The Ten Key Components and Best Practice Standards

NDCI: A Professional Services Division of NADCP

National Drug Court Institute

Adult Drug Court Planning Initiative Training

The Ten Key Components and Best Practice Standards©

Developed by: National Drug Court Institute (NDCI)

©NDCI, February 21, 2015

The following presentation may not be copied in whole or in part without the written permission of the author or the National Drug Court Institute. Written permission will generally be given without cost, upon request.


• What are the Ten Key Components of Drug Court?

• How can you incorporate them into your Drug Court Procedure?

• Do you have to incorporate all Ten Key Components into your Drug Court Procedures?

Defining Drug Courts: The Ten Key Components


Drug courts integrate alcohol and other drug treatment services with

justice system case processing.

Drug Court Key Component # 1

What team members should attend the

drug court staffing/meetings?

Note 1: Difference is significant at p<.10

Drug Courts Where a Treatment Representative

Attends Court Hearings had

100% greater reductions in recidivism

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

Treatment attends courthearings

N=57

Treatment does NOTattend court hearings

N=10

38%

19%

Pe

rce

nt

red

uc

tio

n in

re

arr

ests

Note: Difference is significant at p<.05

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

Prosecutor attendsstaffings

N=5

Prosecutor does NOTattend staffings

N=5

38%

14%

Perc

en

t in

cre

ase in

co

st

savin

gs

Drug Courts Where the Prosecutor

Attends Staffings had

a 171% Higher Cost Savings


Drug Courts Where the Defense Attorney Attends Drug

Court Team Meetings (Staffings) had


0%

10%

20%

30%

Defense attorneyattends staffings

N=59

Defense Attorney doesNOT attend staffings

N=11

29%

15%

Perc

en

t In

cre

ase in

Co

st

Savin

gs


Drug Courts where Law Enforcement is a member of the drug

court team had


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Law enforcement is onteamN=20

Law enforcement is NOTon team

N=29

45%

24%

Pe

rcen

t re

du

cti

on

in

rec

idiv

ism


Note 2: “Team Members” = Judge, Both Attorneys, Treatment Provider, Coordinator, Probation

Drug Courts where all team members attended staffings had


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

All team membersattend staffings

N=31

All team does NOTattend staffings

N=28

42%

28%

Perc

en

t re

du

cti

on

in

recid

ivis

m



Using a non-adversarial approach, prosecution and defense counsel

promote public safety while protecting participants’ due

process rights.

Does allowing non-drug charges (e.g. violence) threaten public safety?


Drug Courts That Accepted Participants With Non-

Drug Charges Had Nearly Twice the Savings

Note 2: Non-drug charges include property, prostitution, violence, etc.


Drug Courts That Accepted Participants

With Non-Drug Charges had

98% Greater Reductions in Recidivism

Note 2: Non-drug charges include property, prostitution, forgery, etc.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Drug court accepts non-drug charges

N=42

Drug court does NOTaccept non-drug

chargesN=24

41%

21%

Pe

rcen

t re

du

cti

on

s in

rec

idiv

ism

Note: Difference is NOT significant

Drug Courts That Accepted Participants with

Prior Violence Had No Differences in Graduation

Rates

Note: Difference is NOT significant

Drug Courts That Accepted Participants with

Prior Violence Had No Differences in Cost

Savings

Drug Courts That Accepted Participants With

Prior Violence Had Equivalent Reductions in

Recidivism

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Drug Court acceptsparticipants with prior

violenceN=14

Drug Court does NOT acceptparticipants with prior

violenceN=39

36% 38%

Perc

en

t re

du

cti

on

s in

recid

ivis

m

p = n.s.

Carey et al. (2012)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Program excludes offenders

with serious MH issues

N=32

Program does NOT exclude

offenders with serious MH

issues

N=18

21%

37%

Drug Courts That Excluded Participants with

Serious Mental Health Problems Had Over 50% Less

Cost Savings

*p <.05

Carey et al. (2012)



Eligible participants are identified and placed in the program as soon as

possible.

Is it really important to get participants into the program quickly? What does quickly

REALLY MEAN?


Drug Courts In Which Participants Entered the

Program within 50 Days of Arrest Had

63% Greater Reductions in Recidivism

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Participants enterprogram within

50 days of arrestN=15

Participants enterprogram within

50 days of arrestN=26

39%

24%

Perc

ent re

ductio

ns in

recid

ivis

m


• Drug courts provide access to a continuum of alcohol, drug, and other related treatment and rehabilitation services.


Is it better to have a single treatment agency or to have multiple treatment options?

How important is relapse prevention?

Drug Courts That Used One or Two Primary Treatment

Agencies Had 76% Greater Reductions in Recidivism


0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

1 2 3 4 4 - 10 > 10

Number of agencies

Fewer treatment providers is related to greater reductions in recidivism

% reduction in recidivism

Drug Courts That Included a Phase Focusing on Relapse

Prevention Had Over 3 Times Greater Savings




Abstinence is monitored by frequent drug and alcohol

testing.

How frequently should participants be tested?

How well do drug courts really reduce drug use?

How important is it for drug test results to be available quickly?

What does quickly REALLY MEAN?)

Note 1: Difference is significant at p<.15 (Trend)

Drug Courts Where Drug Tests are Collected at Least Two Times

per Week In the First Phase had


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

Participants drug testedat least 2X per week

N=53

Participants tested LESSoften than 2X per week

N=12

29%

18%

Pe

rcen

t in

cre

ase

in

co

st

sav

ing

s


Drug Courts Where Drug Test Results are Back in 48

Hours or Less had

68% Higher Cost Savings

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

Drug tests are back within48 hours

N=21

Drug testsare back in

LONGER THAN48 hours

N=16

32%

19%

Perc

en

t in

cre

ase in

co

st

savin

gs


Drug Courts Where Participants are expected to have greater than

90 consecutive days clean before graduation had 164% greater reductions in recidivism

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

Participants are cleanat least 90 days before

graduationN=57

Participants are cleanLESS THAN 90 daysbefore graduation

N=9

37%

14%

Perc

en

t re

du

cti

on

s in

recid

ivis

m



A coordinated strategy governs responses to participant’s compliance.

How important is jail as a

sanction?

Do your guidelines on

team response to client

behavior really need to

be in writing?


Drug Courts Where Team Members are Given a Copy of

Written Guidelines For Sanctions And Rewards Had

72% Higher Cost Savings

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

Team has guidelinesN=33

Team DOES NOT haveguidelines

N=11

31%

18%

Perc

en

t in

cre

ase in

co

st

savin

gs


Drug Courts Where Sanctions Are Imposed Immediately After Non-compliant Behavior had

a 100% Increase in Cost Savings

Note 2: Immediately = Before the next regular court hearing (or one week of less to court hearing)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

Sanctions are imposedimmediately

N=36

Sanctions are NOTimposed immediately

N=17

28%

14%

Pe

rcen

t in

cre

ase

in

co

st

sav

ing

s

Courts that use jail greater than 6 days have worse

(higher) recidivism

NCDC: A Professional Services Division of NADCP

Staffing

Integrates the

Ten Key Components


• What – The purpose of staffing is to present a coordinated response to

offender behavior.

• Who

– Judge – Coordinator – Prosecutor – Defense Counsel – Treatment – Probation – Law Enforcement

• Why – Shared Decision Making, Docket Control, Informed Approach,

Empowerment of Team

Drug Court Staffing / Pre-Case Conferencing

• When Anytime prior to seeing the participant

• Eligibility

• Arraignment

• Progress Report

• Probation Revocation / Termination

• Regression / Advancement

• Return on Warrant

• Pre-Graduation/Graduation


Ongoing judicial interaction

with each participant is essential.

Does it matter how long the judge spends

interacting with each participant in court?

How often should participants appear

before the judge?

How long should the judge stay on the drug court bench?

Is longevity better or is it better to rotate regularly?

Drug Courts That Held Status Hearings Every 2 Weeks During Phase 1 Had 50% Greater Reductions in

Recidivism


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Drug court hasreview hearingsevery two weeks

N=14

Drug court hasreview hearings

more or less oftenN=35

46%

31%

Perc

en

t R

ed

ucti

on

in

Recid

ivis

m

Different judges had different impacts on recidivism

Judges did better their second time

8%

27%

4%

28%

42%

30%

34%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

Judge 1A Judge 2 Judge 3A Judge 3B Judge 1B Judge 4 Judge 5

% im

pro

ve

me

nt

in #

of

re-a

rre

sts

The Longer the Judge Spent on the Drug Court Bench, the Better the Client Outcomes

Drug Courts That Have Judges Stay Longer Than Two Years Had 3 Times Greater Cost Savings


0%

10%

20%

30%

Judge is on bench at least2 years

N=9

Judge is on bench LESSTHAN 2 years

N=3

25%

8%

Perc

en

t in

cre

ase in

co

st

savin

gs


Drug Courts Where the Judge Spends an Average of 3 Minutes or

Greater per Participant During Court Hearings had 153%

greater reductions in recidivism

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Judge spends at least 3min. per participant

N=23

Judge spends LESSTHAN 3 min. per

participantN=12

43%

17%

Perc

en

t re

du

cti

on

in

recid

ivis

m


Drug Courts Where the Judge Spends an Average of 3 Minutes or

Greater per Participant During Court Hearings had 153%

greater reductions in recidivism


• Judge as leader of the team.

• Continuity of relationship between judge and participant

• Relationship from acceptance in program throughout treatment - commencement - aftercare

• The message is “Someone in authority cares”

The “Power” of the Judge



Monitoring and Evaluation measure the

achievement of program goals and

effectiveness. Does it matter whether data are kept in paper files or in a database?

Does keeping program stats make a difference?

Do you really need an evaluation? What do you get out of it?

Drug Courts That Used Paper Files Rather Than

Electronic Databases Had 65% LESS Savings


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

Program usespaper files

N=8

Program haselectronic database

N=3

20%

33%

Perc

en

t in

cre

ase in

co

st

savin

gs


Drug Courts Where Review of The Data and Stats Has Led to Modifications in Drug Court Operations had a 131%

Increase in Cost Savings a 131% Increase in Cost Savings

Program reviews their ownstatsN=20

Program does NOT reviewstatsN=15

37%

16%

Perc

en

t in

cre

ase in

co

st

savin

gs


Drug Courts Where The Results Of Program Evaluations Have

Led to Modifications In Drug Court Operations had

a 100% Increase in Cost Savings

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Used evaluation to makemodifications to program

N=18

Did NOT use evaluationto make modifications

N=13

36%

18%

Perc

en

t in

cre

ase in

co

st

savin

gs


• Measures progress against goals

• Results are used to monitor progress

• Results are used to improve operations

Program Monitoring



Continuing interdisciplinary education promotes effective drug court

planning, implementation, and operations.

Can your team save money by training on-the-job or by

selecting only certain team members for formal training?


Drug Courts That Provided Formal Training for

ALL New Team Members

Had 57% Greater Reductions in Recidivism

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

All new teammembers have formal

trainingN=30

All team membersNOT formally trained

N=17

40%

26%


Drug Courts That Received Training Prior to

Implementation Had 238% Higher Cost Savings

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

Team trained BEFOREimplementation

N=12

Team members NOTtrained before

implementationN=5

27%

8%

Perc

en

t in

cre

ase in

co

st

savin

gs


Forging partnerships among drug courts, public agencies and

community-based organizations generates support and increases

effectiveness.


How important are partnerships in the

community for your drug court?

Note: Difference is significant as a trend at p<.15

Drug Courts That Had Formal Partnerships

with Community Organizations Had

133% Greater Cost Savings

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

Drug court has formalpartnerships in

communityN=15

Drug court doees NOThave formal partnerships

N=5

35%

15%


• Concentrate on the high value cases

• Fidelity to the 10 Key Components

• Ongoing judicial authority

• Interagency team approach

• Get it right the first time

Recipe for Success


Success in Drug Court Depends on Applying ALL of The Ten Key Components as a Framework

Summary

NCDC: A Professional Services Division of NADCP

• Please remember to complete your evaluations!

This project was supported by Grant No. 2012-DC-BX-K003 awarded by the Bureau

of Justice Assistance. The Bureau of Justice Assistance is a component of the Office of Justice Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the National Institute of Justice, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, the SMART Office, and the Office for Victims of Crime. Points of view or opinions in this document are those of the author and do not represent the official position or policies of the United States Department of Justice.

The Ten Key Components and Best Practice Standards

Documents