Drug Courts

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