OJP Drug Court Clearinghouse and Technical Assistance Project

OJP Drug Court Clearinghouse and Technical Assistance Project

Assignment Data Sheet

1. Funding for Operations and Treatment Services 10

1. Early Judicial System Intervention 13
2. Prosecutor and Public Defender

Involvement 13

c. Role of the Treatment Provider 14

3. Drug Court Program Protocol 14

e. Community Involvement 14

f. Graduation criteria 15

g. Family Support 15

8. Follow-up and aftercare services 16

Appendices (provided under separate cover)

1. INTRODUCTION

1. Assignment Background

In September 1998, Robert Anderson, Program Manager for the Madison County, Tennessee Department of Community Corrections for Tennessee’s 26^th Judicial District submitted a request for technical assistance to the OJP Clearinghouse and Technical Assistance Project (DCCTAP) at American University on behalf of the District Attorney General and Judges to explore the feasibility of developing a drug court program for juveniles and first offender adults.

The consultant assigned to provide this assistance was Judge Ronald J. Taylor, retired Chief Judge for the Second Judicial District in St. Joseph Michigan and the first drug court judge in that jurisdiction. During the course of discussions with Mr. Anderson, it was determined that the technical assistance should focus upon assisting local officials to develop a framework for addressing the drug using problems of youth and young adults, both on a district-wide level and from the perspective of the three individual counties. Among the issues identified to address included determining: (1) how the essential components of a juvenile drug court program could be performed, including screening, referral to court, and supervision; (2) how special treatment services for juveniles could be provided, recognizing that it is inappropriate to refer juveniles to the same programs servicing older chronic alcoholics and drug users; (3) the type of follow-up that should be provided regarding treatment referrals and the criteria for determining whether a treatment program is good; and (4) how to deal with females who are using drugs, many of whom are pregnant.

On November 15-17, 1998, Judge Taylor conducted a site visit to the 26^th Judicial District to meet with local judicial system, treatment and other community officials to assess existing procedures, resources, and policies relevant to the establishment of a drug court program in the District.

Special appreciation is extended to the following individuals who gave of their time to be interviewed during the visit:

Robert Anderson, Program Manager, Madison County Community Corrections Department, who also served as local coordinator for this study

Hon. Howard Bailey, Judge of the General Sessions Court, Chester County

Hon. Steven Beal, Judge of the General Sessions Court, Henderson County

Ms. Linda Blackburn, West Tennessee Healthcare

Dr. Barbara C. Dooley, Director, Madison County Juvenile Court Services

Mr. George M. Googe, District Public Defender

Hon. Christy R. Little, Judge of the General Sessions Court, Madison County

Mr. Howard Montgomery, Director, Jackson Area Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependency; and

Mr. Jerry Woodall, District Attorney General

The following report will detail findings made during the site visit and recommendations for future action by officials of the Twenty-Sixth District.

B. Description of the Twenty-Sixth Judicial District

The 26^th Judicial District is comprised of three counties, namely Madison, Henderson and Chester. Of the three, Madison is by far the largest, composed of the City of Jackson and surrounding suburban areas with a population of approximately 80,000. Henderson and Chester counties have approximate populations of 22,000 and 13,000, respectively. These are mostly rural counties with small towns with the exception of the City of Jackson, which is the county seat for Madison County.

The most serious crime and drug problems exist in Madison County, While not surprising, due to the sheer size of the city, an additional major influence in this respect appears to be the fact that a large area of poverty exists in the city. Statistics show that one out of twelve residents are living in public housing, with the usual kind of crime and drug activity associated. This situation is exacerbated by a general lack of quality treatment capabilities to serve this population. Thus, any proposed approach to control the drug problem in the 26^th judicial district will, of necessity, need to focus on Madison County and the City of Jackson.

The 26^th Judicial District is composed of three levels of court. General Sessions is the limited jurisdiction court, which also handles Juvenile matters. Circuit Court is the general jurisdiction court and the Probate Court handles the usual estate distribution and other special matters. The county also has a special Family Court, which is a division of the Circuit Court. Because the General Sessions Court handles both Juvenile and lower category adult criminal cases, it would appear that this court is the appropriate one in which to consider the establishment of a Drug Court concept, dealing first with Juvenile offenders, later perhaps expanding to the adult population. In Madison County, the Juvenile Judge is full-time with appropriate staff supported by the Juvenile Court Services Department. In Henderson and Chester Counties the judges are part-time; in Chester County the incumbent, while very knowledgeable and experienced, is not legally trained. These judges handle all juvenile and adult misdemeanor matters with adult sentencing options to 11 months, 29 days. In juvenile matters, ultimate incarceration options require commitment to the Department of Youth Detention, which actually decides placement and length of detention.

2. Drug Usage Among Youth

The officials of the Judicial District have taken note of the need to explore various options to deal with the incidence of drug usage and distribution in the district, particularly among the youth. While there appears to be a general increase in the use of controlled substances in the adult population, the major problem in the district appears to be among juveniles. This fact, coupled with the need for early intervention among the young in order to head off future adult problems, would seem to promote the desirability of establishing judicial and treatment capabilities for the juvenile population at the earliest possible time.

Increasing interest has been developing in exploring the feasibility of developing a juvenile drug court as well as an adult drug court for first offender young adults. Several other drug courts have been developed in Tennessee, including a juvenile drug court in neighboring Decatur County.

The most prevalent drugs in the District are crack/cocaine and marijuana, with. Methamphetamine and LSD starting to be detected as well. Heroin is also present increasingly. The only treatment services available in the district are outpatient programs and a few spaces at 30-day residential programs. Most of the juveniles and youthful first-offenders targeted for the drug court have been through treatment programs unsuccessfully and some have special education problems and family service needs as well.

Because none of the counties within the district have computer capability, data that might be useful to the planning of a drug court program is not readily available. Local officials with whom the consultant met on site, however, were able to provide significant perspective on the issues, caseloads, and district’s experiences to date in attempting to deal with the juvenile and young adult substance using populations who are involved with the justice system.

This report will discuss the DCCTAP consultant’s findings in regard to the current situation, future needs and recommended solutions to address these problems.

It should be noted that one of the real long-term problems that will need to be addressed in order to develop a viable drug court program in the Distrcit and affects all of the recommendations submitted in this report appears to be the lack of available funding for treatment and anscillary services and the need for the official community to address this problem at all levels. At the same time, however, there appears to be several possibilities for private funding within the district that need to be explored further and may ultimately be tapped to the benefit of the criminal justice system. These will also be discussed in the sections which follow.

 

 

 

II. OBSERVATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

1. General

It appears that there is a need for additional judicial capacity to deal with the increasing incidence of drug activity among the youth of the district. This need is now serious and will become pandemic if not addressed quickly. Hampering this development is the dearth of treatment capability currently existing in or close to the district, particularly where the need for treatment exists -- with low-income or public assistance clients. In addition, local governmental structures do not currently appear to provide the necessary resources for dealing with these problems and appear unlikely to do so in the near future. The combination of these factors makes the development of a future drug enforcement and treatment capability a significant challenge for the law enforcement professionals of the Judicial District.

2. Need for a Juvenile Drug Court

Since, as noted above, the most immediate problem relating to drug use in the 26^th Judicial District appears to be among the young, it is suggested that the focus of drug court activity be upon establishing a Juvenile Drug Court to deal with this population. Such a program could operate out of a centralized court, operating as a division of the Juvenile Court of Madison County; however it could serve the entire District, including all three counties. It could be configured along lines of various Juvenile Drug Court models currently in existence and would need to be grant-funded initially.

Following establishment and early building, funding would need to be provided by the local community through a variety of sources, both public and private. Inasmuch as a substantial treatment capability is an essential ingredient for such a court, potential methods of expanding the treatment component will be suggested along with possible long-term funding mechanisms beyond the initial grant period.

As noted above, the most pressing need for enforcement and treatment in the 26^th Judicial District appears to be among the young. This is evidenced by court statistics, which have demonstrated an increase in drug involvement among this group over the past several years. The most recent report of the Juvenile Court for Madison County (August, 1998), for example, shows that among a total of 73 non-status offender juveniles booked into detention or held for release at the detention center, 18 (approximately 25%) were held on substance abuse violations. While this is a significant figure in itself, it becomes even more significant when it is noted that it is relatively unusual that this type of offender is detained. Indeed, the Madison County Juvenile Court judge estimates that she sees approximately 80 such offenders on a typical week. From these figures, it is apparent that a serious problem of young substance-abusing offenders exists in the District. Since the overwhelming number of these offenders are involved in use and possession type charges, as opposed to charges related to the sale and distribution of controlled substances, it would appear that a drug treatment court concept would be effective in dealing with this juvenile population.

Discussions with the recently elected Madison County Juvenile Court Judge, Hon. Christy Little, indicate an awareness on her part of the dimensions of the problem and a willingness to address it. Judge Little is currently heavily involved in an effort to establish a "Boot Camp" type program in the county. This project reflects her desire to address the need in this jurisdiction for an alternative means of dealing with juvenile offenders in a non-traditional incarceration setting. She also has expressed a strong desire to develop a Drug Court program as an adjunct to the Boot Camp and as an additional tool to deal with the same offenders. She is willing to undertake the leadership of the Drug Court development program as soon as the Boot Camp is off the ground and operational, which she estimates to be by the early summer of 1999.

Accordingly, it not only appears that there is a serious need for an additional resource in the form of a drug court program to deal with substance-abusing juveniles in the judicial district, but that the potential leadership for implementing such a program is available, making it appear that such a program would be feasible in this judicial district. Issues relating to the potential design for such a program are discussed below.

3. Issues Relating to the Design of a Drug Court Program

The development of a Juvenile Drug Court in the 26^th Judicial District will depend upon a number of elements, each of which should be addressed in the design of such a court. Although some of these elements are more important than others in assuring success, each should be considered during the process of establishing a new program. Among the most critical elements that will need to be in place are:

• Strong judicial leadership
• Start-up funding
• Appropriate eligibility criteria
• Screening mechanisms
• Treatment capability (including inpatient treatment)
• Drug testing and monitoring
• Ongoing judicial supervision
• Addressing confidentiality issues
• Communication between court and treatment providers
• Appropriate system of sanctions
• Provision of family assistance, including responses to parental substance abuse
• Educational opportunities
• Appropriate housing assistance
• Ongoing long-term funding

• Community outreach and education
• Screening and assessment
• Program monitoring and evaluation
• Relationship of the drug court program with the rest of the justice system

The above issues are some of the most significant that will need to be addressed in the development of a Drug Court program for the 26^th Judicial District. Suggestions for addressing them in the context of this jurisdiction will be made in the balance of this report. The primary developmental elements, in order of importance, will be discussed below.

1. Critical Elements of a Juvenile Drug Court Program That Need to be Addressed

1. Judicial Leadership

Probably the single most important factor in the relatively brief history of Drug Courts in the US, particularly in the developmental stage, has been a strong element of judicial leadership. While in a few jurisdictions, others, such as the local prosecutor, have undertaken the lead in developing drug court programs, for the most part the assignment of a local judge to spearhead development of the drug court has ultimately proven the most successful model. As has already been suggested, it is recommended that leadership of the proposed drug court in the 26^th judicial district be undertaken by Judge Christy Little, the current Madison County Juvenile Court Judge.

While the need for a strong leader is very apparent in the history of drug court development, it is equally apparent that an enthusiastic and knowledgeable support group is also required. In this case, since there are three counties involved in the district and since both of the Juvenile Court judges of the other two counties appear to be very supportive of the concept, it is recommended that the three judges, together with appropriate support staff, be organized into a Drug Court Council with Judge Little as Chair. The District Attorney General and the Public Defender should also be Council members or work closely with it. Appropriate staff additions to the council would include: Community Corrections, Juvenile Court Services, and Treatment providers. This council could direct the development of the program for the three counties.

1. Funding for Operations and Treatment Services

The essence of the development of Drug Courts throughout the country has been the establishment of strong ties between the judicial and treatment communities. In the past, the work of these two entities in addressing the problems of substance abusing offenders has been largely independent. The drug court concept has promoted, for the first time, the beginning of an active partnership between them. It has therefore become an essential part of any successful Drug Court program that there be developed in the local community a viable treatment component, which works cooperatively with the justice system and has a genuine desire to participate as a partner in the criminal justice process for dealing with substance-involved offenders. Accordingly, in order to develop such a partnership in the 26^th Judicial District it will be necessary to not only develop the drug court docket within the court system as an operational enterprise, but to also encourage the establishment of such a treatment capability. Of course, such partnerships require that appropriate financial resources be devoted to each of the components. Thus the need for both operational and treatment funding becomes a necessary issue that must be addressed in the establishment of the Drug Court program.

It has been noted earlier that there is currently a relative shortage of effective treatment capacity within the district. As a practical matter there is little if any treatment capability of any kind, let alone inpatient treatment of indigent clients. At the same time, it is these very clients who make up the bulk of the substance-abusing individuals coming to the attention of the juvenile system. The principal exception in Jackson appears to be the Jackson Area Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependency (JACOA). Although at the moment limited to non-indigent adults, the JACOA is a semi-public agency providing both residential and non-residential treatment services. This agency would appear to provide an opportunity for potential expansion to provide services to juveniles in the future if funding can be made available to serve indigent clients. Unfortunately, at the moment this agency is severely restricted in it’s ability to serve it’s current client base due to lack of appropriate funding.

Therefore, in order to expand to serve the needs of the Juvenile Drug Court population additional funding will be a necessity. In any event, whether through JACOA or other sources, obviously this problem must be addressed in some manner in order to establish a viable Drug Court program. In view of the apparent relative reluctance of local officials to provide the resources for such treatment at this time, it will be necessary to seek outside funding for both the underlying operation of the Drug Court, and, particularly, for the treatment component.

Initially it is recommended that the district apply for planning funds, and, thereafter, for implementation funds through the Drug Courts Program Office (DCPO) of the U.S. Department of Justice in Washington DC. Such funds are available to provide both operational support for the court itself and to also develop treatment and other support functions. In the case of the 26^th District, the establishment of appropriate treatment capacity is especially important.

The DCPO grant funds include resources for training of the key local officials involved in the drug court planning and for technical assistance to promote comprehensive program planning so as to assure that the subsequent implementation of the proposed Drug Court takes place in an orderly and appropriate manner.

Following the planning process, an application for a follow-up implementation grant would provide an opportunity for the creation of the drug court program even in the absence of significant local funding. Unfortunately, DCPO funding is available only on a short term basis and ultimately, in order to sustain the operation of the Drug Court, some type of local funding must be established. The advantage of utilizing federal funds at the outset is that they could provide the District with the capability to establish the Drug Court as an institution and to prove the viability of the concept to those who will be asked to provide ongoing subsequent operational funding.

Once established, the Drug Court should be able to demonstrate its effectiveness over the initial period of available grant funding. During this period, the judicial leadership of the program should be developing outside funding sources in an effort to provide for long-term survival of the program.

The 26^th Judicial District has some significant possible funding sources available to it, particularly regarding the treatment aspect of the program. The healthcare community in Madison County is very active in promoting those causes in which it believes. The combination of various church-related healthcare facilities, universities and private foundations in the area could be a rich source of potential long-term financial support of a proven effective program. Of particular note is the West Tennessee Healthcare organization, which not only provides a significant amount of quality health services in the Jackson area, but supports worthy causes through its own private foundation. Since this foundation is a health care driven institution, it would seem that the opportunity to fund what essentially is a health problem -- addiction -- would be a natural match. This foundation, as well as the other potential sources of funding noted above, should be cultivated during the development and early operational phases of the program and should be directly solicited for future funding once the Drug Court is established as a viable institution.

In terms of the operational funding for the court, it would appear that a relatively modest amount of additional money will be necessary since most of the principal participants in the program are already on the staffs of various agencies. The judge, District Attorney General, Public Defender, Probation Services, Office of Juvenile Court Services and other such agencies already exist and have expressed complete enthusiasm and willingness to take leading roles in the establishment and operation of the Drug Court. Thus, it would appear that a relatively modest investment in additional support staff for the program would be all that would be necessary to assure post-grant funding continuation. It is hoped that, if the program proves successful over the initial stages, the local governmental bodies would see the wisdom and cost-effectiveness of such an investment.

As a practical matter, it is recommended that the Juvenile Drug Court follow the model that has been established to date in other jurisdictions, at least in their initial stages. This is not only in the nature of "not re-inventing the wheel" but also as a practical way of getting started in a relatively expeditious way and assuring a reasonable amount of early success. Accordingly, in designing the new Juvenile Drug Court, it is recommended that the following operational characteristics be included. It should be noted that the purpose of the recommended planning grant will be to provide additional technical assistance to further refine these characteristics to closely adhere to local conditions. Each of these characteristics, therefore, should be taken into consideration in designing actual operational procedures during the planning phase of the program:

1. Early Judicial System Intervention

Intake, screening, and assessment of juvenile offenders should be done in the most expeditious manner possible to allow the Court to take control of the cases at the earliest possible time.

2. Prosecutor and Public Defender Involvement

The participation of the prosecutor is essential to the operation of the Drug Court. It is highly recommended that the District Attorney General have a central role, along with the Drug Court Judge, in the design and implementation of the program. The criteria for acceptance into the program, the treatment protocol and the graduation requirements should all be determined as a matter of consensus between the Court and DAG.

Like the DAG, the Public Defender’s Office should be one of the key planners of the Drug Court program. The Public Defender and the DAG should both be prepared to sign off on the operational criteria in advance of the opening of the Court. Thereafter, admission to the program should be automatic for those meeting the established criteria in order to avoid any suggestion of "selective admission". Both the DAG and the PD should have a role in the court proceedings from first appearance on and should participate throughout the proceedings.

c. Role of the Treatment Provider

As the critical partner in the Drug Court program, the selected treatment provider(s) should be included in the planning process. In addition, it is essential that the closest possible partnership be established between the Court and the provider(s). This means open communication regarding treatment issues throughout the proceedings of the Drug Court and an understanding of and agreement on both sides, of the respective roles of the Judge and the assigned treatment person. Only with a spirit of total cooperation between these two components of the Drug Court will the drug court program be successful.

4. Drug Court Program Protocol

The Drug Court protocol must include, at a minimum, treatment services, including detoxification and traditional counseling, possible non-traditional treatment such as acupuncture, regular drug testing and court response to drug test results, a specified system of both appropriate sanctions for poor performance and incentives to promote success, significant regular periodic personal exchange between the client and the Drug Court judge, family counseling where necessary and services relating to education, housing and other personal life critical needs.

e. Community Involvement

The Drug Court program should establish strong ties with community agencies and services involved in youth and family assistance. These relationships should include those with health and human service agencies, protective services, health services, recreational facilities, religious organizations and such other institutions as may bear on the socialization and integration of youthful offenders into the community. Such areas as education and housing are particularly important in dealing with young drug offenders; therefore active partnerships should be established between the Court and those agencies involved in such matters.

f. Graduation criteria

The interests of the community, the juvenile offender and the Court itself are best served by the establishment of a very specific and well established set of criteria for graduation from the Drug Court program. Public safety being a serious issue when dealing with substance abusers, the law enforcement community, including the DAG and police agencies, must be assured that those who will be held out to the community as "successful" graduates of the Drug Court are as well prepared as possible to remain successful. Accordingly, a determination that graduation is appropriate for a particular drug court participant must require that certain criteria suggesting that the participant will have a high probability of long-term success at remaining drug-free, have been met. These criteria should be well thought out and should represent the consensus of the Court leadership, prosecution and defense attorneys, treatment providers and affected community agencies.

g. Family Support

The Juvenile Drug Court is different from adult drug court programs in a number of ways, not the least of which is the involvement of family members at a much higher level in the juvenile setting. This is so because of the nature of dealing with young people and the recognition that it is frequently true that juvenile problems (including substance abuse) involve family dynamics in one way or another. Accordingly, it is axiomatic that a successful treatment regimen in a Juvenile Drug Court will necessarily include a significant amount of contact with the rest of the affected family. Therefore, the design of the Juvenile Drug Court program should take this necessity into account and should plan for the necessary adjunct services to allow for this element of the Drug Court treatment protocol.

8. Follow-up and aftercare services

It is especially important in the case of youthful offenders, who are more susceptible to peer pressure and other detrimental influences, that a system of follow-up services be established within the Drug Court program. This should include regular contact with treatment provider after care programs, occasional court contact, and family monitoring. The Drug Court would be well advised to consider developing an alumni organization, as many other drug courts have done, which would formalize the future relationship between the court and those who have completed the program. The use of graduates as mentors to current Drug Court clients might also be considered. Mentoring programs of this type provide a double benefit: continuation of post-graduation Drug Court involvement for past clients and peer help for current participants. This feature is of very great significance and should be accommodated in some form in the final Drug Court design.

No program can adequately demonstrate success and continue to grow without a well planned and established system of ongoing evaluation. This is particularly important in a situation such as the 26^th District’s in which the program needs to be established through a grant process for a relatively short period and then must seek local funding support for long term continuation. In order to continue the program, it will be necessary that a monitoring and evaluation plan be established in the early planning stages of the program and that the plan be diligently followed during the operational phase. Such evaluation will be required, in any event, during the initial start up and early operational period as a requirement for any grant funding received; it should, therefore, be relatively simple to adapt grant required monitoring to future operations. The results of this monitoring and evaluation process should address the degree to which the program is meeting its intended goals, additional impacts being achieved, such as participants’ educational and/or employment progress, should be public information, and should be circulated in the community, particularly among official agencies.

Finally, in reviewing the 26^th Judicial District court environment in regard to the potential establishment of a Juvenile Drug Court, the following resources appear to be necessary in order to provide a successful result. The planning process should begin with these in mind and primary emphasis should be given to assuring that these resources are in place prior to the start of the program:

In the opinion of the DCCTAP consultant, the successful establishment of a Juvenile Drug Court in the 26^th Judicial District is possible and, indeed, likely. From the above observations it is clear that a significant amount of effort and challenge awaits those who will be leading the effort; it would appear, however, that the combination of enthusiastic support for the proposition among court officials and the possibilities for community support apparent in the District, should make the Drug Court a realistic possibility.

It is of critical importance, however, that the leadership for the program begin the process of spreading the word and soliciting the widest possible community support for such an enterprise at the earliest possible time, even before any financial grants may be applied for. Such support beyond the court system and official community will be essential to promote appropriate initial planning and long-term success.

APPENDICES: (provided under separate cover)