January, 2006 Issue

By Judge Stephen Manley

Dear Colleagues:

We begin this new year with two important announcements by the Governor. In his budget for the next fiscal year, he included full funding for our Partnership and CDCI Drug Court programs at approximately $17 million.

At the same time, the budget clearly reflects strong support for the Drug Court model, recognizing the efforts of our members across the state in the proven record of our criminal Drug Courts.

The Governor called for continued funding for Proposition 36, conditioned on changes in the Proposition that will improve outcomes and accountability in treatment, by mandating drug testing, judicial monitoring and jail sanctions to hold defendants accountable for “attending and completing treatment.” The proposed budget called for use of ‘drug court’ models to “improve collaboration.”  These changes are reflected in Senate Bill 803, authored by Senator Denise Moreno Ducheny of San Diego that has been approved by the Senate, and is pending in the Assembly.

On another front for Drug Courts, the release of new regulations is expected this month through the Department of Transportation that will permit DUI Courts and DUI Drug Courts to compete for Transportation funding to support program activities for Drug Courts willing to expand their vision in working with repeat drunk drivers. Again, this is a recognition that the Drug Court Model works with many target populations, and that Congress is willing to fund a portion of the costs of these specialized drug courts.

Our Dependency Drug Courts will once again be before the Legislature this year as we seek continuation of the program as well as additional funding. Last year the Legislature required an evaluation of three Dependency Drug Courts that is due in April of this year.

As a judge with 23 years experience and having presided over criminal drug court, juvenile drug court, and mental health court, I am a firm believer in the use of the “drug court model” as a framework for innovative court programs.  The drug court model emphasizes collaboration between courts and interested agencies in order to create a therapeutic approach to the resolution of cases on the court’s docket.  I found Judge Leonard P. Edwards’ and Judge James A. Ray’s article on the establishment of Family Drug Treatment Courts (FDTCs) informative and a primer for the development such a court.

The following attempts to briefly summarize highlights of their article, “Judicial Perspectives on Family Drug Treatment Courts,” printed in the Summer 2005 edition of Juvenile and Family Court Journal.

The authors are two juvenile court judges, residing in different states, who recognize substance abuse as the foremost problem facing abusive and neglectful parents whose children come before a juvenile dependency court.  For juvenile courts to be successful, they must manage substance abuse assessment and treatment issues effectively.  Complicating this effort is the rapid speed with which substance abuse assessment and treatment must begin in order to comply with the one-year timeline for family reunification set by the Safe Families Act (ASFA).

The authors believe that FDTCs are effective in providing treatment services for substance-abusing parents in juvenile dependency court so that those parents receive a fair opportunity to reunite with their children in a timely fashion.

These courts provide a unique and effective type of support and encouragement for these parents.

FDTCs, first introduced in the late 1990s, are specialized calendars or dockets that operate within the juvenile dependency court.  These courts provide the setting for a collaborative effort by the court and all the participants whose children are under the jurisdiction of the dependency court. (cont page 2)

Details on Page 2 & 6

Conference Registration , Page 7

INSIDE THIS ISSUE:

CADCP Membership Still Only $25!

Membership Year: Jan 1, 2006 – Dec 31, 2006!

If the evaluation results are as positive as previous National studies, we should be hopeful that the Legislature will continue to support Dependency and Family Drug Courts.

On the issue of the importance of Dependency, Family and Delinquency Drug Courts, recent research studies of methamphetamine use are very revealing. First, women in the child-bearing years are more likely to name methamphetamine as their drug of choice on admission to treatment than are men of the same age range based on data collected by the Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs. Second, a recent CSAT study of seven treatment programs in eight locations, including Montana (1), Hawaii (1), and California (6) found that the most successful participants in terms of retention in treatment and mean number of UAs that were methamphetamine-free during treatment were found in the one drug court program included in the study. Drug Court participants remained in treatment far longer than the comparison groups, and more than 80% of the Drug Court participants remained methamphetamine free while in treatment, in comparison to much lower rates for the other sites.

This leads me encourage all of you to attend our upcoming Statewide Drug Court Conference on April 25-26 in Sacramento. As a field we need to keep current with new developments and best practices if we are to continue to lead and to expand drug courts.

Your Board of Directors and a strong planning committee, that includes co-chairs April Bullock and Barbara Drew, Thomas Alexander, Deb Cima, Florence Gainor, Lynn Harrison, Dianne Marshall, Charles Murray, Tim Smith, and Elizabeth Varney have put together a program that is very inclusive for all drug courts and will include the most recent developments in best practices, funding opportunities, and the expansion of drug courts and other collaborative courts. Because our field is developing so rapidly, we have scheduled the conference for two days this year and will be offering, for the first time, educational credits. Since our educational and training conference is a major goal of CADCP, I hope that you will take full advantage of an opportunity to attend the Conference and mark your calendars now.

Finally, I would like to discuss the drastic cuts suffered by drug courts at the National level. A combination of factors,

Judicial Perspectives on Family Drug Treatment Courts (FCTC), A Summary (cont from page 2)

¬               criminal drug courts have no similar statutory scheme;

¬      Criminal drug courts utilize jail as a primary sanction, FDTCs do not;

¬      The “ultimate sanction” in juvenile dependency court is loss of parental rights in criminal court it is incarceration;

¬      Most criminal drug court clients are male while women comprise more than 85% of the clients in most FDTCs;

¬      The drug court team of each court is comprised of a different set of professionals;

¬      A FDTC is much more complex than a criminal drug court because all aspects of the client’s life and relationships, as well as the ultimate consideration of child safety, are part of the rehabilitative process;

¬      Participation in the criminal drug court can be mandatory, but participation in FDTCs is usually voluntary.

Starting an FDTC requires a juvenile court judge to rely upon his or her own experience and leadership to bring the court system and service providers together and to create a collaborative environment.  The article discusses useful steps that a judicial officer and different approaches taken by courts could follow when organizing the formation of a FDTC:

*Determining eligibility for the FDTC; *Signing an agreement or contract upon entry to the FDTC; *Determining the client’s treatment plan; *Content for the treatment plan; *Voluntary entrance into the FDTC; *Responses to client participation—rewards and sanctions; *Discussion of Dependency issues at the FDTC hearing; *The use of information gathered in the FDTC process in juvenile dependency proceedings; *Graduation from FDTC; *The relationship of graduation from FDTC and the juvenile dependency case; *Honesty; *Separate court files; *Confidentiality issues.

These steps are very similar to what a judicial officer must follow when organizing an adult or juvenile drug court, but with one major difference, child protection and children’s services agencies must be part of the FDTC collaboration.

The structure, procedures and operations of FDTCs vary, but the typical operation of an FDTC involves a substance-abusing parent whose child is before the juvenile dependency court.  After the court has sustained a petitioner alleging abusive or neglectful behavior,

Best Practices in Adult Drug Courts: What Does the Research Tell Us? (cont from  page 3 )

Supervision that includes a great deal of positive feedback from the judge is particularly effective.  4.  Sanctions: Behavioral research is clear that sanctions are effective when applied consistently (in every case), fairly (everyone treated the same), rapidly (soon after the infraction), and with appropriate severity (severe enough to be undesirable but not so severe as to preclude graduating to a more severe sanction next time). The literature is limited with respect to which drug court sanctions are most effective, and under what circumstances, however.  5.  Rewards: The limited research that exists suggests that rewards appear to increase program retention when they are tangible and applied frequently throughout the participation process – not merely once every three or four months upon phase advancement.  6. Treatment: In general, more time in treatment leads to more positive post-treatment outcomes on measures such as drug use, criminal activity, and employment. Ninety days in treatment is a critical minimum threshold, while on the other end of the spectrum, imposing excessive graduation requirements that keep participants in treatment far beyond one year may be counter-productive. While the evidence indicates that treatment can make a difference, little is known about which modalities (e.g., residential, outpatient, etc.) are most appropriate for different categories of participants.   7. Graduation: Participants who reach drug court graduation are more likely to attain continued success thereafter. Can those who fail drug court nonetheless gain from the experience? Several studies suggest they cannot – that graduation is a pivotal milestone and that without it continued progress is unlikely. These findings highlight the importance for drug courts to maximize their graduation rate (again suggesting that graduation requirements should not be excessive).

Equally important as how drug courts work is for whom – which categories of defendants are especially likely to benefit. While little is known to date, three categories of defendants have emerged as likely candidates for success: (a) “high risk” defendant (e.g., more serious criminal history and weaker

Alexander Selected to

Serve on National TASC Board of Directors

Eight Tips for a Successful Lobby Visit Courtesy of the Friends Committee on National Legislation

1. Make an appointment.
2. Know your legislator’s record.
3. Be punctual and positive.
4. Focus on the meeting.
5. Listen and gather information.
6. Make a specific request.
7. Follow up.
8. Express your thanks.

Perfect for Graduation Tokens

www.serenitywordstones.com

We cannot afford to sit back and allow our national funding to continue at its present level. The expansion of drug courts into new funding areas, such as SAMHSA grants, is entirely due to the efforts of the staff at NADCP. Moreover, we need the continued training, research, and education provided by NDCI in the coming years. Without research and training, we will have great difficulty in sustaining drug courts, establishing new courts, and taking advantage of new funding opportunities. Not everyone is aware that through training and education alone, NDCI is responsible for the development and creation of new drug courts and collaborative courts, such as DUI and re-entry courts without the necessity of additional Federal funds.

The NADCP is presently working hard to obtain the votes necessary to approve the Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act that is pending in the United States Senate. This bill would provide substantial new funding for drug courts and treatment for parenting women. Absent the efforts of NADCP, legislation that specifically endorses the drug court model, including rewards and sanctions and mandatory drug testing, would not have strong treatment provisions included.

NADCP needs our support, and, most importantly, the support of our individual members in contacting their Congressional representatives in Washington. The Board of Directors has joined with the Drug Court Coordinators Association in launching a campaign to link every Member of Congress in California with a drug court in his or her jurisdiction. I urge you to become involved in this campaign. Under the modified system that Congress has adopted in making determinations as to funding priorities, the single most critical factor is whether or not the funding of Drug Courts is on the list of funding requests submitted by each Member to the Appropriations Committee.      We need your help in joining our campaign to reach each Member of Congress in California with a request that Drug Courts be at the top of the priority list for funding. Please do your part at this critical time by directly contacting your Representative and asking for support.

I look forward to seeing all of you in Sacramento in April, and to continuing the work of our organization.

Best regards,  Judge Stephen Manley

the client may apply to the court to become a member of the FDTC.  The authors discuss the significant ways that courts operate and are structured beyond the client application point.  Structural variation in FDTCs include the ability of a judge to hear criminal and juvenile dependency cases, the number of judges utilized by the FDTC, and the use of pre-hearing administration meetings before the FDTC calendar is called.

Due to the number of operational issues they face, FDTCs around the country have developed different policies and procedures that can be followed.  The article discusses different approaches taken by courts regarding the issues listed previously:  *Determining eligibility for the FDTC; *Signing an agreement or contract upon entry to the FDTC; *Determining the client’s treatment plan; content of the treatment plan; *Voluntary entrance into the FDTC; *Responses to client participation with rewards and sanctions; *Dependency issues at the FDTC hearing; *Use of information gathered in the FDTC process in juvenile dependency proceedings; *Graduation from FDTC; the relationship of graduation from FDTC and the juvenile dependency case; *Honesty; *maintenance of separate court files; *Confidentially issues.

Best Practices in Adult Drug Courts: What Does the Research Tell Us?  By Amanda B. Cissner and Michael Rempel, Center for Court Innovation

Over the past several years, a broad consensus has emerged within the research community that adult drug courts indeed fulfill their promise of increased treatment retention rates and reduced recidivism. While it is difficult to generate exact national estimates, drug courts appear to retain from 60 to 65 percent of their participants for at least one year. This improves considerably on the 10 to 30 percent one-year retention rates that are typical of community-based treatment

community ties),  (b) those facing greater legal consequences for failing (e.g., those charged with more serious offenses and thus facing more potential jail time), and (c) drug offenders (i.e., as opposed to those arrested for property or other crimes, who may be driven by criminal impulses or motivations besides addiction).

This is a summary of a longer report, “The State of Drug Court Research: Moving

Beyond ‘Do They Work?’” available on the Center for Court Innovation web site at http: //www .courtinnovation. org/research.  Source information on data cited in this article is available at that location.    [Biographical note: Amanda Cissner is a senior research associate and Michael Rempel is research director at the Center for Court Innovation.]

District 3 Field Representative Observes Drug Court in Action

By April Bullock

Natalie Sablan, Field Representative for Assembly Member Rick Keene (District 3), attended her first drug court in Nevada City recently.  Ms. Sablan observed Judge John Darlington’s adult and dependency drug court, and saw a variety of events that can occur in any given court session.  Two program participants were terminated, and their prison sentences imposed.  Two others had earned milestone chips and shared their good news.  Another woman had obtained a new job–the best she’s ever had.  And a dependency drug court mom announced that she had regained full-time custody of her two-year-old boy.  Ms. Sablan said it was beneficial to put a human face on a program she had only heard about, and would be communicating her impressions to Assembly Member Keene.

Contributed by Kyle, age 16

C an’t you see you’re not yourself

R unning on energy bad for your health

A nd please believe me, crank is no game

N ever again will you be the same

K ind of crazy it comes at a loss

K illing your brain until all cells are lost

I f you have a problem with drugs like dope

L ife will decay and souls give up hope

L ong term used can’t be kept discreet

S o get some help and lay off the TWEEK!

“Methamphetamine:  A Prevention Trilogy”

By Wendy Tully

The California Attorney General Crime and Violence Prevention Center has recently released a DVD entitled “Methamphetamine:  A Prevention Trilogy” that contains three films related to meth that we produced in the late 90s.

The first film on the DVD is called:  “Meth…The Great Deceiver” and provides insight into teens and how meth can damage young lives. Viewers learn about the harm caused by meth use firsthand from the young people themselves.

The second film on the DVD is called:  “Where Meth Goes… Violence and Destruction Follow” and examines the havoc caused when meth use and clandestine meth labs gain a foothold in our communities.  This film also takes a look at how two communities have responded to the meth epidemic.

The final film on the DVD is called:  “Hidden Dangers:  Meth Labs” and offers tips on recognizing potential meth labs and what to do when you suspect a meth lab is present.  First responders, utility workers, social workers and others working out in communities will benefit from the information.

If your agency/organization would like a free copy of this DVD, please fax a request on your agency/organization’s letterhead to: 916-327-2384, Attn:  Wendy Tully, and you will receive a copy.

Wendy Tully, AGPA

Office of the Attorney General

Crime and Violence Prevention Center

1300 I Street, Suite 1150

Sacramento, CA  95814

(916) 323-2166

(916) 327-2384 fax

Suggestion: Share your CADCP newsletter with your County Administrator, your Board of Supervisors, your Senate and Assembly members, and your Congressional Representatives!

By April Bullock & Barbara Drew, Conference Co-Chairs

The California Association of Drug Court Professionals shall convene the 3^rd Annual Meeting and Training Conference at the Hilton Sacramento Arden West Tuesday, April 25 and Wednesday April 26, 2006.

The Conference agenda includes Greg Berman, Director for the Center for Court Innovation and co-author of Good Courts, the Case for Problem Solving Courts, Judy Murphy, founder of the innovative “Moms Off Meth” support groups, and Dr. Alex Stalcup who will address information current to 2006 regarding use of meth and other abused drugs.

Judicial Perspectives on Family Drug Treatment Courts (FDTC), A Summary (cont  from, page 1)

The underlying principles of the drug court model provide a framework for FDTCs:  treat clients with respect and dignity, fashion individual plans for each person, listen and respond to each client’s problems and concerns, court-agency collaboration, and regular appearances in court for a judicial review of the client’s progress.

Though criminal drug courts influenced the creation of FDTCs and the two have many similarities, they have significant differences:

¬  Juvenile dependency court focuses on children, not criminals;

¬                Adult drug courts were created to reduce jail and prison populations and to stop the  “revolving door” of un-rehabilitated offenders, FDTCs were created by the pressure of ASFA timelines and the desire to improve the nation’s juvenile dependency courts;

Juvenile dependency court must adhere to strict timelines, (cont page 3)

programs nationwide, where many participants enter voluntarily – without the pressure of a court mandate. Further, drug courts appear to average about a 15 percentage point reduction in the re-arrest rate when compared with conventional prosecution (although many drug courts have achieved considerably larger reductions).  While most studies only track re-arrests over one or two years following program intake, several that track offenders over longer “post-program” periods – including studies of the Los Angeles Treatment Court, Baltimore City Treatment Court, and six New York State drug courts – have similarly found that drug courts reduce recidivism.

Drug court results vary considerably from site to site of course. As with many innovations showing early promise, results may decline as drug courts are institutionalized, early charismatic judges and other staff turn over, and funding resources grow more strained. Sustaining the model’s effectiveness may require a more surgical approach to research, focused less on “The bottom line” – do drug courts work? – and more on teasing out which specific components are truly essential. While to date research efforts in this area are limited, a few lessons have begun to emerge: 1. Immediacy: Participants engaged early in the drug court process, often measured by whether they actually begin attending a community-based treatment program within the first thirty days after formally agreeing to enter a drug court, are more likely to be retained and have successful long-term outcomes.  2. Legal Coercion: Part of the success of drug courts stems from the threat of jail for failure. However, legal coercion does not work magically on its own. Evidence indicates that drug courts elicit greater perceptions of coercion when staff conveys clearly, frequently, and specifically the exact consequences of graduating and failing (how much jail time will be served); and when participants perceive that noncompliance will be consistently and swiftly detected and enforced.  3.  Judicial Supervision: Biweekly judicial supervision before the drug court judge works especially well with “high-risk” participants (e.g., with those who have previously failed treatment or are diagnosed with anti-social personality disorder). (cont on page 4)

Resources for Tackling

Methamphetamine

Abuse on the Web

www.nida.nih.gov/pubs/teaching/Teaching7.html <http://www.nida.nih.gov/pubs/teaching/Teaching7.html>
www.drugfreeinfo.org <http://www.drugfreeinfo.org>
<http://kci/org>
www.dea.gov <http://www.dea.gov>
www.thebrain.mcgill.ca <http://www.thebrain.mcgill.ca>
www.crystalrecovery.com <http://www.crystalrecovery.com>
www.mappsd.org <http://www.mappsd.org>
www.montana.edu/wwwai/imsd/rezmeth <http://www.montana.edu/wwwai/imsd/rezmeth>
www.colodec.org <http://www.colodec.org>
www.iowadec.org <http://www.iowadec.org> http://www.montanameth.org/

http://www.notevenonce.com/

_____________________________

Orange County Homeless Outreach Court By Tina Payne

On October 26, 2005 the Homeless Outreach Court celebrated two years of operation by holding a special session to recognize the founding partner agencies, including the Public Defender’s Office, City of Santa Ana Police Department, the City Attorney’s Office, Mental Health Association of Orange County, Public Law Center, Orange County Health Care Agency, Orange County Rescue Mission, Mercy House, and the Catholic Worker.  Supervisor Lou Correa served as the event’s keynote speaker and recognized the work of the Homeless Outreach Court.  In addition to the recognition of the founding agencies the “2005 Homeless Outreach Court Humanitarian of the Year Award” was given to Assistant Public Defender Jean Wilkinson for her outstanding efforts to improve the quality of life for the Homeless of Orange County.

NDCI  2006 COMPREHENSIVE DRUG COURT PRACTITIONER TRAINING SERIES

Drug Court Defense Counsel Training

April 25-28, 2006

Dallas, TX

Drug Court Prosecutor Training

July 25-28, 2006

National Judicial College, Reno, NV

Drug Court Regional Evaluation Training

August 2-3, 2006

Las Vegas, NV

Drug Court Coordinator

Training

September 18-22, 2006

National Judicial College, Reno, NV

Drug Court Judicial Training

October 10-14, 2006

National Judicial College, Reno, NV

Drug Court  Treatment Provider Training

November 14-18, 2006

National Judicial College, Reno, NV

Drug Court Community Supervision Training

December 5-9, 2006

National Judicial College, Reno, NV

These week-long, discipline-specific training programs are held by the National Drug Court Institute each year, recognizing the need to provide education, research, and scholastic information to new, transitioning, and experienced drug court professionals.  Information is evidence and skills-based and offers the most comprehensive opportunity for drug court training available.

If you would like to attend any of these trainings, or want more information, please contact NDCI Meeting Manager Bobbie Taylor @ 703-575-9400, ext 16

California Department of Alcohol and Drug Program’s Mary Skorka, DCP Program Coordinator and CADCP President, Judge Stephen Manley offered recognition to the California Drug Court Coordinators Work Group for its leadership and dedication to California Drug Courts.  Service Excellence awards were given to Chris Crain, Deborah Cima, Maureen Hernandez, Janice Dame, and Dianne Marshall.

Jan Dame, Mary Skorka and Dianne Marshall

For 2006 the CA Drug Court Coordinators Work Group will be led by three co-chairs, including Thomas Alexander, Florence Gainor and Dianne Marshall.  The meetings for the year are scheduled to take place in Sacramento and Burbank.  The dates for these meetings are:

¬      March 10, 2006 – Burbank AOC Office

¬      July 10, 2006 – Sacramento AOC Office

¬      September  15, 2006 – Burbank AOC Office

¬      December 11, 2006 – Sacramento AOC Office

Mary Skorka and LaVelle Gates (CADCP Treasurer)

Mary Skorka and Florence Gainor, Coordinators Work Group Co-Chair

Dianne Marshall and Judge Stephen Manley

Drug Court’s Teen Grads Earn Praise

By Leslie Wolf Branscomb
UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER

Two dozen teenagers graduated from the county’s Juvenile Drug Court January 19,2006, the largest graduating class since the program began seven years ago.

But before they collected their certificates, gift bags and hugs from the assembled county officials, they heard from one of the best-known victims of the border-area drug wars.

Deputy District Attorney Enrique Camarena, the son of slain Drug Enforcement Administration agent Enrique “Kiki” Camarena, thanked them for completing the strenuous intervention program.

In 1985, when Camarena was 11, his father was kidnapped in broad daylight in Mexico, where he was working under cover. He was tortured for two days, then killed. “The impact this had on the way America views drugs was huge,” Camarena said. “I think for the first time the American public really got angry, and said we have to do something about this.”

Juvenile Drug Court started in San Diego County in 1998, the year after adult drug courts began. It was part of a larger movement toward directing drug offenders out of jail and into strict rehabilitation programs. There are now more than 1,600 drug courts nationwide.

The program offers rewards, such as gift certificates, for good behavior, for staying clean and attending school. Failure has consequences, and some participants end up jailed in Juvenile Hall.

About 130 teens a year go through the program, and the completion rate is close to 60 percent, according to San Diego County office of Alcohol and Drug Services.

The program involves the Juvenile Court, District Attorney’s Office, Probation Department, Public Defender’s Office, Health and Human Services Agency and police.

Kansas Cafferty, a counselor, said after the ceremony that the young people who go through Juvenile Drug Court do well compared with their peers who are not in such a highly structured rehab program. “It’s the added accountability, and it’s the constant supervision,” he said.

One of the graduates, Jeffrey J. – who used only the initial of his last name, as is done in Juvenile Court – recalled his journey through the drug court system. “When I first started out with drug court I saw no point. I kept going back to my old ways,” he said.  He kept getting locked up. But he said he finally realized, “I’m not getting anywhere with my life.”  “It meant a lot to me when I got off probation,” Jeffrey said. “I felt like a free person again. You get this feeling like, ‘Damn, I’m free, look at this world. It’s a beautiful country,’ ” he said. “It’s worth it.”

Registration Form