the same thinking that created them”

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. “We cannot solve the problems we have created with the same thinking that created them” Albert Einstein

  2. The Promise of DWI Courts (a.k.a. DUI/Drug Courts) Developed by the National Drug Court Institute (NDCI) C. West Huddleston, Director Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP); Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA); National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)

  3. The Good News American’s roads are safer today as a result of the massive public awareness and enforcement campaigns that began in the early 1980s. The number of alcohol-related traffic fatalities has declined by one third since 1982 . (26,173 people killed in 1982)

  4. The Good News Since 1982, the total number of alcohol-related traffic fatalities declined 34 percent, while the number of youth under 21 alcohol-related traffic fatalities fell 56 percent

  5. Motor Vehicle Fatalities: Lowest Rate in Recorded History 2004 Rate 1.46 Sources: 2004 NCSA, FARS, FHWA

  6. Alcohol-Related Fatalities1999 – 2004 5.1%Decrease Since ’02 Source: FARS

  7. Life Saving Traffic Safety Strategies Safer Roads Safer Cars Seat Belt/Restraint Enforcement Raising Minimum Drinking Age Lowering BAC Limits to .08 Stiffer DWI Penalties Enhanced Sobriety Checkpoints Saturation Patrols

  8. National Campaigns

  9. Law Enforcement: Job Well Done

  10. Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death and injuries for Americans Age 2 through 33 Alcohol-related crashes are a substantial part of this problem! NHTSA National Center for Statistics and Analysis, 2005 Driving While Impaired in America

  11. 40% killed in traffic crashes last year died in an alcohol-related crash 65 % injured received their injuries in an alcohol-related crash NHTSA National Center for Statistics and Analysis, 2005 Driving While Impaired in America

  12. “One by one Americans are needlessly falling through dangerous gaps in the drunk driver control system in nearly every state and community.” (Millie Webb, MADD, 2002)

  13. How Do We Protect Our Communities? Punishment or Rehabilitation

  14. What if we JUST put them in PRISON? 29.9% of prisoners released in 1994 in 15 states were rearrested within 6 months and 67% are rearrested within 3 years. (BJS, 2002)

  15. What if we JUST Put Them in PRISON? Criminal Recidivism in 3 Years • 68% arrested for new crime • 47% convicted of new crime • 25% incarcerated for new crime • 50% re-incarcerated for violations Relapse to Substance Abuse in 3 Years • 95% relapse (University of Penn, 2002)

  16. What if we JUST Refer Them to TREATMENT? Attrition • 50% to 67% don’t show for intake • 40% to 80% drop out in 3 months • 90% drop out in 12 months Outcomes 40% to 60% of clients abstinent at 1 year

  17. Why Can’t People Just Change?For the Addict and Alcoholic….“Remaining Addicted Becomes Easier than Trying to Change”

  18. Does Treatment Work in Combating Substance Abuse? YES…but Not if the addict or alcoholic Isn’t there!

  19. Research Findings • Drug Abuse Reporting Project (DARP) • Treatment Outcome Prospective Study (TOPS) • Drug Abuse Treatment Outcome Study (DATOS) • National Treatment Improvement Evaluation Study

  20. Research Findings • The length of time a patient spent in treatment was a reliable predictor of his or her post treatment performance. Beyond a ninety-day threshold, treatment outcomes improved in a direct relationship to the length of time spent in treatment, with one year generally found to be the minimum effective duration of treatment. • Coerced patients tended to stay longer. This was in light of the finding that most of the legally coerced addicts had more crime and gang involvement, more drug use, and worse employment records than their non-coerced counterparts.

  21. The Answer is the COURTS Punishment and Accountability Treatment

  22. Courts as Problem-Solver “Effective trial courts are responsive to emergent public issues such as drug abuse…A trial court that moves deliberately in response to emergent issues is a stabilizing force in society and acts consistently with its role of maintaining the rule of law” Bureau of Justice Assistance’s Trial Court Performance Standards, 1997

  23. DWI Courts Why Do We Believe DWI Court is the Answer?

  24. DWI Courts are Based on the Tested and Proven DRUG COURT Model

  25. A Drug Court is a common-sense approach to the drug/alcohol offender. Its purpose:To expedite the time interval to get offenders into accountability and treatment QUICKLYTo keep the individual engaged in treatment LONG ENOUGH to receive treatment benefits.

  26. Number of Drug Courts

  27. Drug Courts Today • 1,621 drug courts in operation • 811 Adult Drug Courts • 357 Juvenile Drug Courts • 153 Family Dependency Treatment Courts • 176 DWI/Drug Courts • 54 Tribal Healing to Wellness Courts • 68 Reentry Drug Courts • 1 Campus Drug Courts • 1 Federal Drug Court • 212 drug courts are planning in 2005

  28. Drug Court Clearinghouse at American University and the Government Accounting Office (GAO) Over 350,000 clients have been admitted to U.S. drug court programs since 1989 with a 67-71% retention rate. “Represents a six-fold increase in treatment retention over most previous efforts (Marlowe et al., 2003).”

  29. The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University conducted a meta-analysis and critical review of drug court research and evaluations finding (Belenko 1998, 1999, 2001): drug courts provide the most comprehensive and effective control of drug-using offenders’ criminality and drug usage while under the court’s supervision.

  30. Federal Sentencing Reporter (Marlowe, D.B., DeMatteo, D.S., & Festinger, D.S. 2003, October) “To put it bluntly, we know that drug courts outperform virtually all other strategies that have been attempted for drug-involved offenders.”

  31. Key Components of the ModelNon-adversarial ProcessOngoing Judicial SupervisionIntensive Community SupervisionIntensive TreatmentCommunity Involvement

  32. A Coordinated Effort Court Coordinator Treatment Provider Researcher Advocates Judge Prosecutor Defense Counsel Probation Law Enforcement Mental Health

  33. Participants attend a status conference hearing with the Judge.

  34. Effective Community Supervision and Home Visits

  35. Bar Sweeps

  36. Approximately 90 “DWI Courts” in operation, 86 “hybrid” Drug/DWI Courts operational and 89 in the planning process Bernalillo County, New Mexico ) Recidivism: 15.5% vs. 28.5% (2 yrs) Lansing, Michigan Recidivism: 13% vs. 33% (5 yrs)

  37. Kootenai County, Idaho DUI Court Recidivism: 4% vs. 25% (2 yrs) 70% Retention Rate

  38. DWI Court Evaluations Arizona – Completed Alaska – Completed Pennsylvania - Underway Georgia- Underway

  39. Approved GHSA Resolution “GHSA supports DWI courts and urges states to work with their state criminal justice agency counterparts to implement them where appropriate. GHSA also recommends that NHTSA evaluate DWI courts to determine their effectiveness”

  40. Approved MADD Resolution “MADD supports the use of post-adjudication DUI/DWI courts that employ the strategies of close supervision, frequent alcohol and other drug testing, and ongoing judicial interaction to integrate alcohol and other drug treatment services with the justice system.  MADD recommends that DUI/DWI courts should not be used to avoid a record of conviction and/or license sanctions.” MADD National Board of Directors

  41. DWI Courts: The Guiding Principles • Target the Population • Provide a Clinical Assessment • Develop the Treatment Model • Supervise and Detect Behavior • Develop Community Partnerships • Take a Judicial Role • Provide Case Management • Solve Transportation Barriers • Evaluate the Program • Ensure Sustainability

  42. DWI Courts A Serious Solution To a Serious Threat

  43. NDCI’s 2005DWI Court Activities • NHTSA’s One-Day and Four-Day Training • Onsite Technical Assistance • DWI Courts: The Guiding Principles • Authorization and Appropriation • Partnerships/Resolutions (MADD, GHSA)

  44. NHTSA DWI Court Trainings Philadelphia: May 20 Nashville: July 15 Austin: July 18-21 Lansing: July 25-28 Portland: August 26 Minnesota: September 19 Salt Lake City: September 29 Denver: September 30 Phoenix: October 19-22 St. Louis: October 28 Athens: November 7-10

  45. For More Information National Drug Court Institute (NDCI) West Huddleston, Director 703-575-9400, ext. 13 whuddleston@ndci.org Kristen Daugherty DWI Court Manager 703-575-9400, ext. 39 kdaugherty@ndci.org

More Related