1 / 18

Douglas B. Marlowe, J.D., Ph.D., F CPP

Discover the dispositional continuum functioning of the individual in treatment and public health emphasis, with a focus on punishment, risk of recidivism, and costs to taxpayers. Explore various court sentences and principles, along with prognostic risk factors and tools. Understand the importance of assessing risk and need levels in planning programs and sentencing reform. Learn about treatment court standards and effective strategies to enhance outcomes in the judicial system.

wbarbara
Download Presentation

Douglas B. Marlowe, J.D., Ph.D., F CPP

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. Targeting & Best Practices for Treatment Courts Douglas B. Marlowe, J.D., Ph.D., FCPP

  2. Dispositional Continuum Functioning of the individual Treatment / Public Health Emphasis Punishment / Public Safety Emphasis Risk of recidivism Cost to taxpayers l--- Treatment Courts ---l Sentence to probation or community supervision Sentence to restrictive intermediate punishment (IP / RIP) Post-plea diversion Decriminalization/ medicalization De-felonization Sentence to incarceration Pre-plea diversion

  3. Risk Principle • Not a risk for violence or dangerousness • Difficult or complicated prognosis • The higher the risk level, the more intensive the supervision and accountability should be, and vice versa • Mixing risk levels is contraindicated

  4. Prognostic Risk Factors • Current age < 25 years • Delinquency onset < 16 years • Substance abuse onset < 14 years • Prior rehabilitation failures • Prior convictions or incarcerations • Antisocial Personality Disorder • Family history of crime or addiction • Criminal or delinquent peer affiliations

  5. Prognostic Risk Tools • Level of Service Inventory—Revised (LSI-R) • Level of Service Case Management Inventory (LS/CMI) • Correctional Offender Management Profiling for Alternative Sanctions (COMPAS) • Ohio Risk Assessment System (ORAS) • Risk and Needs Triage (RANT) • Risk Prediction Index (RPI) • Static Risk Tool • Wisconsin Risk & Need Assessment (WRN) • Federal Post Conviction Risk Assessment (PCRA)

  6. Violence Risk Tools • Historical, Clinical, Risk Assessment-20 (HCR-20) • Psychopathy Checklist- Revised (PCL-R) • Static-99 • Spousal Assault Risk Assessment (SARA) • Sexual Violence Risk-20 (SVR-20)

  7. Need Principle • Clinical disorders or functional impairments (diagnosis) • The higher the need level, the more intensive the treatment and rehabilitation services should be, and vice versa • Focus on criminogenic and responsivity needs first (especially addiction & mental illness) • Mixing need levels is contraindicated

  8. Addiction and Mental Illness • Neurological or neurochemical brain disorders • Chronic, relapsing and progressive (worsen without treatment) • Worsen if punished for “distal” infractions, such as substance use • Worsen if not punished for “proximal” infractions, such as lying, treatment absences, or tainted urine specimens

  9. Risk & Need Quadrants High Risk Low Risk Treatment Court Treatment Deferral High Need Intensive Probation Banked Probation Low Need

  10. Treatment Court Case • Likely to be in the community • Likely to recidivate or fail in treatment • Severe mental illness or substance dependence • NOT Empirically Relevant: • Drug dealing or violence charge / history • Motivated for treatment; good attitude • Failed treatment or probation previously • Unproven nexus between drug use and crime

  11. Program Planning 15 times greater cost benefits }

  12. Annual Staff Training Five times greater cost benefits }

  13. Evaluation Four times greater cost benefits }

  14. Judicial Assignments Three times greater cost benefits }

  15. Team Functioning Twice the cost benefit } Judicial Officer, Prosecutor, Defense Attorney, Treatment Provider, Probation Officer, Coordinator

  16. Sentencing Reform • Require risk & need assessment before disposition (especially for felonies, serious misdemeanors, & probation/parole revocations) • Use immunity • Valid, reliable, & culturally unbiased instruments • Non-specialized risk tools may not be used to inform in/out decisions (expedited review) • Require professionals to consider risk and need in certain cases (expedited review)

  17. Sentencing Reform (cont.) • Require professionals to consider effectiveness and cost-effectiveness (return rehabilitation to forefront of sentencing) • Require SAC to publish recidivism rates and costs of alternative dispositions • Include dispositional rationale on the record • Restrictive basis for appeal (abuse of discretion; clearly erroneous) • Publish data on dispositional decisions (blinded?)

  18. Treatment Court Standards • As a condition of funding and accreditation, require treatment court teams (and other programs) to: • Attend pre-implementation and annual trainings • Report data annually on adherence to best practices • Develop and evaluate remedial plans for deficiencies • Target high risk and high need cases • Develop alternative tracks/programs for other cases • Apply graduated sanctions for distal infractions (right of interlocutory review) • Prioritize criminogenic and responsivity needs

More Related