nadcp news - DWI Courts

Transcription

NADCP NEWS
THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF DRUG COURT PROFESSIONALS
Vol. XIII, No. 1 Winter, 2006
From the Chief Executive’s Desk
By: Judge Karen Freeman-Wilson (ret.)
Dear Friends and Colleagues:
As with every new year, 2006
marks the beginning of many
new horizons for NADCP. You
have responded in record numbers to our request for written
evidence of your support for
drug courts. You have ably conveyed to those who serve you in
Congress the importance of drug court in
your community. To date, you have sent
over 2,800 letters and we are still counting.
But whatever you do, don’t stop there. Your
federal legislators need to hear about the
growth and development in your courts
and how their support is essential to the
work that you do in their home districts.
Since the founding of this organization, we
have told Congress that their support for
drug court is essential. While they are very
interested in our work and information,
each and every one of you in your capacity
as a voting citizen represents the “E.F.
Hutton” of the drug court field: when you
talk (write and call), Congress listens.
On January 20, 2006, we convened our first
Corporate Roundtable. The group, comprised
of Pioneer and Gold corporate members, met
to confer with our board and staff on the best
way for NADCP to partner with corporate
members. While we appreciate the financial
support that accompanies corporate membership, we want to ensure a mutual benefit
to all of our members. Because many of us
have served in drug courts, we understand
the needs of members. It is therefore important to make sure that we comprehend and
continued on page 26
Administration Requests
$69.86 Million for FY ’07!!!
We Need Your Help with the Congress to Ensure
the President’s Request Becomes Reality
By Judge Karen Freeman-Wilson (ret.)
Judge Karen Freeman-Wilson (ret.), Chief
Executive Officer of the National Association
of Drug Court Professionals (NADCP), praised
President Bush’s decision to provide $69.86
million in federal funding for drug courts in
the Fiscal Year (FY) 2007 budget released on
February 6, 2006. “The President’s decision
to fund drug courts at $59 million above
the enacted FY 2006 levels demonstrates
this Administration’s commitment to the
drug court field,” stated Judge FreemanWilson. “I applaud the President’s leadership
and vision in the fight against substance
abuse and related crime.”
Judge Freeman-Wilson added, “The President
has sent a clear message to Capitol Hill:
drug courts work. Communities across the
nation are struggling with the devastation
caused by methamphetamine and other
illicit drugs. Drug courts represent the most
effective tool for these communities, and
I implore the United States Congress to rise
to this challenge by funding drug court at
the requested levels.”
“At the same time, I call on all drug court
professionals across the nation to raise their
voices as one and insist that their Members
continued on page 7
In This Issue
12TH ANNUAL CONFERENCE
ENHANCEMENTS PLANNED
NADCP’s 12th Annual Drug Court Training
Conference is one of the premiere conferences in the nation addressing issues of
substance abuse and criminality. Building
upon the success of past conferences, and
reflecting the training needs of a maturing
field, this year’s conference is breaking new
ground with a strong emphasis on addressing
the needs of courts in existence for more
than three years. Featured will be over 25
pre-conference workshops, 22 tracks and
over 170 faculty from the U.S. and abroad.
The sessions offered in the training tracks
will address the needs of every professional
in a drug or problem solving court setting,
including family dependency treatment courts,
mental health courts, domestic violence
and so forth.
Page 3
NATIONAL DRUG COURT MONTH
2006 FIELD KITS RELEASED
May is National Drug Court Month (NDCM)
and now is the time to begin preparations!
In this issue of NADCP News you will find a
special message inviting your court to participate. National Drug Court Month provides a
unique and powerful opportunity for the drug
court field to communicate its achievements
to policy makers and the general public. This
annual observance culminates with the Annual
Drug Court Training Conference in June and
this year embraces the conference theme,
“Successful Partnering for Recovery.” Please
review your NDCM insert and then go to
our website, www.nadcp.org, for a complete
field kit to help you get started today!
Page 4-5
DEBUNKING METH MYTHS
Across the country, and now even throughout
the world, treatment providers and human
service professionals alike are discovering
the complex web of behavioral disruption,
criminal lifestyles, collusive and insidious
relationships, neurological damage and
psychological mayhem that characterize the
overall picture of a meth-using community.
Dr. Nicholas Taylor, noted licensed clinical
psychologist, takes a look at the facts and
legends associated with methamphetamine.
Page 15
2
“
“
Drug courts perform
their duties without
manifestation, by
word or conduct,
of bias or prejudice,
including, but not
limited to, bias or
prejudice based upon
race, gender, national
origin, disability, age,
sexual orientation,
language or socioeconomic status.
NADCP Board of Directors
NADCP/NDCI Staff
William F. Alden
Oakton, VA
Patricia Beauchemin
Membership Manager (ext. 15)
Thomas Alexander
San Diego, CA
Laquetta Butler
Project Assistant—DCPI Adult Trainings (ext. 19)
Judge Elizabeth Barrett-Anderson
Hagatna, GU
Suzanne Byrnes
Training Coordinator—DCPI Adult Trainings (ext. 33)
Judge Barbara Brugnaux
Terre Haute, IN
Oriana Casadei
Meetings and Conference Manager—Annual
Conferences (ext. 40)
Earl “Buddy” Croft
Vice Chair
Providence, RI
Melody Heaps
Chicago, IL
Alec Christoff
Project Director—Technical Assistance (ext. 11)
Brian Hendrix
Stillwater, OK
Jennifer Columbel
Director, Public Policy (ext. 14)
Judge Harvey Hoffman
Charlotte, MI
Gloria Cronin
Program Manager—DCPI Family Trainings (ext. 29)
Susan James-Andrews
Upper Marlboro, MD
Theron Cook
Assistant to the CEO (ext. 30)
Judge Jeremiah S. Jeremiah, Jr.
Providence, RI
Kristen Daugherty
Program Manager—NHTSA DWI Court Initiative—
DCPI Adult Trainings (ext. 39)
Lars Levy
Bayou Vista, LA
Judge Stephen Manley
San Jose, CA
Douglas Marlowe, Ph.D.
Philadelphia, PA
Commissioner Molly Merrigan
Kansas City, MO
About this
Publication
Editors: Dean Schultheiss
and Carolyn Hardin
The National Association of Drug Court
Professionals (NADCP) publishes
NADCP News four times a year to
communicate topical information on
the association and the drug court
movement to the field. It is distributed
to active members of NADCP and at
NADCP/National Drug Court Institute
(NDCI)-sponsored trainings. NADCP
invites, but reserves the prerogative to
edit, articles submitted from the field.
Advertising opportunities are available
to corporate members of NADCP only.
The contents of this publication are the
property of NADCP and shall not be
reproduced without its written consent.
For more information, please call Dean
Schultheiss, Events and Outreach
Manager, at 703-575-9400, ext 25.
Rachel Casebolt
Research Coordinator (ext. 23)
Judge Mary Noble
Lexington, KY
Larry Robinson
Newport News, VA
Judge John R. Schwartz
Chair
Rochester, NY
Yvonne Smith Segars
Newark, NJ
Judge Charles Simmons
Greenville, SC
Darryl Turpin
Louisville, KY
Stuart Van Meveren
Fort Collins, CO
Judge Robert Ziemian
Boston, MA
Janet Davis
Chief Financial Officer (ext. 41)
Terry Esslinger
Office Manager (ext. 22)
Carson Fox
Fellow—DCPI Adult Trainings and Statewide Training
Initiative (ext. 38)
Judge Karen Freeman-Wilson (ret.)
NADCP Chief Executive Officer and
NDCI Executive Director (ext. 12)
Carolyn Hardin
Deputy Director, NDCI—DCPI Adult Trainings (ext. 24)
Cary Heck
Research Director (ext. 17)
John Heekin
Scholarship Coordinator (ext. 31)
West Huddleston
NDCI Director (ext. 13)
Kermit Kaleba
Legislative Coordinator—Technical Assistance
and Legislative Affairs (ext. 32)
Atoundra Pierre-Lawson
Program Manager—DCPI Adult Trainings (ext. 34)
Jannise Randall
Program Manager—DCPI Family Technical Assistance
Initiative (ext. 20)
Dean Schultheiss
Events and Outreach Manager—Annual Conferences
and Newsletters (ext. 25)
Bobbie Taylor
Meeting Manager—NDCI/ONDCP/Mentor Court
Trainings (ext. 16)
Meghan M. Wheeler
Project Director—DCPI Family Trainings (ext. 35)
3
12th NADCP Annual Training Conference
Breaking New Ground
By Carolyn Hardin
Since 1995, thousands of drug court professionals have attended the NADCP Annual
Drug Court Training Conference. The
conference has an established reputation
for providing cutting edge information,
dynamic speakers from within our field
as well as government leaders, networking
opportunities, a marketplace for the products
and services utilized by our courts and, of
course, opportunities to reunite with old
friends and make new ones. It is one of the
premiere conferences in the nation addressing
issues of substance abuse and criminality.
The event hosts participants and attendees
from every state and territory as well as
an international contingent representing as
many as 15 countries. Building on twelve
years of success and based on the needs of
you, our constituents, NADCP is taking the
annual conference to the next level this year!
While holding to the successful format of
past years, this year’s conference is breaking
new ground with a strong emphasis on
addressing the needs of mature courts, or
what might be defined as courts in existence
for greater than three years. This meeting
will feature over 25 pre-conference workshops, 22 tracks and 170 faculty from the
U.S. and abroad. The sessions offered in
the training tracks will address the needs
of every professional in a drug or problem
solving court setting, including family
dependency treatment courts, mental health
courts, domestic violence and so forth. Our
theme, “Successful Partnering for Recovery,”
speaks to the collaborations that are at the
heart of every effective drug court in existence today. Every participant, regardless of
experience level, will come away with new
skills that can immediately be implemented
in their daily work.
Conference Theme
Successful Partnering
for Recovery Conference
Location
Seattle, Washington
Conference Dates
June 21 - 24, 2006
The following are just a few of the highlights:
Pre-Conference Skills Enhancement
More pre-conference workshops and training
sessions that go beyond theory and help
practitioners enhance skills will be offered.
For example, we are reaching out in earnest
to juvenile practitioners by providing a
pre-conference workshop session on adolescent treatment strategies. This session will
continued on page 8
Disparities Focus Group Holds Inaugural Meeting
By Judge Karen Freeman-Wilson (ret.)
The Disparities Focus Group, convened by the
Cultural Proficiency Committee of NADCP’s
Board and the Thurgood Marshall Action
Committee (TMAC), in partnership with
the Native American Alliance Foundation
(NAAF) and Mejorar, met in Chicago, Illinois
on November 9-10, 2005. The group facilitator was Andrea Barthwell and the mission
was to look at whether disparities based on
race, gender, religion and ethnicity existed
in drug court.
Barthwell, the former Deputy Director for
Remand Reduction at the Office of National
Drug Control Policy, commended NADCP
for their vision in convening the group and
considered it an honor to serve as facilitator.
The board committee’s chair, Darryl Turpin,
noted that the focus group has “limitless
possibilities to serve as a resource and
inspiration to drug court practitioners who
want to ensure that everyone gains access
to drug court.” He also thanked board chair,
Judge John Schwartz, and fellow board
member, Judge Stephen Manley, for their
active support of this project.
Conference
Ancillary Events
Showcase the
Human Aspect
of Drug Court
By Bobbie Taylor
Each year, the National Association
of Drug Court Professionals showcases distinctive and important
accomplishments in the drug court
field. Beginning with a compilation
of artistic expressions from juvenile
drug court participants, then honoring significant forerunners of the
drug court movement, and finally
acknowledging the tremendous
accomplishments of drug court
graduates. NADCP endeavors to
continue this demonstration of
exemplary deeds.
Juvenile Art “Gallery of Expressions”
Drug court participants have often
sought to express themselves
through art. NADCP invites juvenile
drug courts to submit drawings,
poetry, or other forms of artistic
expression by the participants.
Submissions will be displayed
in the “Gallery of Expressions”
at the Seattle Conference in June.
Artwork will be judged and prizes
awarded. This year the “Gallery of
Expressions” will be incorporated
into our National Drug Court
month activities.
Stanley M. Goldstein Drug Court
Hall of Fame
The Stanley M. Goldstein Drug
Court Hall of Fame is a recognition
by one’s peers of special dedication
to the drug court field. At each
conference, one outstanding
member of our practitioner community receives this prestigious
award. The presentation will take
place during our honors sessions
on Friday, June 23.
4900 Seminary Road, Suite 320
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
DRUG COURT PROFESSIONALS
Alexandria, VA 22311
NADCP
www.nadcp.org
Phone: 703 575.9400
Fax: 703 575.9402
Dear Colleague:
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
William Alden
Oakton, VA
Thomas Alexander
Solana Beach, CA
Judge Elizabeth Barrett-Anderson
Hagatna, Guam
Judge Barbara Brugnaux
Terra Haute, IN
Buddy Croft
Providence, RI
Melody Heaps
Chicago, IL
Brian Hendrix
Stillwater, OK
Judge Harvey Hoffman
Charlotte, MI
Susan James-Andrews
Upper Marlboro, MD
Judge Jeremiah S. Jeremiah, Jr.
Providence, RI
Lars Levy
Morgan City, LA
Judge Stephen Manley
San Jose, CA
Douglas Marlowe, PhD.
Philadelphia, PA
Commissioner Molly Merrigan
Kansas City, MO
Judge Mary Noble
Lexington, KY
Judge Louis J. Presenza
Philadelphia, PA
Larry Robinson
Newport News, VA
Judge Robert Russell
Buffalo, NY
Judge John R. Schwartz
Rochester, NY
Yvonne Smith Segars
Trenton, NJ
Judge Charles Simmons
Greenville, SC
Darryl Turpin
Louisville, KY
Stuart VanMeveren
Fort Collins, CO
Judge Robert Ziemian
Westwood, MA
National Drug Court Month will be celebrated in May 2006, and I am excited to announce that this year’s
theme will be “Successful Partnerships for Recovery.” The theme underlines the importance of creating
and sustaining community partnerships that enhance our clients’ prospects for recovery. The celebrations
will culminate with the 12th Annual NADCP Training Conference in Seattle, WA on June 21-24, 2006.
Since the first drug court was founded in Miami-Dade County in 1989, the drug court field has grown
to more than 1,700 drug courts across the nation. Drug courts are employing the latest developments
in treatment and judicial research and we are seeing greater success than ever before. At the same time,
we face continued challenges, as drug courts compete for limited resources in an era of tight budgets.
To build upon our past success and sustain our momentum, we must use National Drug Court Month
as an opportunity to announce our presence and ensure that our voices are heard.
We have released our National Drug Court Month Field Kit online at www.nadcp.org to help your program
celebrate National Drug Court Month. The kit provides suggestions on obtaining media coverage for your
National Drug Court Month events, a draft proclamation of National Drug Court Month for use in your
locality, and talking points. In addition, you will find some new and exciting features:
“Successful Partnering for Recovery” Contests – This year NADCP will sponsor four contests dedicated
to the theme of “Successful Partnering for Recovery.” With categories for Statewide, Individual Drug Court,
Adult Drug Court Participants, and Juvenile Drug Court Participants, we will recognize the creativity, dedication and innovation of drug court professionals and clients across the nation!
NDCM Partnership Tip Sheets – These Partnership Tip Sheets contain sound advice on developing relationships with law enforcement, universities, and other organizations. Prepared by some of the leading practitioners in the drug court field, these tip sheets provide simple, straightforward advice on bridging gaps
and building mutually beneficial partnerships.
National Drug Court Commencement Week – We are hoping every drug court program across the nation
will schedule a graduation/commencement ceremony during the week of May 22-26, 2006. Invite your
Members of Congress, your governor, your mayor, your chief of police, and your local media representatives.
Nothing communicates the vision, purpose, and effectiveness of drug court as clearly as a graduation/
commencement ceremony, and these are the people who need to hear our message. We also ask that you
submit the names of graduates during the month of May on the “Recovery Roll Call” form included
in the kit, and we will recognize all drug court graduates at the Annual Conference in Seattle. A release
form is provided in the kit.
National Drug Court Month Recognition Luncheon – NADCP will host its first annual National Drug
Court Month Recognition Luncheon on Capitol Hill during Commencement Week. The luncheon will
honor individuals whose work exemplifies this year’s theme of “Successful Partnering for Recovery.”
Attached you will find further information about National Drug Court Month. The National Drug Court
Month Field Kit is available online at www.nadcp.org. For questions, or to receive a hard copy of this
Field Kit, please contact Kermit Kaleba, NADCP Legislative Coordinator, at 703-575-9400, ext. 32,
or via email at [email protected]. With your support, we can make May 2006 our most successful
National Drug Court Month ever. See you in Seattle!
Sincerely,
Judge Karen Freeman-Wilson (ret.)
Chief Executive Officer
National Association of Drug Court Professionals
5
National Drug Court Month 2006 Overview
“Successful Partnering for Recovery” Contests
NDCM Statewide Contest
Many states coordinate their National Drug Court Month celebrations, and we want to recognize
the state that best demonstrates this year’s theme. Submissions for the state award must be
received from the President of your state association or from the State Administrative Office of
the courts or equivalent body. The winning state will be highlighted at the 12th Annual NADCP
Training Conference in Seattle, provided their own table to display their activity, and will receive
a plaque commemorating their efforts.
NDCM Drug Court Program
Do you believe your program best exemplifies this year’s theme, Successful Partnering for Recovery?
Tell us about it! Individual drug court programs may submit photographs, programs, and other
memorabilia illustrating how their program celebrated National Drug Court Month. The drug court
program that best demonstrates this year’s theme will receive a full organizational membership in
NADCP. The second place winner will receive a five-person organizational membership in NADCP.
Adult Drug Court Participants
Every drug court participant has a story of hope and recovery, and we want to hear these stories.
We are asking that adult drug court participants submit poems, short stories, artwork or music that
details their personal experiences with addiction and recovery. The winning entry will receive a
$250.00 cash award, be posted on the NADCP website and published in the NADCP newsletter, and
the winner will present their artwork at the 12th Annual NADCP Training Conference in Seattle, WA.
NADCP will provide transportation and lodging costs for the winner of this contest.
Juvenile Art Contest
Drug court participants have often sought to express themselves through art. NADCP invites
juvenile drug courts to submit drawings, poetry, or other forms of artistic expression by the
participants. Gift certificates will be awarded for first, second, and third place in the categories
of creativity, presentation, composition, and originality.
National Drug Court Commencement Week and Recovery Roll Call
NADCP wants to celebrate the accomplishments of drug court graduates nationwide during National
Drug Court Month. We are asking all drug court programs that hold commencement ceremonies
during National Drug Court Commencement Week (May 22-26, 2006) as well as any
graduations during the month of May to submit the first name and last initial of their graduates to
NADCP by June 5, 2006. NADCP will post the names on our website at www.nadcp.org, and the
names will be displayed on our Recovery Roll Call at the 12th Annual NADCP Training Conference
in Seattle, WA on June 21-24, 2006.
Deadlines, Entry Forms and Where To Send the Information
• Submissions for the Adult and Juvenile Art Contests must be received by May 1, 2006.
• Submissions for the Statewide and Drug Court Program Contests and Recovery Roll Call must
be received by June 5, 2006.
• Please use the entry forms for the contests and Recovery Roll Call and release forms provided
in the Kit. Go to www.nadcp.org to download the kit.
• Please be sure to send to NADCP any related press clippings, videotapes, resolutions, and
other materials to be displayed in Seattle.
• Send all information to Kermit Kaleba, Legislative Coordinator
NADCP, 4900 Seminary Road, Suite 320, Alexandria, VA 22311.
• Questions or for a hard copy of the kit: Call or email Kermit Kaleba, Legislative Coordinator,
at 703-575-9400, ext. 32, or [email protected].
Mentor Court
Network Retooled
As Academy Courts
By C. West Huddleston, III
In August of 2005, NDCI and
the National Research Advisory
Committee (NRAC) began developing an organizational framework,
fidelity criteria and selection criteria for a reconstituted mentor drug
court network called “academy
courts.” Once completed, the new
generation of academy courts will
continue to fulfill their traditional
functions of providing for crossfertilization, technology-transfer
and knowledge dissemination among
drug court programs nationwide.
However, a new requirement for
designation as an academy court
will be a firm commitment and
preparation to serve as part of a
national research platform. The
NRAC will develop a program
of technical assistance to help
interested courts achieve researchreadiness. With a national platform
of well-functioning drug courts,
researchers will have the best
possible environment in which to
conduct high-quality, “real-world”
research into the effectiveness,
cost-benefit and best practices of
drug courts and other problemsolving court programs.
With new funding from the
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA), at the
U.S. Department of Transportation,
the first academy courts to be
identified in 2006 will be DWI
drug courts. NDCI will announce
a formal process to apply for
DWI academy court selection
in February 2006. For this and
other important NADCP and
NDCI announcements, go to
www.ndci.org and join the “drug
court listserv” in the right-hand
column of hot buttons.
6
SAMHSA/CSAT’s
TIP 44 Addresses
Offender Treatment
By Roger H. Peters, Ph.D., and
Harry K. Wexler, Ph.D.
The Substance Abuse and Mental
Health Services Administration’s
Center for Substance Abuse
Treatment recently published the
Treatment Improvement Protocol
(TIP) 44, entitled “Substance
Abuse Treatment for Adults in the
Criminal Justice System.” This TIP
was designed to help substance
abuse treatment practitioners
address issues that arise from their
clients’ status in the criminal justice
system and to aid personnel in the
criminal justice system in understanding and addressing the challenges of working with offenders
who have substance use disorders.
TIP 44 provides recommendations
and best-practice guidelines based
on the research literature and the
experience of seasoned treatment
professionals. It is designed to help
substance abuse counselors and
other professionals to effectively
treat and supervise clients involved
with the criminal justice system.
The TIP examines the full range of
criminal justice settings (e.g., probation, parole, pretrial release, drug
court, jail, prison) and addresses
both clinical and programmatic
areas of treatment, including stateof-the-art screening, assessment,
treatment and follow-up services.
TIP 44 revises and supersedes TIP
7, “Screening and Assessment for
Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse
Among Adults in the Criminal
Justice System,” TIP 12, “Combining
Substance Abuse Treatment
With Intermediate Sanctions for
Adults in the Criminal Justice
System,” and TIP 17 “Planning
for Alcohol and Other Drug
Abuse Treatment for Adults in
the Criminal Justice System.”
Congress Reauthorizes Drug Court
Discretionary Grant Program
By Jennifer Columbel
Prior to adjourning the First Session of
the 109th Congress, Members passed an
authorization of the Department of Justice
through Fiscal Year 2009, Public Law No:
109-162.
Included in the authorization was enhancement to the Drug Court Discretionary Grant
Program. The following is an overview:
• Authorizes $70 million for the grant
program in fiscal year 2007 and 2008.
• Clarification of definition of violent offender
for purposes of juvenile drug courts. The
bill strikes the previous violent offender
“offense” language and replaces it with
“felony-level offense” language.
• Changes the distribution and allocation of
grants for drug court. It strikes the current
state minimum allocation requirement and
replaces it with a training and technical
assistance requirement. The training and
technical assistance must also respond to
the unique needs of rural States, rural areas
and rural communities.
• Eligibility for grants under drug court grants
program extended to courts that supervise
non-offenders with substance abuse
problems. This is a technical correction in
support of family dependency drug courts.
To see text of the bill go to: http://thomas.loc.gov/
cgi-bin/cpquery/T?&report=hr233&dbname=109&
Get the Latest News! Get Heard in
Congress! “Get Involved”!
NADCP is excited to announce our dynamic new partnership with GetActive Software, Inc. to
implement a new web-based advocacy, messaging and conference services system. Easily accessible
at www.nadcp.org, “Get Involved” is a powerful new tool for communicating our message to federal
and state lawmakers and for sharing breaking news about the issues that affect you.
So why should you Get Involved?
• Advocacy Campaigns. NADCP will send out “as-it-happens” Action Alerts about federal and
state legislation that impacts your drug court program. You can then send targeted, personalized
messages to lawmakers—all with a click of a mouse!
• News and Announcements. In the coming months, only those registered with “Get Involved”
will receive NADCP and NDCI announcements about funding opportunities, training, research,
and other developments in the drug court field.
• Membership and Online Registration. “Get Involved” will allow you to sign up for NADCP
membership and maintain an online membership profile. Tell us who you know on Capitol Hill!
Ensure that your contact information is accurate and up-to-date! Register online for exciting
events such as the 12th Annual NADCP Drug Court Training Conference in Seattle, Washington!
But you must be registered to receive all of these important benefits! Go to www.nadcp.org and
click on “Get Involved” to create your free Get Involved account. You do not need to be an NADCP
member to register.
If you are a member of NADCP, your information has automatically been added to the Get Involved
database, but you should take just a few minutes to go online and ensure that your information
is correct and to tell us about your professional relationships. Your information will be kept
confidential and will not be shared with outside parties.
If you want to continue to receive the latest announcements and add your voice to the growing national
discussion about drug courts, you must sign up today! Go to www.nadcp.org and “Get Involved”!
7
Important Legislative Alert!
Board Nominations
Deadline Extended
Despite our triumphs last year, despite the U.S. General Accounting Office releasing a
report earlier last year supporting the effectiveness of drug courts, despite our mounds
of research on the effectiveness of the drug court approach, the Congress has decided
to slash the Drug Court Discretionary Grant Program to $10 million. Many programs
have been reduced in order to assist in the hurricane relief efforts. However, the drug
court appropriation is even lower than anticipated.
NADCP has extended the deadline
to submit nominations for its board
of directors to April 15, 2006. The
Election of the directors takes place
at the Annual Conference in June.
The NADCP Board of Directors and staff are actively working with the Congress to restore
the Fiscal Year (FY) 2006 funding for drug courts. Although the FY 2006 appropriation for
the Department of Justice has been finalized, the Congress still has several other mechanisms
which can be utilized to restore the funding. However, this will only happen if the
Congress hears from drug court professionals and graduates across the nation.
I ask you to take a minute to let your Members of Congress know of your disappointment
and to urge them to restore FY 2006 funding. If they hear from you, if they hear from the
1600 plus drug courts, from the over 16,000 drug court professionals, from the over
16,000 annual drug court graduates, and from the over 70,000 current program participants
they will realize the true meaning of their action. Go to www.nadcp.org and click on
“Get Involved” to view the letter below, to which you can add your name and send directly
to your representative!
Dear:
I write today to express my concern that Congress has slashed the Drug Court Discretionary
Grant Program to $10 million in Fiscal Year 2006 and to urge your support for restoring this
critical funding. As a result of this action, thousands of substance abusing offenders will not
receive the intense supervision and treatment they need, and public safety in our State will
suffer. In addition, we will not gain the tax dollars resulting from their drug-free, law-abiding
lives and many children will suffer as a result of their parents’ continued abuse and neglect.
I write to tell you that while substance abuse and related crimes no longer dominate the headlines, they continue to bedevil our communities. Drug courts have proven to be one of our
strongest and most effective responses to substance abuse and crime, particularly with such
historical different drugs of abuse such as, methamphetamine, heroin, alcohol, and cocaine.
With this action, Congress has sent a clear message that the terrible effects of drug-related
crime in our society are no longer a national priority, and must be left for another day.
I write today to tell you that drug courts work. Study upon study has demonstrated that drug
courts reduce crime, save money, and make our communities safer. I write today to remind
you of the recent U.S. General Accounting Office, your research arm, report supporting the
effectiveness of drug courts. I write today to remind you of the 16,000 individuals that graduate
from a drug court every year and their families. The 16,000 members of our communities,
who have overcome the perils of addiction, who are gainfully employed, who have regained
custody of their children, who are productive members of society because of a drug court.
I write today to urge you to request that the Appropriations Committee do everything in their
power to restore the $30 million cut from the Drug Court Discretionary Grant Program for
Fiscal Year 2006. If you could see the difference drug courts are making in our state, you
would understand how much this cut will cost us all.
Sincerely,
An extraordinary number of board
members are slated to go off the
board in 2006. By extending the
deadline, we hope to ensure that
there are enough candidates to
fill these critical positions.
Nomination forms and eligibility
criteria can be obtained by
contacting Theron Cook, Assistant
to the CEO, at 703-575-9400,
ext 30 or by e-mail at
[email protected]. Nominees
determined to be eligible will
be notified in advance.
“ADMINISTRATION REQUESTS
$69.86 MILLION FOR FY ’07!!!”
continued from page 1
of Congress support and champion
full funding for drug courts.
Between now and Memorial Day,
I ask that drug courts invite their
senators and representatives to
visit their programs and see the
difference drug courts can make.
Invite them to meet the substance
abusing offenders whose lives are
improving because of your hard
work and dedication. Write letters
and call them to let them know
how important drug courts are
for public safety and public health
in our communities.”
As promised, the NADCP board of
directors and staff have been tirelessly working to ensure drug courts
remain a national priority despite
last year’s reduction. We have heard
quite clearly that Members of
Congress are not hearing from
our field in great numbers on the
importance and need for the federal
program. Thus, we need your
help to garner this support for
full funding for 2007.
8
Certified Criminal
Justice Addiction
Professional
Schwarzenegger Calls for Institutionalization
of California Drug Courts
By C. West Huddleston, III
California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s
proposed state budget for 2006-07 includes
significant reforms to the Substance Abuse
and Crime Prevention Act (SACPA) of 2000,
also known as Proposition 36. The recommended changes are intended to enhance
accountability and improve treatment services for certain drug offenders and would
mark a significant step towards institutionalizing the drug court model in California.
The National Drug Court Institute
(NDCI) and the International
Consortium of Addiction and
Prevention Credentialing Boards
(IC&RC) realize that addiction/
criminal justice treatment professionals fill a unique role in the
human service and justice arena
and require much more focused
and sophisticated training.
Addiction professionals navigating
within complex federal, state and
local criminal justice systems must
develop a unique set of competencies with a broader knowledge base
to provide effective evidence-based
treatment interventions.
The Certified Criminal Justice
Addiction Professional is a
credential to meet those demands
and show competence not only
in addiction treatment but also
the requisite knowledge and skills
needed to work within the criminal
justice system. The Certified
Criminal Justice Addiction
Professional (CCJP) credential
sets a baseline standard for treatment professionals working in the
criminal justice system, such as
drug court. Such professionals are
given recognition for meeting standards and criteria that demonstrate
competency in this specialty field.
Certification provides a professional
credential that can guide employers
in securing component staff and sets
direction for further professional
growth in this demanding field.
If you would like further information regarding this distinguished
certification as a Criminal Justice
Addiction Professional, please
visit www.icrcaoda.org. This site
will provide information and
qualifications for each state. You
can also contact Donna Johnson,
International CCJP Chairperson
with specific questions at
[email protected].
By Kermit Kaleba
Passed by California voters in 2000,
Proposition 36 represented a radical departure
from the traditional approach to handling
drug-related offenses in the criminal justice
system. Under Proposition 36, first or second
time non-violent drug offenders who use or
possess illegal substances for personal use
are eligible to receive drug treatment in lieu
of incarceration. The law established annual
funding for the program at $120 million. The
program has had modest success, however;
although Proposition 36 participants have
higher rates of sobriety and employment
than non-SACPA participants, fewer than
35 percent of Proposition 36 participants
complete treatment.
Schwarzenegger’s proposal would continue
funding for the program through 2006, but
would condition future funding on a series
of reforms, including:
• judicial authority to impose short-term jail
terms and sanctions for non-compliance;
• imposition of drug testing as a condition
of probation;
• creation of dedicated court calendars for
drug offenses; and
• increased emphasis on individually tailored,
culturally competent treatment services
The proposed reforms match language
in the SACPA reauthorization bill, which
overwhelmingly passed the State Senate
and is currently before the State Assembly.
“12TH NADCP ANNUAL TRAINING CONFERENCE...”
provide practitioners with experiential
exercises to take home and incorporate
into their programs.
Tools
All conference sessions will provide tools
that will enhance the skills of drug court
professionals. For example, NADCP will
offer a link to the website that will contain
the handouts from all sessions.
Confronting the Meth Epidemic
Through Drug Court
Drug courts are the most effective criminal
justice response to the methamphetamine
epidemic. Each day more and more drug
courts are serving meth clients. We have
added a track this year that focuses solely
on this population. It will focus on ways
to treat, supervise and effectively deal with
meth in your community. Highlighting this
track will be a presentation by nationally
known speaker Dr. Alex Stalcup who will
present on effective treatment approaches
for meth addicts.
Advanced Tracks
In direct response to the needs of mature
drug courts we have added the following
tracks this year:
• Legal Issues. This track will address the
legal hurdles that drug courts face in the
midst of new case law and HIPAA.
• Incentives and Sanctions. This track will
feature a session titled “Ask the Experts”
to help answer your burning questions.
• State Coordination of Drug Courts.
This track will assist those charged with
running statewide drug court initiatives
as well as help other states learn ways to
implement state initiatives.
• Caring for the Care Giver. Similar to a
track offered two years ago, this track has
been redesigned to energize, refuel and
equip drug court practitioners to better
manage their lives and their work.
• Spanish-speaking Sessions. We are
delighted this year to offer a track focused
on Latino issues. This track will feature
continued on page 9
9
“12TH NADCP ANNUAL TRAINING...”
Seattle Conference Quick Facts
Schedule of Events
Pre-Conference:
Wednesday, June 21, 2006; 9:00 a.m. – 5:00 p.m.
Conference Dates:
Thursday, June 22, 2006; 8:30 a.m. – 5:30 p.m.
Friday, June 23, 2006; 8:00 a.m. – 5:45 p.m.
Saturday, June 24, 2006; 8:00 a.m. – 11:30 p.m.
Exhibit Hall Dates:
Thursday, June 22, 2006; 11:00 a.m. – 7:00 p.m. (closed for lunch)
Friday, June 23, 2006 ; 7:30 a.m. – 3:00 p.m. (open through lunch)
Opening Reception:
Thursday, June 22, 2006; 6:00 p.m. – 7:30 p.m.
Location and Reservations
Event Location:
Washington State Convention and Trade Center
800 Convention Place, Seattle, WA 98101
Lodging & Rates:
Grand Hyatt Seattle
721 Pine Street
Seattle, WA 98101
Reservations: 800-233-1234
Rate: $173.00 single
$193.00 double + tax
The Mayflower Park
405 Olive Way
Seattle, WA 98101
Rate: $149.00 single
$159.00 double + tax
Westin Seattle
1900 Fifth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
Rate: $177.00 single/double + tax
Sheraton Seattle Hotel
and Towers (HQ)
1400 6th Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
The Roosevelt
1531 Seventh Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
Paramount
724 Pine Street
Seattle, WA 98101
Red Lion Inn
on Fifth Avenue
1415 Fifth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
(If additional rooms are needed, new
hotel information will be posted to our
website, www.nadcp.org)
Registration Information
Registration Fee:
$500.00 per pre-registered attendee prior to May 6
$50.00 discount available to current members of NADCP
(Other discounts available—see our website. Registrations submitted after May 26
or on-site will be charged at $525.00 regardless of prior discounts.)
Registration Forms:
Available on NADCP’s website: www.nadcp.org (PDF file format)
Payment To:
NADCP (see registration form for mailing information)
Getting There
Airport:
SeaTac (SEA) airport, located 16 miles south of downtown Seattle.
Airlines:
Served by most major carriers.
Ground Transportation
Taxi service to downtown is $25.00. Shuttle buses are operated by Gray Line Airporter at $17.00 round trip.
Call 206-626-6088 for reservations. Shuttle Express Van Service provides round trip service for $23.00.
Call 425-981-7000 for reservations. Ground transportation information booths are at the north and south
ends of the baggage claim area at doors 6 and 26. Discounts are also available on rental cars through Hertz
by calling 800-654-2240 and citing meeting number CV#02VP0005.
“The 10 Key Components,”
presented in Spanish, as well as
a session geared toward addressing
the legal and cultural issues that
courts face when working with
immigrant populations.
CLE Credit to be Available
For the first time, lawyers will be
able to receive credit for attendance
at NADCP’s 12th Annual Drug
Court Training Conference.
Though limited initially to the
states of California, Florida,
Illinois, Missouri, Nevada, New
Mexico, New York, Ohio, Oregon
and Washington, we will continue
to make certificates of attendance
available and will work with other
states to provide certification to
facilitate credit for attendance.
Showcasing Drug Courts
Last year, we introduced the Drug
Court Showcase: table top displays
that allow drug courts to highlight
their program’s innovations and
successes. Because of your positive
response, we are bringing the
showcase back again this year!
For more information about
participating in the showcase,
please contact Dean Schultheiss
at 703-575-9400, ext. 25, or by
e-mail at [email protected].
Space is limited and is offered on
a first come, first served basis.
If the new format is not enough to
get your attention, we also plan this
year to kick-off the conference with
a Thursday evening networking
event featuring salsa music and
dancing. Bring your dancing
shoes and business cards! For
more information about this
year’s conference or to register go
to www.nadcp.gov and click on
“Annual Conference.”
10
Keeping Pace With
Confidentiality
By Steve Hanson
One of the most important issues
that drug courts face is protecting
the confidentiality of participant
information. The instant someone
makes an appointment for a treatment evaluation, their information’s
confidentiality is protected by a
number of federal and state laws.
The main laws are 42 CFR, Part 2
(the drug and alcohol treatment
confidentiality rules) and the
Health Insurance Portability
and Accountability Act (HIPAA).
Essentially, these two laws prohibit
the re-disclosure of treatment
information, except in certain
circumstances. Interestingly, the
two laws differ on some of those
circumstances and there are still
some unresolved issues about which
rule prevails under which situation.
The challenge facing drug courts is
to keep pace with new information
and rulings, and to ensure that
everyone involved in the drug court
knows their responsibilities under
the federal and state laws regarding
confidentiality and security of
patient information. To that end,
jurisdictions should have regular
trainings and updates on confidentiality. An annual review of the basics
and what procedures and policies
the drug court has in this area
will help remind people of their
responsibilities and ensure that
new members understand the rules.
They should also seek out information about the rules. One of the
best resources in the country is
the Legal Action Center, located
in New York City and Washington,
DC. The Legal Action Center
(www.lac.org) has been following
the confidentiality rules for decades.
They have several publications,
including “Confidentiality and
Communication: A Guide to Federal
Drug and Alcohol Confidentiality
Law and HIPAA” along with a
By: Kermit Kaleba
Idaho
Submitted by Norma Jaeger
The Idaho Supreme Court reported to the governor and State Legislature in early January that its
44 current drug and mental health courts served 1,540 participants in 2005, including 789 new
admissions during the year and 411 graduates. There have been 57 drug free babies born to mothers
in drug courts since the courts’ inception in 1998. The largest drug court, located in Boise, reports
that its graduates achieved an average of $11,000 in increased wages compared to their earnings at
drug court admission. During 2005, Idaho added four new mental health courts. These courts were
authorized and funded, along with two existing mental health courts, by the 2005 Legislature.
A recent legislative performance evaluation of substance abuse services in Idaho called for re-creation
of a once active state commission on substance abuse services, increased interagency coordination
and collective development of a statewide strategic plan and improvements in statewide data
collection and analysis, including improvements in available data on participants in drug courts. The
Legislature, convening in January, will review this report and consider appropriate action.
The Idaho state drug court staff have drafted a report from a statewide process evaluation of Idaho’s
nine juvenile drug courts. The report recommends developing strategies for improvement in retention
in drug court, as well as increased attention to transportation issues, strengthening the use of
incentives for pro-social behavior and enhancing assessment practices.
Efforts to expand DUI courts have “stumbled” because of very limited access to addiction treatment
services. However, legislation is being considered to enable a drug/DUI court judge to arrange for
reinstatement of limited driving privileges for participants in good standing, should current federal
transportation regulations change the current “hard suspension” requirement.
Idaho will hold the 5th Drug Court Institute and the first Mental Health Court Institute, May 15-18,
2006 on the campus of Boise State University. A special celebration commemorating national drug
court month will be a part of the institutes.
Michigan
Submitted by Judge Patrick Bowler
The Michigan Association of Drug Court Professionals ventured to Mackinaw Island for a retreat
September 9-10, 2005. Under the tutelage of Carolyn Hardin, Deputy Director of the National Drug
Court Institute, the association members were able to develop strategic plans for the future of drug
treatment courts and sobriety courts in the State of Michigan. The Association also sponsored a
seminar on treatment issues related to methamphetamine. In partnership with the Prosecuting
Attorneys Association of Michigan, Michigan Office of Drug Control Policy and The State Court
Administrators Office, the one-day event drew over 500 people including legislators, judges, treatment
providers and probation officers. Michigan’s drug court legislation, which became effective January 1,
2005, mandates the appointment of an advisory committee to monitor the effectiveness of drug
treatment courts and the availability of funding for those courts and make recommendations to the
State Legislature and Supreme Court regarding proposed statutory changes. Judge Patrick Bowler was
11
“STATELINE”
elected chair of the committee and the father of Michigan drug courts, Judge William Schma, was
elected vice-chair.
Minnesota
Submitted by Dan Griffin
The Minnesota Judicial Branch received a $500,000 appropriation from the state legislature in May of
2005 to expand specialty courts in Minnesota such as drug courts and mental health courts. The State
Court Administrator’s Office (SCAO) received 15 requests for funding totaling $1.9 million. Based
upon the recommendations of an ad hoc committee of judges and other court personnel from across
the state in the fall of 2005, SCAO decided to fund four new drug courts, a truancy court and the first
phase development of a statewide management information system for drug courts. In addition, using
a portion of the state’s Court Improvement Project funding from the federal government, SCAO will
fund a county that is planning for a family dependency drug court and two other projects that will use
components of family dependency drug courts to improve outcomes for parents and children in the
child protection system. Minnesota will soon have 19 operational drug courts, two mental health courts
and two community courts. In the beginning of 2002, there were only two drug courts in the state.
New Jersey
Submitted by Carol Venditto
In September 2005, the New Jersey Judiciary celebrated the one-year anniversary of the full
implementation of the Statewide Adult Drug Court Program. In September 2004, the state achieved
the goal of providing equal access to drug court for all eligible adult offenders in superior court
regardless of the county of offense or residence. Since that time, an additional 1,275 non-violent drug
addicted offenders have been placed in the program. An additional benefit of the statewide program
was the creation of a comprehensive transfer policy permitting offenders to relocate to any of New
Jersey’s 21 counties with the same quality of treatment, supervision and judicial oversight.
Highlights of the NJ Adult Drug Court Program include:
• local program management under the umbrella of state funding for Judiciary staff, comprehensive
treatment and drug testing;
• cooperative agreement between the Administrative Office of the Courts and the Single State
Authority Substance Abuse Agency (Division of Addiction Services [DAS], Department of Human
Services) for the procurement of quality treatment services for drug court participants;
• the provision of individualized substance abuse treatment from residential to aftercare programs
utilizing DAS licensed community-based treatment providers;
• intensive probation supervision services, regular judicial oversight and frequent drug testing;
• statewide data collection standards and the utilization of existing information systems that
integrate standard criminal case processing with drug court case management data; and
• policy development and interagency problem solving via a state-level drug court steering committee.
New York
Submitted by Frank Jordan
The New York State Drug Treatment Court Program now has a total of 163 operational drug treatment
courts, having opened 38 new drug treatment courts during the past year. As of December 1, 2005,
there were 7,181 active participants and there have been a total of 11,313 successful graduates since
the beginning of the program.
Under the leadership of Deputy Chief Administrative Judge Judy Harris Kluger, a number of
important innovations have been developed:
• A two-day bi-annual training session for new team members who join established drug treatment
court teams has been implemented. Over two hundred new team members will be trained during
the first cycle.
Is Your State
Association
Planning a
Conference?
NADCP Would
Like to Know!
NADCP can provide guidance,
contacts, links to speakers and
help you promote your event.
Whenever possible, NADCP would
like to send a representative to
present on your program. If you
have a state association conference
scheduled, please notify Jennifer
Columbel, Director, Public Policy,
at 703-575-9400, ext. 14.
“KEEPING PACE WITH CONFIDENTIALITY”
regular newsletter, Of Substance,
that are very helpful. Additionally,
the Department of Justice’s Bureau
of Justice Assistance has information
and examples of forms and policies
on their website, http://dcpi.ncjrs.org/
dcpi_adult.html.
Always keep in mind that you
should consult with your own
agency’s legal counsel as to questions
that you might have and review
your program procedures for handling the confidential information
to see if there are any risks of
information being inappropriately
disclosed. These may include
e-mails—those “reply to all” and
“forward to” options can get one
in trouble if there is confidential
material involved. Watch for those
long e-mail chains that might have
the confidential information way
down towards the bottom. If you
discover risks, identify appropriate
steps to rectify the situation.
Steve Hanson is Director of the Toxicology
and Drug Monitoring Laboratory in
Columbia, Missouri.
12
“SAMHSA/CSAT’S TIP 44
ADDRESSES OFFENDER TREATMENT”
Chapter seven of TIP 44 reviews
treatment issues relevant to pretrial
and diversion settings such as drug
courts. Other chapters of TIP 44
address issues of vital importance
to drug courts, such as screening
and assessment, triage and placement in treatment services, treatment planning as well as adapting
treatment approaches for women
and men, cultural minorities, the
elderly or for individuals with
mental disorders. A number of
drug court/diversion models and
programs are highlighted and the
TIP lists and discusses “The Ten
Key Components” for drug courts.
The TIP also provides a two-page
“Planning Chart” for drug courts
that indicates key points of intervention for program referral,
screening, treatment and sanctions
reflecting the potential flexibility
and diversity of the drug court
model. A range of treatment services and modalities are identified
that can be provided in drug court
programs, such as brief motivational interventions, behavior contracts, detoxification, day reporting
centers and ancillary services. It
reviews the use of sanctions in
drug courts and diversion programs, such as community service,
incarceration in jail and various
types of supervision arrangements.
Copies of TIP 44 are available free
of charge from SAMHSA’s National
Clearinghouse for Alcohol and
Drug information (NCADI) at 800729-6686 or through their website
at http://www.kap.samhsa.gov/.
Dr. Roger Peters is Professor and Chairman of
the University of South Florida’s Department of
Mental Health Law and Policy in Tampa,
Florida. Dr. Harry Wexler is Senior Principal
Investigator for the National Development and
Research Institute in New York. The two served
as co-chairs of SAMHSA’s consensus panel.
NDCI 2006 Comprehensive Drug Court
Practitioner Training Series Announced
The National Drug Court Institute (NDCI) is pleased to announce the much anticipated 2006
Comprehensive Drug Court Practitioner Training Series. These week-long, discipline-specific training
programs are held each year recognizing the need to provide education, research and scholastic
information to new, transitioning and experienced drug court professionals who have not previously
benefited from formal drug court training. Information is evidence and skills-based and offers the
most comprehensive opportunity for drug court training available to the field.
Drug Court Defense Counsel Training
April 25-28, 2006 • National Judicial College, Reno, NV
This four-day training prepares defense attorneys for the complex role of advocating for a client in a drug court.
Specifically, attorneys will be provided the latest information on addiction and treatment solutions, as well as
information to assist the attorney in their day to day role in a drug court setting such as role clarification and
core competencies, due process, confidentiality, entry process and ongoing court process.
Drug Court Prosecutor Training
July 25-28, 2006 • National Judicial College, Reno, NV
This four day training prepares prosecutors for the important task of screening cases as appropriate for drug
courts and provides critical knowledge and skills for working through each task of a prosecutor in the drug
court process. The training will focus on legal eligibility and disqualification, protection of public safety, program
integrity, addiction and treatment solutions as well as role clarification and court model.
Drug Court Regional Evaluation Training
August 2-3, 2006 • Las Vegas, NV
NDCI’s Regional Evaluation Trainings are designed to promote quality research at the local level. Armed
with NDCI’s new publication, Local Drug Court Research: Navigating Performance Measures and Process
Evaluations, attendees will work with experienced drug court researchers to assist in the development of valid,
reliable and quality process and outcome evaluation plans.
Drug Court Coordinator Training
September 18-22, 2006 • National Judicial College, Reno, NV
This five day training will provide coordinators with the knowledge and skills necessary to perform their daily
duties critical to the success of a drug court. Specifically, attendees will focus on written policies and procedures,
oversight of contractual relationships, project planning, operations, and sustainability.
Drug Court Judicial Training
October 10-14, 2006 • National Judicial College, Reno, NV
This course encompasses five days of intensive training on advanced substance abuse issues, drug testing,
incentives and sanctions, community resources, ethics and confidentiality, the drug court environment, judicial
styles and the important role of the drug court judge.
Drug Court Treatment Provider Training
November 14-18, 2006 • Dallas, TX
This five day training provides and intense and advanced series of sessions for clinicians who work with a drug
court population. Subject matter will include, role clarification and core competencies, communication with the
court, evidence-based substance abuse and other co-occurring treatment issues, data collection, incentives and
sanctions, resource development and case management.
Drug Court Community Supervision Training
December 5-9, 2006 • National Judicial College, Reno, NV
This five day training will provide attendees with innovative skills and evidence-based principles to be applied
to supervising drug court clients. Police officers, sheriff deputies, probation officers, parole agents and others
responsible for supervising and monitoring drug court client in the community will learn effective intervention
and enforcement strategies from subject matter experts.
If you would like to attend any of these trainings, or want more information, please contact
NDCI Meeting Manager Bobbie Taylor at 703-575-9400, ext. 16.
13
Tale of Two States: The Road to Recovery for
Courts Affected by 2005 Hurricanes
Louisiana’s Drug
Courts Rebound
From Hurricanes
Submitted by Scott Griffith
offered the opportunity to attend preconference workshops and to select training
options from among several tracks. For
more information about the conference,
please contact Lars Levy at (985) 399-5777
or visit www.ladcp.com.
While the majority of Louisiana’s drug
courts were unaffected by Hurricanes
Katrina and Rita in August and September,
there has been significant disruption to drug
court operations in the metropolitan New
Orleans and southwest Louisiana areas as
a result of these storms. In the wake of the
hurricanes, Supreme Court Drug Court
Office (SCDCO) staff and many local drug
court judges and local program team members were forced to leave home and set up
temporary housing and operations in other
parts of the state. Many drug court participants were also forced to leave their homes
and the areas where their programs were
located. During this period, drug court programs and partners around the state and the
country rallied to support the needs of displaced drug court judges, staff and clients.
Scott Griffith is the Drug Court Program Director for the
Louisiana Supreme Court.
SCDCO staff, drug court judges, coordinators
and others have been working with state and
federal partners since the early days after
the storms to locate clients, identify treatment resources and ensure the continuity
of treatment, supervision and support of
drug court participants. Where appropriate,
drug court participants from programs in
storm affected areas are being transferred
to programs in areas of the state to which
they have relocated.
Four groups of drug court participants in
the Second and 19th Circuit Courts on the
Mississippi Gulf Coast have resumed meetings with judges, counseling and treatment.
The Second Circuit Drug Court has about
46 people enrolled and the 19th Circuit has
about 119. A total of four judges preside
over drug courts—two in each district.
Although losses were enormous, no deaths
were reported among participants or staff.
Work is actively underway to return programs
in areas hardest hit by the storms to viability.
The rebuilding process is now in full swing
and, while there are significant challenges
that lay ahead, there is every expectation
that drug court operations will be restored
in all of areas of south Louisiana.
Despite Hurricane Katrina’s impact on the
New Orleans area, the Louisiana Association
of Drug Court Professionals (LADCP) and
the SCDCO are moving forward with plans
to hold Louisiana’s 8th annual conference in
New Orleans from February 22 to 24, 2006.
Conference attendees will once again be
Drug Courts on
Mississippi Gulf
Coast Recover from
Hurricane Katrina
Submitted by Beverly Pettigrew Kraft
After Hurricane Katrina devastated the
Mississippi Gulf Coast, drug court participants scattered by the storm began showing
up to re-group. Within days, a few participants began locating judges and staff. One
woman stopped at a judge’s house to
inquire about the program when she saw the
judge cleaning debris in her yard.
“That’s really the only thing we’ve gotten
back up and working relatively normally,”
said Judge Kathy King Jackson of Pascagoula
of her drug court program, which includes
participants from Jackson, George and
Greene Counties. “Other court functions
have been disrupted by damaged facilities
and the displaced population. The rest of
the court system is in a holding pattern,”
Judge Jackson said.
The Second Circuit Court District of Hancock,
Harrison and Stone counties and the 19th
Circuit Court District of Jackson, George
and Greene Counties include areas hardest
hit by Hurricane Katrina. Damage
was most severe in the three
coastal counties: Hancock,
Harrison and Jackson.
In the Second Circuit District,
within a week of the storm,
Circuit Judge Stephen B. Simpson
of Gulfport, the drug court coordinator and a probation officer
started work to find participants
and resume program activities.
“We recognized that our drug court
participants were at particular risk,”
said Judge Simpson. “Our probation
officer, Mark Brooks, hit the streets
trying to find them. We had difficulty locating some of them. Some
were as far away as Atlanta, living
in hotels or with relatives,” Judge
Simpson said. But, he added, “I
was encouraged when two or three
showed up at the courthouse looking for us. They depend on us.
They were anxious to show us that
in the midst of all of this tragedy,
they were out there fulfilling their
obligation to stay sober and to
report. It was a bright spot.”
Most participants in the Second
Circuit were back in scheduled
drug court activities within a month
according to Judge Simpson.
The longest absence was about
seven weeks.
In the 19th Circuit, it took a week to
resume meetings with participants
in George and Greene Counties,
which are a few miles inland, and
two weeks to resumed meetings
in Jackson County, which includes
the Coast, according to Judge
Jackson. “We gathered them all
back up,” Judge Jackson said. Just
getting to the meetings was difficult
for some participants. Many lost
their homes and their vehicles.
Participants who had vehicles
picked up other participants.
A special segment featuring news targeted specifically to Juvenile and Family Drug Courts.
14
Juvenile Drug Treatment Court Programs
Help Maryland Teens in Innovative Ways
By Rita Buettner
When the teen participants in the Anne
Arundel County Juvenile Drug Treatment
Court first hear that they will be learning
more about photography and writing, they
don’t respond with open enthusiasm.
“They are such typical teenagers,” said John
Fullmer, Drug Treatment Court Program
Administrator for Anne Arundel County. At
that point, he can almost read their minds:
“‘I refuse to have fun.’ ‘This is stupid.’”
By the spring, however, when the participants’
photographs and essays are on display in
the courthouse, their attitudes—and often
their lives—have changed.
“I’m 17 years old and am now clean,” wrote
Raymond “JR” H. “I’d like to keep it that
way ’cause there are many good things goin’
on in my life.”
As participants in the court’s program,
“Insights: The Identity Project,” the teenagers
have the opportunity to learn both photography and writing. They develop film
in darkrooms, emerging with artistic
expressions of themselves, and learn to
write, reflecting on their past experiences,
present frustrations, accomplishments and
future goals.
It is a novel approach and it builds on the
purpose of drug treatment court programs.
It is designed to help people make the best
choices for themselves, through education
and jobs, while becoming drug-free, drug
courts offer a consistent monitoring system.
Accomplishments are rewarded, while
negative choices are corrected.
With ten adult drug courts, nine juvenile
courts and one family court established in
Maryland by July 1, 2005, the concept is
the same, whether for adults or teenagers.
But in working with young people, innovative approaches—such as expressive therapy
through photography and writing—can be
particularly valuable.
“Adolescence is a tough time, and a big part
of it is we’re trying to have a better sense
of self,” Fullmer said. “By telling your story,
you define a better sense of self.”
“It gives the kids a lot of confidence because
they see their work up there, and they can
look at each other’s work and see that people
their age are dealing with similar issues. It’s
also a great vehicle for parents to see the
unspoken feelings that they didn’t know
about,” said Anne Arundel Circuit Court
Judge Pamela North.
This year, the teens’ successes captured
national attention. Anne Arundel’s juvenile
drug treatment court won five awards
from the National Association of Drug
Court Professionals for its program giving
participants a creative outlet through writing
and photography.
Dorchester County’s Juvenile Drug Court
offers its participants a similar photography
program, while also engaging the young
people in a creative boat building program.
Through a partnership with the Richardson
Maritime Museum and Boatworks, the Youth
Build-A-Boat Program teaches young people
about shipwrighting as they create a 19th
century-style traditional skiff. Overseen by
the museum craftsmen, the teens build a real,
functioning wooden boat, while learning
about carpentry, art design, history, mathematics and themselves. This year, the program
was declared the state’s most innovative by
the Drug Treatment Court Commission.
“Dorchester County has developed some
fresh ways for giving young people the life
skills they need, while also building a sense
of accomplishment and self-esteem,” said
Gray Barton, executive director of the Drug
Treatment Court Commission. “These young
men and women work hard in the program,
and as they near their graduation, the
changes they have undergone, the pride,
self-esteem and dedication, are evident on
their beaming faces. It is hard to imagine that
a short time ago, they were known as troubled teens with drug and alcohol problems.”
While participating in a photography workshop, “Art of Prevention,” the Dorchester
teens create exhibits demonstrating the
dangers of drug and alcohol abuse. One
15
NDCI Family Technical Assistance
Can Provide a Boost to Your Court
Debunking
“Meth Myths”
By Kristen McAuley
By Nicolas Taylor, Ph.D.
In early November, the Lewiston Family
Treatment Drug Court (LFTDC) received
on-site technical assistance from the National
Drug Court Institute (NDCI) to provide the
drug court team and steering committee
with training and consultation. The training
focused on such issues as confidentiality,
sustainability, program capacity, as well as
screening and assessment. The LFTDC is
funded through a drug court implementation grant awarded in late 2004 to the
Administrative Office of the Courts, Family
Division, and became fully operational in
early 2005.
The technical assistance was particularly
helpful considering it was the first time
all drug court team members were able to
gather together and participate in such an
event. Due to time constraints and conflicting schedules, the team was never able to
attend a training initiative, thus entering
into the implementation process with very
little knowledge or experience. Although
some team members were able to attend the
annual NADCP conference in June, many
were not, and most knowledge pertaining
to the family dependency courts came from
reading multiple policies and procedures
manuals from similar courts. In the eight
months since the court has been operational,
the team has accomplished much and the
LFTDC has developed into a productive
and comprehensive program.
Gloria Cronin and Mark Leider provided
on-site training for an entire day, with members from the program’s drug court treatment
team and steering committee in attendance.
The consultants targeted those issues that
various team members had identified as
needing further information or discussion.
Prior to the training, participants were individually contacted to determine the training’s
format and content. The entire team was
particularly impressed and grateful that the
training was tailored to the court’s program.
An important part of the training included
the creation of an action plan, based on topics
that various team members identified as
needing future work. Moreover, developing
and committing to an action plan has
emphasized the importance of continuing
to work and improve the program. Since
then, the team has met twice to specifically
work on implementing the planned changes.
— Jim Horning
To say that addiction to methamphetamine is a complicated problem is an understatement. Across
the country, and now even
throughout the world, treatment
providers and human service professionals alike are discovering the
complex web of behavioral disruption, criminal lifestyles, collusive
and insidious relationships, neurological damage and psychological
mayhem that characterize the
overall picture of a meth-using
community (Anglin et al., 2000).
The county has received both a SAMHSA
start-up grant and also expansion monies
from SAMHSA. Like most operational
Courts, it wants to ensure its sustainability
for future generations of families.
However, complex problems don’t
always require complex solutions,
but they do require solutions of
some kind. Community awareness,
with perhaps the exception of first
responders in law enforcement,
lags months, even years, behind
actual community problems.
Because of the nocturnal and
underground nature of the “meth
community,” general awareness of
the chaos of the “crystal kingdom”
can often go unrealized until it has
spread like a cancer throughout
a community and has started to
dangerously affect innocent victims
like children of meth users, victims
of property crimes, theft, check
fraud, identity fraud and damaged
rental properties, to say nothing
about public exposure to environmental toxins because of local
meth production.
The FDTC team members are employees
of the court itself and meet regularly for
staffing of cases, administrative meetings
and the court calendar. Wednesdays are
devoted entirely to FDTC cases overseen
by Judge Joan Wagener, a former parents’
and children's attorney in the District. The
Perhaps the most vulnerable population in the community are its
adolescent young women who,
either because of abuse or neglect
by their parents or fate, are enticed
deep into the dark under belly
of the meth-using community by
Spotlight on the Tucson, Arizona Family
Dependency Treatment Court
By Gloria Cronin
The Pima County, Arizona Family Drug
Treatment Court in Tucson is creating positive outcomes with its families and children.
This program was first established as a pilot
program in August 2001 in only one zip
code area of the county, but expanded to
encompass the entire county when evaluations showed its high success rate, even in
comparison to other intensive county service
programs. Since its county-wide inception
of March of 2004, FDTC has enrolled 111
clients, graduating 46 of them. Of those
graduated, 96 percent have been reunified
with their children.
“Nothing is as simple as we
hope it will be”
16
“JUVENILE DRUG TREATMENT COURT
PROGRAMS HELP MARYLAND TEENS...”
photograph showed two feet, the
one on the left, well-manicured
with painted nails and a silver
anklet, the other, bare except a
GPS locator device; the picture was
titled simply, “Choose.” “Last Pep
Rally,” another entry, showed the
mangled interior of a wrecked
car, with a bottle of liquor on the
floor next to a foam sports finger.
The court has also partnered with
the local community—including
the county YMCA, the local pool
and the Dorchester County Arts
Center—to provide young people
with healthy alternatives to a life
centered on drugs and alcohol.
Rita Buettner is with the Maryland Judiciary’s
Court Information Office.
“NDCI FAMILY TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
CAN PROVIDE A BOOST TO YOUR COURT”
Although these issues were known
to and acknowledged by the team
prior to the training, programmatic
issues were overshadowed by client
matter at every meeting. Perhaps
this was one of most significant
results from the training; the training provided the team with time
to meet and discuss programmatic
issues without getting entrenched
in client matters. Having consultants there to provide direction and
assistance ensured that we stayed
on topic and remained productive
throughout the entire session.
Overall, the experience proved to be
beneficial to the Lewiston program
and team. NDCI was able to provide
the team with valuable information
and assistance. Both consultants
were knowledgeable, friendly and,
particularly important, willing to
act as resources in the future.
Kristen McAuley is the Family Treatment Drug
Court Coordinator for the Lewiston Family
Treatment Drug Court in Lewiston, Maine.
Recovery and Reunification are Family Processes
By Kim Sumner-Mayer, Ph.D.
Addiction has often been called a “family
disease,” meaning that it both affects and
is affected by the entire family, not just the
individual user. But our understanding of
recovery doesn’t as often reflect that it, too,
is a family process. In this article, I explore
recovery and reunification as family processes and discuss how drug courts can better
help parents negotiate the shifting family
terrain. Whether parents and children plan
to live together full-time or come to another
arrangement post-treatment, drug court
professionals need to understand the family
recovery process.
dynamics—and not everyone is usually
happy about these changes. Children and
partners who derived a sense of safety,
power and status from their “parental” roles
are usually not eager to give that up, even
if the pressure of their previous role was
debilitating. Teenagers, especially sensitive
to parental hypocrisy, may decry the sudden
emphasis on parental authority and limits
when previously there was none. Parents
who ignored, shouted at, or hit their children
in the past must now learn more effective
ways of maintaining authority and gaining
their child’s compliance.
The Family’s Recovery Process
As the parent works through his or her individual process of recovery, the entire family
is engaged in a parallel process of recovery.
Ambivalence about parent—child
connections. Both parents and children
typically experience mixed feelings and
uncertainty about relationship changes in
recovery. Both may be unsure about living
together, despite excitement and hope.
This is totally normal and not necessarily
a red flag, but if the ambivalence stays
“underground” and is not processed, it
has great potential to sabotage recovery
and reunification efforts.
Parents and children must relate without
substances. In many substance-abusing
families, members don’t know how to relate
to one another or show strong emotions
(especially love and anger) without substances—so hugs and affection might only
be given when a parent is drunk, or conflict
may simmer “underground” until a parent
is high, when it explodes violently. In recovery, family members need to learn how to
express feelings including affection, love,
vulnerability, fear, and anger without the
substance as a mediating variable. This
involves reworking all the expectations
and unwritten rules that came with the
expression (or suppression) of those emotions
while the parent was using.
Reshuffling roles, boundaries and authority.
During active addiction, family roles,
boundaries, and authority structures usually
accommodate the parent’s use—children may
assume adult roles, parents may assume
children’s roles, boundaries may be overly
diffuse or rigid and there may not be a
consistent authority structure in the family.
One family member may depend on the
addict’s use to justify their own functioning
(i.e., co-dependence). During recovery,
the parent ideally learns to assume adult
responsibilities, develop and maintain
healthier boundaries and take charge as a
parent. However, this process cannot occur
without all family members reshuffling
their places and reworking the habitual
Denial at the family level. It is easier to
say, “my mom/dad/daughter/nephew is a
recovering addict” than to acknowledge, “we
are all a recovering family together.” Yet, in
order to make the changes noted above,
the family must identify itself as a family in
recovery. Otherwise, family members have
a harder time accepting the need to change
their participation in communication patterns,
roles and rules, etc. and with embracing the
help of family education, support groups,
therapy, and other services aimed at easing
the family’s transition.
Family members don’t understand the
parent’s need for continued focus on
sobriety. Because recovery is a process and
not an event, aftercare is necessary. Family
members don’t always understand this, and
they may feel resentful of the recovering
parent’s insistence on attending meetings,
socializing only with other adults in recovery,
etc. Children and previous caregivers often
view the recovering parent as selfish or weak
because of the continuing need for support.
This can create tension in families and increase
the parent’s susceptibility to relapse.
17
“RECOVERY
AND REUNIFICATION...”
Reunification and Parent/Child Interactions.
For parents and children who live together
post-treatment, there is almost always a
honeymoon period lasting from a few days
to a few months, during which everyone is
on their best behavior. The children don’t
want to “rock the boat” and parents try hard
to do everything right. During the honeymoon, there is hope and promise, and often
also wariness (“how long can this last?”).
The honeymoon inevitably ends and is
almost always followed by the children testing and acting out. They are hyper-vigilant
for signs of parental dishonesty, broken
promises or hypocrisy. Unresolved grief and
loss issues begin to surface—both about the
time they lost to the parent’s addiction and
about the loss of relationships with previous
caregivers post-reunification—along with
anger at the parent and sometimes fear
that the reunification won’t work out (or,
in some cases, that it will). At the same
time, children may now trust their parents’
ability to handle their full-blown feelings
more, resulting in more open expression
of disapproval and/or acting out behavior.
Meanwhile, the parent, trying to assert
authority for perhaps the first time, typically
has very high expectations of him or herself
as well as of the child. This can lead to
overly rigid or inappropriate rules and
expectations—as if the pendulum has
swung from everything being too loose, to
suddenly being too tight. The role changes
are confusing and threatening for the children, who may rebel or regress in response.
Parents are often surprised, confused and
hurt by the child’s behavior. Moreover, this
is also typically a time of great change in
other areas for the parent—they have new
jobs, homes, routines, relationships, and
perhaps new children born since their separated from the older children. Children and
previous caregivers have to adjust to all
these changes in the parent’s life as well.
This is a critical time in the family recovery
process—a prime time for relapse vulnerability—and the parent may be reluctant to
reach out for help, fearing that they will be
viewed as a failure, or that the children will
be removed again. Yet, the parent needs
support and help the most right now.
How Can Drug Courts Help?
Most drug court professionals are not
family therapists. You are judges, attorneys,
case managers, administrators, treatment
providers, child protective workers, CASAs
and health professionals. What can you do
to assist a parent in this journey? Actually,
you can do a great deal, even if you are not
a family therapist. You can:
• Provide information on addiction, recovery,
and normal family processes for both
recovering parent and family members.
Phoenix House’s Children of Alcoholics
Foundation produced a handbook for
family members of respondents in family
treatment court including FTC procedures
and personnel, substance abuse basics,
how to support children, information on
parent—child relationships, and resources
for family members’ self-care. Providing
such a resource for family members helps
them invest in the FTC process and see
FTC personnel as allies—increasing
chances that you learn about impending
relapse before it is too late.
• Support, encourage, and require parent—
child contact to help families prepare for longterm connections. The reunification date
is not the time to begin working through
the issues described in this article—that
process should be ongoing throughout the
separation. Visitation is the major vehicle
for this work. Visitation should be used
therapeutically to maintain and strengthen
bonds, build parental competence, and
develop parenting-specific relapse prevention
skills. Whenever possible, parent/child
treatment should be preferred over parentonly programs. For more specific guidance,
consult Judge Leonard Edward’s excellent
article, “Judicial Oversight of Parental
Visitation in Family Reunification Cases
(Juvenile and Family Court Journal, Summer
2003) and Hon. Nicolette Pach’s article, “It’s
Not Just About Sobriety: The Role of FDTC
in Supporting Parent-Child Visitation”
(NADCP News, 6(4), Winter 2004).
• Normalize ambivalence. Tell parents and
family members that it is normal to feel
uncertain about reunification or other
long-term plans. Reassure them that the
court does not automatically take this as
a lack of motivation. Encourage parents
to share their mixed feelings with formal
and informal support systems so
that they can work through them
rather than allow them to sabotage
their efforts.
• Predict the honeymoon—and its end.
Parents will probably not believe
what you say about it beforehand,
but they will feel less like failures
once the honeymoon ends and
they realize that they are no
different than other families in
recovery. Predicting this process
lessens panic and demoralization
and frees up more family resources
for working through the issues—
and also increases chances that
the family will reach out for help
during this critical period rather
than suffering dangerously in
secrecy, risking parental relapse
and a devastating return of
children to substitute care.
• Monitor and revisit the relapse
prevention plan to capture parenting
and family-specific triggers and
warning signs and to assure that
a plan for child safety is in place
in case of parental relapse. Some
warning signs only become
apparent post-reunification.
Regular reevaluation of the relapse
prevention plan is a must. Those
in the most likely position to
detect impending relapse must be
included in the review. For more
information on this topic, see
Sharon Elstein’s article “Relapse
and Recovery: Making Home Safe
for Children” (Child Law Practice,
20(1), March 2001).
• Do not automatically suspend
visitation in response to a positive
UA. Instead, convene the team
(including the treatment provider),
revisit the relapse prevention
plan, identify what triggers
or warning signs were missed,
assess the effectiveness of the
child safety plan, revise the
plan to include new information,
increase intensity of recovery
supports as needed, and either
decrease the duration or increase
18
“SPOTLIGHT ON THE TUCSON, ARIZONA
FAMILY DEPENDENCY TREATMENT COURT”
Honorable Pat Escher is the presiding judge of the juvenile court. A
morning staffing and subsequent
court hearing is followed by an
afternoon staffing and hearing. So
that no participant is required to
attend the entire day, attendance
schedule options are available.
Camaraderie among team members
observed in the staffing is also
clearly present at the court appearance. Rather than celebrate days
of sobriety, Judge Wagener finds
a participant to either be in or out
of compliance. The emphasis is on
the parent's success in all aspects
of her/his functioning, not only
on remaining sober.
Judge Wagener greets the families
with affection and is clearly knowledgeable about their lives and
rewards them with positive feedback. In speaking to a young
mother about her new-found
sobriety and increased visitation
rights, the judge said, “What a
gift you gave to your boys; what
a gift you gave to yourself.”
Sanctions are also given as needed
on a timely basis. In addition to
assigning essays, Judge Wagener
gives participants who need to
ponder their actions upon relapsing,
a “functional analysis” exercise so
that they can begin to identify nonproductive behaviors. Incarceration
is used sparingly, but when a
participant is discharged from a
48-hour stay, team staff is there to
take them to their next treatment
or 12-step program, thus ensuring
the likelihood of success.
FDTC Coordinator, Chris SwensonSmith, SAMHSA Project Director,
reports that child protective reports
have increased dramatically in the
last several years in Pima County.
However, with this Team's collaboration and commitment, the needs
of the community are being served
and a different future will be created
for young families and their children.
“DEBUNKING METH MYTHS”
promises of romance from older men,
slender figures, unrestrained energy and
an endless high that pot using or drinking
teenagers will never achieve or appreciate.
“Meth was great! I loved it from the
first time (41 year-old boyfriend)
got me high. It was cheaper than
pot and easier to get than alcohol.
Plus it kept me thin, and I know
that made him happy.”
— 16 year-old female meth user
The complexity of meth addiction and “the
speed of speed,” (meaning how quickly use
of this drug acts to completely disrupt the
life of a user and how quickly it spreads
through an unsuspecting community) make
community responses reactive for those who
do attempt to address the problem. First
solutions always involve a law enforcement
response, mainly because, as was mentioned,
they are the first to find out about it. Dutiful
peacekeepers do what they know how to do
best. That is, find those who perpetrate crimes
and arrest them so a just legal system can
balance their “debt to society” with a rehabilitative effort to make it so the person
does not return to the criminal behavior. Very
quickly, however, the inadequacy of these
solutions becomes apparent as law enforcement officers and judicial leaders alike
become frustrated because they see the same
people again and again. It is as if they don’t
learn their lesson, or as if the kinds of tools
that work to teach other people their lesson
don’t seem to work with this population.
“It drives me nuts. We arrest a
tweeker, send him to jail and then
think, ‘yeah there we go, I just
did my job,’ but then it seems like
before you can blink he’s out, doin’
the same things he’s always done
and hurting the same people he’s
always hurt. The system sucks!”
— Police Officer with 15 years experience
Inevitably, then, public attention turns to
treatment professionals and the thinking
reaches a brief moment of compassion in
which it is figured, “If this person can just
get the help they need, then they will stop
doing this.” The question hardly asked
by those attempting to corral the scared,
although unenthusiastic, and often unwitting,
addicted offender into treatment is, “So,
exactly what is the help this person needs?”
That is seen as someone else’s concern and
since effective treatment programs seem to
mask their skills and interventions behind
a veil of patient confidentiality, it is as if the
public can’t know exactly what treatment
entails even if they did want to make it their
concern. But, the problems are too involved,
and, as was mentioned, too complicated for
one treatment professional or one treatment
agency to really do much about it. The tide
of the using community and the pull of the
psychological and physical addiction to the
drug are so powerful that they overwhelm
even the well-intended or well-trained treatment professional. Short-term gains, made
perhaps when the user was still in a state of
shell shock from having been caught, fade
quickly. Long-term change begins to seem
much more unrealistic and the addicted
patient’s case seems much more hopeless
and the prognosis much poorer.
So, myths are perpetuated. “Once somebody
tries meth they can’t ever stop. They end up
either killing themselves, killing somebody
else or brain dead.” And, “treatment doesn’t
work, because once people are out of treatment they just go right back to using.”
Myths, however, by definition are untrue.
Of course it can’t be true that everyone who
tries meth is addicted for life until death,
and it can’t be true that no treatments work
or that treatment efforts are only a waste of
time since meth is the one drug from which
no one can ever truly recover. In spite of
this, the pessimism of those working with
meth addicts continues to grow and the
mounting need for theoretically sound and
effective treatment emerges as the headline
issue upon which all other community
efforts rest.
The primary barrier to treatment, however,
is not necessarily the addicted user and
all of the challenges posed purely by their
addiction but instead it is battling the long
perpetuated myths about treating addiction
to methamphetamine. The purpose of this
19
article is to attempt to debunk many of the
myths about the treatment of methamphetamine addiction. As these exaggerated and
poorly supported beliefs are effectively
addressed communities will be more able
to focus on actual problems at hand as
opposed to the Chicken Little-like paranoia
created by meth myths.
Myth #1: Only 6 percent of meth addicts
get and stay sober.
This statistic was given at the conclusion of
the 2003 HBO documentary “Crank: Made
in America,” but no reference was provided
for its source. The fact of the matter is that
people can and do recover from methamphetamine addiction. Outcome data reported
by the National Association of State Alcohol
and Drug Abuse Directors (NASADAD,
2005) show that:
• In the State of Colorado during 2003,
80 percent of meth users were abstinent
at discharge from treatment.
• In the State of Iowa, a 2003 study found
that 71.2 percent of meth users were
abstinent six months after treatment.
• A 2002-2003 study done by the
Tennessee Bureau of Alcohol and Drug
Abuse found that 65 percent of meth
clients were abstinent six months after
discharge from treatment.
• The Texas Department of State Health
Services examined outcome data for
publicly-funded services from 2001-2004
and found that approximately 88 percent
of meth clients were abstinent 60 days
after discharge.
• Utah’s Division of Substance Abuse and
Mental Health reported that in State Fiscal
Year 2004, 60.8 percent of meth clients
were abstinent at discharge.
In addition, a recent study of 978 methamphetamine dependent individuals receiving
treatment at eight outpatient treatment programs in the states of California, Montana
and Hawaii, found that:
• Of those enrolled in the programs,
40 percent successfully completed
them (maximum length, 16 weeks).
• Of those who completed treatment,
69 percent tested negative for
methamphetamine use during their
discharge interview and then again six
months later (Rawson et al., 2004).
The magical rule of thirds seems to apply
to methamphetamine treatment as it does to
treatment for addiction to other substances
and for other chronic illnesses (i.e. diabetes,
obesity, high blood pressure) as well.
• About one third of people who start
treatment successfully complete it and
then remain abstinent.
• About one third drop out during
treatment and do not return.
• A final third do not successfully complete
treatment THIS TIME, but are able to do
so later.
Myth #2: People who want to be in
treatment always do better than those
who are forced to be there.
In a recent study, Brecht, Anglin and Dylan
(2005) found that meth treatment outcomes
(defined as treatment completion, relapse
within six months, time to relapse, and percentage of days with Meth use in 24 months
following treatment) did not differ significantly in simple comparisons between the
coerced and non-coerced groups.
Following a review of research regarding
various efforts designed to facilitate entrance
into treatment and retention in treatment
Marlatt et al. (1997) concluded that:
“Although court-ordered treatment has
become increasingly common, traditional
views of the essential role of client motivation
in help-seeking and behavior change imply
that coerced clients are more likely to have
poor outcomes compared to volunteers.
However, studies that compared treatment
participation and outcomes among coerced
and voluntary clients found similar outcomes
across groups and reduced attrition among
coerced clients.”
The difference appears to simply be related
to retention. Almost regardless of treatment
program, the best predictor of treatment
success is how long the person stays engaged
in the treatment process (Rawson et al., 2004).
Involuntary, court ordered clients have the
added therapeutic benefit of extrinsic factors
assisting with retention.
Myth #3: All Meth addicts need
inpatient treatment.
It is commonly believed that until a
person addicted to meth is separated
from community forces (situations,
places, cues and people) associated
with their use, they will never be
able to stop doing it. For this reason
inpatient treatment is perceived as
the only treatment option for people
addicted to meth. Well, since in the
end relapse prevention all comes
down to what the individual is able
to do in their natural environment
inpatient treatment is only as good
as the outpatient follow-up. Moving
straight to inpatient treatment for
a client for any other reason than
the issue of personal and/or public
safety never allows the chance for
the person to see of they can make
it in outpatient treatment. Even if
they can’t and relapse the first day
of outpatient treatment, they have
been firmly indoctrinated in the
concept that treatment is all about
helping them to be able to deal
with their home environment in a
way that helps them to stay sober
and not about helping them to
escape it. In perfect models, inpatient treatment is used almost as
a case management ATU (acute
treatment unit) which has as its
sole design client stabilization and
return to outpatient treatment
since it is in the outpatient setting
that people most need to be able
to practice their sobriety skills.
Myth #4: It takes at least one
year for treatment to work.
This is a tricky myth because it is
true that meth addicted individuals
are unlikely to experience much
benefit from short (less than three
months) treatment experiences.
However, it is not the one year in
treatment that determines whether
or not it has worked, it is behavior
change that determines whether or
not treatment has worked.
20
“RECOVERY
AND REUNIFICATION...”
the level of supervision of visits
to accommodate the parent’s
need to slow down and address
the problem that led to the relapse.
• Provide or refer the parent to
supplemental services to ease the
transition. Supplemental services
include court-sponsored psychoeducational/support groups for
parents and family members, family
therapy, and parenting-specific
relapse prevention supports.
Psycho-educational/support groups,
such as the Phoenix House Children
of Alcoholics Foundation’s program,
Help Your Kids, Help Yourself (contact
author for more information) or
Prevention Partnership International’s
excellent Celebrating Families!
Program (http://www.preventionpartnership.us/) are wonderful FTC
companions. Visit SAMHSA’s website to learn more about quality
parent education programs for
families in recovery (http://modelprograms.samhsa.gov). Refer
respondents for family therapy
well before the reunification date
is in sight—to address the many
parent/child issues addressed in
this article, and to provide a structure for shuttle diplomacy between
parents and children’s caregivers
in order to smooth the transition.
Finally, refer parents for parentingspecific relapse prevention groups
as part of their aftercare.
Inquire with family service, drug/
alcohol prevention agencies and
individual family therapists in your
catchment area as to whether they
provide these services—and make
preferential referrals to them or
answer RFP’s jointly to fund such
services if they are not currently
available. Let agencies you do
business with know that you
expect these services to be offered.
Like the individual process of recovery, the
family process is usually not linear; there are
times of great triumph and times of terrible
anxiety. FTC’s have the capacity to nurture
family recovery when they understand the
process and use their power to embrace the
entire family of the respondent.
Kim Sumner-Mayer, Ph.D., LMFT, is the Building Bridges
Project Manager for Phoenix House’s Children of Alcoholics
Foundation. For more information, please view their website
at www.coaf.org.
Too much focus on the duration of treatment
can actually be harmful because the addicted
client may begin to believe that the goal
of treatment is for them to stay a certain
amount of time and not necessarily for them
to make identified key changes in their life.
Meth treatment is not like putting something in an oven and waiting for a kitchen
timer to go off advising that the addicted
individual is “done.” Key areas of change
must be identified and solidified as the
essential purposes of treatment. Everything
else is incidental to accomplishing the
identified changes. These changes must be
objective, and easily measured. They can
include things like:
• Periods of verified abstinence.
• Periods of verified distancing from
identified individuals.
• Verified stable sleeping patterns and
eating patterns.
• Other verified stable living patterns
such as employment and child care.
Other myths that still perpetuate in the
treatment field include the myth that treatment providers can effectively address an
individual’s meth addiction with little or nor
community support from other individuals
or agencies; and that making meth addicted
individuals feel bad and shameful about
their behavior will motivate them to want
to change it.
Treatment for meth addiction is complex
and complicated. But so is treatment for all
substances of abuse. Debunking some of the
myths about meth treatment will help avoid
unnecessary overreactions to the challenges
of community based efforts to treat meth
addiction.
Nicolas Taylor, Ph.D. is a Licensed Clinical Psychologist and
a Level III Certified Addictions Counselor, as well as the
director and primary clinician for Taylor Behavioral Health
in Montrose, Colorado.
References
Anglin, M. D., Burke, C., Perrochet, B.,
Stamper, E. & Dawud-Noursi, S. (2000)
History of the Methamphetamine Problem.
Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, 32, 137–141.
Brecht, M.L., Anglin, M.D. & Dylan, M. (2005).
Coerced Treatment for Methamphetamine
Abuse: Differential Patient Characteristics
and Outcomes, American Journal of Drug
and Alcohol Abuse. Vol 31(2), pp. 337-356.
Marlatt, G.A., Tucker, J.A., Donovan, D.M.,
& Vuchinich, R.E. (1997). Help-Seeking
by Substance Abusers: The Role of Harm
Reduction and Behavioral-Economic
Approaches To Facilitate Treatment Entry
and Retention. National Institute on Drug
Abuse: Research Monograph Series 165,
pp.44-84.
NASADAD (May, 2005) Fact Sheet:
Methamphetamine, National Association
of State Alcohol and Drug Abuse Directors
(publisher): Washington D.C.
Rawson, R.A., Marinelli-Casey, P. J.,
Anglin, M.D., Dickow, A., Frazier, Y.,
Gallagher, C., Galloway, G. P., Herrell, J.,
Huber, A., McCann, M.J., Obert, J.,
Pennell, S., Reiber, C., Vandersloot, D.
& Zweben, J. (2004) A Multi-site
Comparison of Psychosocial Approaches
for the Treatment of Methamphetamine
Dependence. Addiction, 99, 708-717.
21
Bureau of Justice Assistance Sponsored
Family Drug Court Technical Assistance
is now available through the
NATIONAL DRUG COURT INSTITUTE
“Promoting education,
research and scholarship
for drug court and
other court-based
intervention programs.”
NATIONAL
DRUG COURT
INSTITUTE
For further information
concerning family drug
court technical assistance
services, please contact:
Jannise Randall
Program Manager
FAMILY DRUG COURT
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
4900 Seminary Road
Suite 320
Phone: (703) 575-9400 ext. 20
Fax: (703) 575-9402
E-mail: [email protected]
The Bureau of Justice Assistance, U.S. Department of Justice and
the National Drug Court Institute (NDCI) are pleased to announce
the availability of Family Drug Court Technical Assistance Services.
Sponsored by the Bureau of Justice Assistance, NDCI now has the
capacity to provide technical assistance services throughout the
country to family drug court programs. Technical assistance can range
from office based telephone assistance and conference calls to regional
training presentations and onsite visits by trained consultants. Drug
court programs can benefit from technical assistance in areas such as:
• Drug court program development
• Teambuilding and strategic planning
• Program eligibility and family screening
• Maintaining compliance with ASFA and ICWA mandates
• Breaking intergenerational cycles of addiction
• Case processing and child protection practices
• Clarifing and improving the scope of family interventions
• Improving program engagement and retention
• Family reunification, recovery planning and visitation
• Drug testing
• Incentives and Sanctions
• Effective treatment design and practices
• Relapse prevention and aftercare design
• Team member turnover and training of new team members
Technical assistance is not only designed for newer programs but
can be beneficial for established programs in such areas as training
of new team members, program review, teambuilding, and strategic
planning. NDCI can also assist jurisdictions by providing faculty for
local and regional drug court training sessions. While NDCI technical
assistance services are available to all family drug courts, priority for
onsite technical assistance will be given to current Bureau of Justice
Assistance drug court grant recipients.
22
Update on DUI/
Drug Courts in
Georgia
Governor Sonny Perdue has
committed funds to launch seven
new DUI/drug courts in the State
of Georgia. The Governor’s Office,
in concert with the Governor’s
Office of Highway Safety, has
allocated a total of $600,000
to implement DUI/drug courts
in Georgia counties which are
experiencing the highest number
of traffic fatalities and serious
injuries resulting from DUI crashes.
Existing DUI courts in Georgia have
proven to increase public safety
and reduce recidivism by redirecting
the repetitive pattern of repeat
offenders driving under the influence
of alcohol and other drugs, through
intensive judicial supervision,
substance abuse treatment, and
increased offender accountability.
Additionally, the Georgia Judicial
Council Standing Committee on
Drug Courts recently adopted the
national Ten Guiding Principles for
Georgia DUI courts. During the
2005 legislative session, enabling
legislation was passed for drug
and DUI courts which allows these
courts to accept grants, private
donations and other proceeds
from outside sources for the
purpose of supporting the drug
court program. Any such grants,
donations, or proceeds shall be
retained by the drug court division
for expenses.
Participants who successfully
complete a DUI/drug court program
for multiple offenders meet the
state’s administrative requirements
for license reinstatement from the
Department of Driver Services at
no additional cost to the offender.
Spotlight on the Green County Missouri Court
By Marilyn Gibson
In January 2003, the Greene County DWI
Court was implemented as a pilot project in
partnership with the Missouri Department
of Mental Health, Division of Alcohol and
Drug Abuse. Participants are felony offenders,
meaning they have at least two prior convictions for DWI. At least 30 percent have had
five or more DWIs.
In Greene County local court rule mandates
that anyone convicted of a felony DWI in
Greene County must be screened for admission to the DWI court. After the defendant’s
plea and prior to disposition, the sentencing
judge orders the defendant to schedule a
Substance Abuse Traffic Offenders Program
(SATOP) assessment and meet with one of
the three state probation officers that are
dedicated to the DWI court. SATOP is, by
law, a required element in driver's license
reinstatement of the Missouri Department
of Revenue for those individuals who have
had an alcohol or drug related traffic offense.
All SATOP offenders enter the system via
the Offender Management Unit (OMU), a
certified program wherein offenders receive
the screening assessment that includes a
review of their driving record, breath alcohol
content at the time of their arrest, computerinterpreted assessment and an interview
with a qualified substance abuse professional.
Based upon the information gathered during
the screening, an appropriate referral is made
to one of several types of SATOP programs.
NDCI Boosts Number of DWI Trainings
By Kristen Daugherty
2005 Training
Last year the National Drug Court Institute
trained nearly 100 jurisdictions in implementing or enhancing a DWI court. This
was accomplished through two separate
projects: one funded by the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), U.S.
Department of Transportation; the other
funded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance
(BJA), U.S. Department of Justice.
NHTSA became heavily involved with the
DWI court solution for repeat impaired
drivers in 2003 when then Administrator,
Dr. Jeff Runge, announced a three-pronged
approach to impaired driving, which included establishing 100 more DWI courts
throughout the nation. With critical funding
from NHTSA, NDCI provided planning
trainings for new DWI court jurisdictions
and enhancement trainings for existing drug
courts expanding their target population
to include impaired drivers. Overall the
trainings assisted more than 50 jurisdictions
in their process to develop effective DWI
court programs.
The scope of the training initiative was
limited in the number of available training
programs; therefore, NHTSA Regional
Offices worked collaboratively with other
regions as well as with State Highway Safety
Offices (SHSO) in identifying jurisdictional
teams. The Honorable Keith A. Meier from
Warrick Superior Court No. 1, Indiana
attended the DWI Court Planning Training
in Lansing, Michigan, August 16-18, 2005.
“The training was exemplary! I believe every
drug court should require this training for
all existing team members and that a drug
court program not be operational until all
23
The Case for Federal Drug Courts
By Donald P. Lay
The success of drug courts has renewed
interest among U.S. District Courts to better
deal with federal offenders who have diagnosed alcohol and other drug dependence.
Federal Drug Courts are becoming a natural
variation of the drug court model. Currently,
there are three known Federal Drug Courts
in operation and two additional courts in
the planning process.
Why do we need Federal Drug Courts? That is
a question I asked in November 2004, when
my op/ed article, “Rehab Justice,” was published in the New York Times. Since then, I
have received over one-hundred letters from
federal district judges throughout the country
agreeing with the idea that we should establish federal drug courts nationally.
I believe that in order to answer the question
why we need Federal Drug Courts, it is
helpful to discuss how incarceration affects
young people. There are many excellent
books documenting the consequences of
sending young people to prison. The most
comprehensive of all treatises on this issue
“NDCI BOOSTS NUMBER
OF DWI TRAININGS”
was written by Karl Menninger, M.D., in a
1968 work entitled The Crime of Punishment.
In it, he writes about the morbid crime of
man’s inhumanity to man:
These cages are opened early each morning with
the same noisy mechanism that closed them. The
prisoners emerge and march to breakfast and
sometimes to thirty minutes of exercise, which
means walking around in a paved enclosure. In a
few institutions some of them go next to the prison
industries–auto-repair shops, tailor shops, shoemaking, basket-making, and occasionally a manufacturing plant of some kind. For some prisoners
there may be a farm or a mine or a quarry. For
some who elect it, there are educational classes.
But the offender is in prison to be punished–not
educated or amused.
In quarters such as these, the recipient of official
punishment languishes in the cheerless company
of others equally miserable, hopeless, and resentful.
He is herded about by men half afraid and half
contemptuous of him, toward whom all offenders
early learn to present a steadfast attitude of
Inaugural Federal Drug Court
Symposium Announced
The National Drug Court Institute is pleased to announce the inaugural
Federal Drug Court Symposium on Wednesday, June 21, 2006, at the
Washington State Convention and Trade Center in Seattle, Washington.
In response to a growing chorus of judges, academicians, researchers
and practitioners alike, NDCI is convening a symposium to explore
the opportunities for advancing federal drug courts. Leading advocates
of federal drug courts will assess the current landscape and look at
the opportunities and obstacles to taking the drug court concept to
the federal level.
The symposium is timed to coincide with NADCP’s 12th Annual
Drug Court Training Conference, also taking place in Seattle, so
that participants in the symposium may also take advantage of the
learning opportunity afforded by the training.
To register for the conference, please contact Bobbie Taylor at 703-575-9400,
ext. 16 or by e-mail at [email protected].
team members have received the
training. You can learn more in
four days than in a year of trial
and error. Without the training,
most of the efforts will be in error,”
observed Meier.
Another 30 teams were trained on
DWI court matter in 2005 through
the Drug Court Planning Initiative
(DCPI), the national drug court
training program sponsored by
the Bureau of Justice Assistance,
in collaboration with the National
Drug Court Institute.
2006 Training
The NHTSA DWI Court Training
and Technical Assistance Initiative
is ready to enter a second successful
year. The 2006 solicitation for
jurisdictional team sign-up was
disseminated in early November.
Teams are encouraged to work
with their respective State Highway
Safety Offices in securing travel
funds. The National Drug Court
Institute looks forward to training
another 50 jurisdictions through
this highly interactive and intense
training series.
IACP Resolution
At the 112th Annual International
Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP)
Conference in Miami last September,
a resolution was passed in favor of
DWI Courts which stated:
“Support for DWI/DUI Courts.
The resolution expresses the IACP’s
support for DWI/DUI courts
concept as promoted by the
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration. Such courts ensure
that substance abuse treatment is
ordered and implemented.”
A complete text of the resolution is available
at http://www.theiacp.org/resolutions/
2005Resolutions.pdf
24
Back on TRAC to
Expand Nationwide
By Randy Monchick, Ph.D.
and Suzanne Byrnes
In 2002, the National Drug Court
Institute (NDCI), in partnership
with the National Judicial College
and Colorado State University
(CSU) and with the support of
the U.S. Department of Education,
implemented the first campus-based
substance abuse intervention in
the nation based on the key components of the “drug court” model.
CSU was chosen as the pilot site
for this effort, in part, because of
its willingness to openly confront
the immense problem of substance
abuse on campus and also, because
of the desire of some key judicial
officials in the surrounding community of Fort Collins, Colorado to
share the fruits of their community’s
successful drug court. Preliminary
data has shown the model to be an
overwhelming success in its positive
effect on once-troubled students,
its cost effectiveness, and its impact
on the rebirth of a collective professional enthusiasm.
With the first campus-based substance abuse intervention court
operational and showing promising
outcomes, the Board of Directors
of The National Association of
Drug Court Professionals (NADCP)
created a board committee called
the NADCP National “Back on
TRAC” Committee. The “TRAC”
moniker stands for Treatment,
Responsibility, and Accountability on
Campus. The committee includes a
powerful mix of higher education
and justice system professionals to
direct policy and to create a national
energy about the issue.
Back on TRAC applies the principles
and components of the successful
drug court model to the college
environment. It holds substanceabusing students to a high level
of accountability while providing
individualized treatment and
Mental Health Courts: The Cook County,
Illinois Experience
By Judge Lawrence Fox
Cook County, Illinois, has two gender-specific
Mental Health Courts, somewhat unique in
admitting only felony probationers, assigned
by gender. Both share criteria of voluntary,
non-violent individuals, with a clear psychiatric diagnosis. Part of the reasoning for
separate courts has been the increased success of the drug courts since segregating by
gender, recognizing the differences in treatment needs of men and women. Participants
average 32 arrests and six convictions in the
past and 119 days in custody in the year
prior to admission. An assumption in developing the programs has been that past patterns
would continue without the supervision and
intervention allotted by such a court.
Potential candidates are identified by the
mental health component of Cermak Health
Services, which treats the 1,000 of the
10,000 incarcerated individuals in the jail
with psychiatric needs. Those who meet the
criteria and express interest in the Program
are evaluated for admission. Those who meet
criteria have a treatment plan developed and
are presented to the team. If accepted, the
individual pleads guilty and is sentenced to
24 months mental health court probation.
That probationer is transported directly to
the next level of care. The remainder of the
program resembles a drug court, with intensive judicial supervision, frequent interviews
and drug testing, and treatment based upon
current progress. The goals are to decrease
criminal activity and incarceration, at the
same time increasing treatment compliance
and quality of life.
In the first 26 months of operation, the courts
have seen participants, who averaged 3.6
arrests and 1.8 convictions in the year prior
to admission, have four felony arrests and
one conviction, total. Ninety-one percent
have had no convictions, 98 percent no
felony convictions, 70 percent no arrests.
National Drug Court Institute Offers Expanded
Services on State Level
By Cary Heck, Ph.D.
Over the past several years the National
Association of Drug Court Professionals
(NADCP) and the National Drug Court
Institute (NDCI) have been working to
build capacity in order to provide federal,
state and local drug court agencies with useful services and timely state-of-the-art training. In the past these services have only
been offered as part of technical assistance
or as part of grant packages from the federal
government. The influence of these services
has been immense but the availability of
these services has been somewhat limited by
the agencies funding these services (i.e.,
U.S. Department of Justice’s Bureau of
Justice Assistance). As funding responsibility
for the growing number of problem solving
courts is shifting to states and localities,
NADCP and NDCI are redirecting some
resources to better serve our constituents.
Over the next several months NDCI will be
announcing the availability of additional
service packages to state and local drug
court programs. These services will include
assistance in the development and implementation of problem solving court specific
case management systems, evaluation planning, issue specific court training and problem solving, and research. It is our strong
desire to bring the capacities that have been
developed by the national association to the
state level in a more direct manner.
Please keep your eyes open for announcements regarding these services. And, should
an immediate need arise, please feel free to
contact Cary Heck at [email protected] to
seek assistance from the skilled and experienced NADCP and NDCI staff in relation to
your needs. We are truly excited about this
new opportunity to serve and assist in the
wonderful work being done by the drug
court professionals around the United States
and the rest of the world.
25
“DISPARITIES FOCUS GROUP HOLDS
INAUGURAL MEETING”
People in the News
Judge Peggy Hora to Retire; NDCI Gains Its
Newest Senior Judicial Fellow
By Dean Schultheiss
A pioneer of the
drug court movement is retiring
after 21 years on
the bench. Judge
Peggy Fulton Hora
has presided over
the Alameda
Judge Peggy Fulton Hora County Superior
Court in Hayward,
California after founding the drug treatment
court in 1998—one of the very first in the
nation. She has been an active leader in the
drug court movement since its inception,
serving as an advocate, as a presenter, member
of numerous committees and focus groups
on a host of subjects pertinent to the field
relating to women’s issues in drug court and
forging strong relationships with community
law enforcement. In recognition of her
leadership, she was inducted into NADCP’s
Stanley M. Goldstein Drug Court Hall of
Fame in 2001.
In a statement released by Hora announcing
her retirement, she offered the following
reflections. “It’s been a great career and I
wouldn’t have traded it for anything. I can’t
imagine doing anything else for that long.
I’m proud of the work I’ve done, especially
establishing the drug treatment court. I’ve
seen hundreds of people turn their lives
around and become fabulous, productive
human beings. I’ve had the privilege of
working with community treatment providers
and others in the helping fields and some
of the best attorneys in Alameda County.”
The National Drug Court Institute (NDCI)
is very pleased to announce Judge Hora’s
new role as Senior Judicial Fellow. In that
capacity, she will join Judge Bill Meyer (ret.)
and Judge Nicolette Pach (ret.) in providing
NDCI and NADCP with guidance regarding
the evolving role of the drug court judge
and the field of problem-solving courts. In
addition, Judge Hora intends to stay active
and will continue her service to the drug
court community in a teaching capacity,
providing lectures in her areas of expertise
of substance abuse, pregnant and parenting
women, domestic violence, cultural competence and therapeutic jurisprudence/problem-solving courts. She will also continue
writing projects and help develop curricula
for the criminal justice system. Currently she
is serving on a NDCI committee working
to develop a drug court handbook that
can be used as a reference tool for judges
throughout the country.
“MENTAL HEALTH COURTS...”
The number of in-custody days for new
criminal activity has decreased by over
95 percent. (An interesting, additional
phenomenon has been that even those
participants who were not able to complete
the program displayed a significant decrease
in arrests for criminal activity. Arrests
among those individuals, who average eight
months in the Program before termination,
total arrests, compared to the year prior to
admission, decreased from 39 to three and
convictions from 15 to 1.5/annualized.)
L.W. was admitted in May of 2004. She has
been diagnosed with schizophrenia, bi-polar
illness and cocaine dependence. After an
unsuccessful MISA residential placement,
she successfully completed another placement
then attended IOP. In the initial period of
her involvement, she had two misdemeanor
arrests (no convictions), but the team
retained her, as a reasonable long-term risk.
She moved into a recovery home in June
of 2005 and has been linked to long-term
services. She is currently on a waiting list
for residential placement support. Her urine
screens have been negative for eleven
months. If she continues her current level
of response/progress, she could be the first
female graduate of the program.
Judge Lawrence Fox presides over the Cook County Mental
Health Courts.
Not only did the group discuss
potential challenges to drug court
success, but it also laid the ground
work for the development of training tools designed to assist jurisdictions in addressing these concerns.
TMAC President, Wanda Moore,
discussed the importance of the
work product of the group and
the dire need for training in communities across America.
NADCP CEO Judge Karen FreemanWilson, (ret.) noted that “this work
represents another example of our
willingness to listen to our membership in their efforts to provide
clients with the best drug courts
possible. I am especially grateful
to Michael Halpin for his research
in Kalamazoo that highlighted the
urgency of this mission.”
Committees were established through
this group. They are tasked with:
• undertaking a national study
to assess the magnitude of the
disparities problem in drug court;
• determining the number and
profile of those clients who are
not clinically addicted, but who
are referred to addition treatment;
• developing a protocol to enhance
the capacity of service providers
and create national standards
for cultural proficiency in drug
court; and
• with exploring the community
as an oasis of resources.
Special thanks to the participants
for their hard work: Thomas
Alexander, Andrea Barthwell, Alec
Christoff, Theron Cook, Dr. Cheryl
Dozier, Stephanie Franklin, Brian
Hendrix, Wanda Moore, Antonio
Ocegueda, Arlandis Rush, Judge
John Schwartz, Ed Singleton,
Valerie Staats and Darryl Turpin.
Judy Dancy, Hon. Karen FreemanWilson, Nizelky C. Genao,Michael
Halpin, Vincent “Peter” Hayden,
Cary Heck, Wanda Moore,
26
“CHIEF EXECUTIVE’S DESK”
meet the needs of our corporate
partners. Convening this group
twice a year will assist us greatly
in this endeavor.
I am pleased to announce that we
have released the 2006 National
Drug Court Month field kit and
that this year’s theme will be
“Successful Partnering for
Recovery.” The kit is available on
line at www.nadcp.org. The theme
underlines the importance of creating and sustaining community
partnerships that enhance our
clients’ prospects for recovery. The
celebrations will culminate with
the 12th Annual NADCP Training
Conference in Seattle, WA on June
21-24, 2006. Please make sure to
read the article on pages 4-5 for an
overview of this year’s initiatives.
With your support, we can make
May 2006 our most successful
National Drug Court Month ever!
This year we expect to release a
record number of publications to
the field. In addition to the NADCP
News and National Drug Court
Institute Review (NDCIR), we will
release publications on ensuring
sustainability, case management
and many other subjects. You will
also find an enhanced third edition
of Painting the Current Picture. I am
personally looking forward to the
distribution of NADCP’s first official
judicial bench book. We anticipate
that this publication will be used
by judicial officers and non-judicial
officers alike as they bring the
healing message of drug courts
to a new generation.
If you have not done so already,
please register and make arrangements to attend the 2006 Annual
Drug Court Training Conference
in Seattle. This year, we have added
a CLE feature to the CEU feature
in order to assist those with continuing education requirements. In
addition, we will provide a track
Wyoming Statewide Evaluation Supports Continued
Investment in Problem Solving Courts
By Cary Heck, Ph.D.
The State of Wyoming recently conducted
its evaluation of drug courts using the
performance measures suggested by the
National Drug Court Institute. The evaluation
was conducted by the Wyoming Survey and
Analysis Center with the assistance of Dr. Cary
Heck, Director of Research for the National
Drug Court Institute. Research for this project was conducted using surveys, site visits,
interviews and some secondary statistics.
The findings of this research project are very
encouraging in terms of the successes of
drug court programs. Topping the good
news of the report were statistics that
included an 8.2 percent in-program recidivism rate (using arrest data) and an average
of 182 days of sobriety for clients in the
programs. A cohort of clients admitted in
fiscal year 2003 were reported to have a
56.2 percent graduation rate and this rate
will climb higher as some of the clients who
remain in the program from this cohort
continue to finish their programs.
Additionally, this report has proved useful
for programs and state management as the
programs deal with a client population that
is increasingly influenced by methamphetamine. The documentation of this change
helps state and local management develop
specific programming and allows drug
courts to promote the effectiveness of this
intervention with state policy-makers who
are faced with incredible social and political
challenges related to meth. On average, it
takes Wyoming adult drug court clients 26
days from the date of arrest to the first treatment episode. This number is something
that local programs can address with hopes
of seeing a reduction in the near future.
Overall, the Wyoming Statewide Drug Court
Evaluation provides useful and meaningful
information as this state works to resolve
the social crisis related to substance abuse
and addiction. The report can be viewed
on the Wyoming Department of Health,
Substance Abuse Division’s website.
“TALE OF TWO STATES: THE ROAD TO RECOVERY
FOR COURTS AFFECTED BY 2005 HURRICANES”
Staff improvised to make the program work.
In Jackson County, the courthouse is still
closed for repairs after the first floor flooded.
Although the Circuit Court was on the second floor, it also has been forced to relocate,
first to a fairgrounds building with other
government entities and later to a mobile
home. Meetings with the judge were moved
to an older court facility. Drug screening
was conducted in public restrooms using
test kits. The testing machine can’t be
moved from the courthouse.
The Hancock County Courthouse in Bay St.
Louis was damaged and is closed. Emergency
operations disrupted court proceedings at the
Harrison County Courthouse in Gulfport,
although the facility weathered the storm.
Treatment facilities were damaged and had
to relocate. A Gulf Coast mental health
counselor now uses the drug court meeting
room at the Harrison County Courthouse
for her sessions with participants.
Alcoholics Anonymous and other support
groups have had to find new meetings places.
“The AA meetings around the coast were
terrific about reestablishing meetings and
meeting places,” Judge Simpson said. Judge
Simpson said he doesn’t know whether drug
relapses may be attributed to the hurricane.
Two people in his program recently were
arrested for new drug crimes, and he has
terminated them from the drug court
program and sentenced them to prison.
“Whether or not I can attribute that to the
added stress or burden from the hurricane
is difficult to say,” Judge Simpson said.
“My mental health professionals tell me that
without question, being displaced or being
unemployed and all of the things we are
dealing with here on the Gulf Coast certainly
adds stress to someone who is already in a
weakened state and subject to being easily
misled. I can’t say that those two individuals
27
Recovery Management and Drug Courts
“CHIEF EXECUTIVE’S DESK”
By Alec Christoff and Jayme Delano
oriented to Latino practitioners of
which one session will be presented
in Spanish. We had an extraordinary
turnout in Orlando and we expect
even greater numbers (2500+) in
Seattle. More details on the conference appear throughout this issue.
Don’t miss this opportunity for
training and renewal!
Drug court programs access a collection of
evidence based treatment approaches that
are premised on the notion that substance
abuse is a chronic health problem, akin to
diabetes, asthma or heart disease. Successful
treatment of these disorders often requires
continuing treatment at varying levels of
intensity and the achievement of long-term
lifestyle changes (O’Brien and McLellan,
1996; Donovan, 1998). This type of
approach of treating substance abuse is not
new to treatment professionals; it is, after
all, a definition of the disease concept.
as identified in the scientific literature and
through the collective experience of people
in recovery (White, Sanders, 2004). The
model recognizes that recovery occurs
through incremental progress within five
zones of personal experience. These zones
are the physical, psychological, relational,
lifestyle and spiritual. Recovery Management
models recognize the ebb and flow of
progress within and across these zones
and uses progress in one zone to prime
improvement in other zones (White, Boyle,
Loveland, Corrington, 2003).
The notion of addiction as a chronic disorder
underscores the often-long course of substance abuse disorders and the sustained
“treatment careers” that can precede stable
recovery (White, 2005). Initially, drug court
programs tend to focus solely on immediate
goals in response to the crisis that has led
the offender to the program, out of control
drug use. While it is critical to “stabilize”
the participant’s behavior and begin involvement in the treatment regimen, it is also
important to be cognizant of the need to
assist the participant in the development
goals that support long term behavioral
change. Given this, drug court programs
may benefit from moving away from an
“emergency room” model of “acute care”
that primarily responds to the client at a
time of crisis but then reduces services
once the client becomes abstinent, to a
model that better supports sustained recovery. Taking the position that overcoming
addiction is a lifelong endeavor; drug courts
can improve the recovery environment and
participant long-term outcomes, by including long-term goals in case planning and
participant monitoring.
The principles of the Recovery Management
model conform to the drug court model. It is
time-sustained, recovery-focused collaboration
between service consumers and traditional
and non-traditional service providers toward
the goal of stabilizing, and then actively
managing the ebb and flow of severe behavioral health disorders until full remission
and recovery has been achieved, or until
they can be effectively managed by the
individual and supported by the family
and community. The functions of outreach,
engagement, assessment, case management,
therapy, advocacy, and prevention may all
exist over time within the same service role
and relationship such as the case manger in
drug court. The model is based on the biopsychosocial model of treatment, the health
care consumer movement, and the strengthsbased model of service delivery (White,
Boyle, Loveland, Corrington, 2003). In order
to achieve this approach, a higher level of
cross training and involvement between drug
court team members and the community
partners may be required.
Drug court professionals may want to
familiarize themselves with a conceptual
model that draws from the disease concept;
the Recovery Management model. The
primary emphasis is on personal resilience
and recovery processes; recognition of
multiple long-term pathways and styles of
recovery; empowerment of individuals and
family in recovery to direct their own healing; development of highly individualized
and culturally nuanced services; heightened
collaboration with diverse communities of
recovery; and commitment to best practices
Drug courts have proven to be very adept
at setting and monitoring short-term goals
through the use of frequent drug testing,
case management, and regular court status
hearings. Unfortunately, in many programs
the focus is primarily on assisting the participant through the program to graduation.
Case planning and care after graduation are
often an afterthought. It is critical for drug
courts to understand the importance of
setting and monitoring long-term goals
and integrating these concepts throughout
the program design.
In closing, it is with deep regret that
I acknowledge the departure of
three members of the NADCP family. J’Nai Baylor and Keli Hammond
worked hard to support the training
and information that we provided
to many of you in the field. Carolyn
LeeDecker was a chief operating
officer extraordinaire. We wish
them all the best and owe a debt
of gratitude for their service.
Until we meet again, thanks for
your support and KEEP THOSE
LETTERS COMING!
“CONFERENCE ANCILLARY EVENTS
SHOWCASE THE HUMAN ASPECT...”
Shine Some Light
Each year NADCP displays the
names of drug court participants
who have graduated during the
past year at the conference. In
addition, we welcome photographs
of your drug court team to accompany the graduate names. Graduate
names should be submitted ideally
in Excel and include the first name
with initial of the last, the date of
graduation, and of course the name
of the court. In addition this year,
as part of National Drug Court
Month, we will be separately highlighting those participants who
graduate during the month of May.
Please the National Drug Court
Month announcement in this issue
for more information.
To learn more about these events,
please contact Bobbie Taylor at
703.575.9400, extension 16, or
by e-mail at [email protected].
28
“NDCI BOOSTS NUMBER
OF DWI TRAININGS”
compliance monitoring. The program operates within the confines
of existing resources and without
interrupting a student’s educational
process. It also unites campus leaders, judicial affairs personnel, treatment providers and health professionals with their governmental,
judicial and treatment counterparts
in the surrounding community—
an intervention partnership that
should serve as the hub for a comprehensive campus/community
strategy for dealing with underage
drinking and drugging. Back on
TRAC provides an extremely rigorous and powerful system tool for
giving substance-abusing students
the structure to reorient, focus,
mature and succeed.
The National Back on TRAC
Committee is in the process of
expanding the initiative from one
state to a nationwide demonstration
project. A minimum of five sites
will initially be selected. To be
eligible for potential selection as a
demonstration site, applicant colleges would have to show that they
have the need, administrative support and collaborative resources to
conduct a Back on TRAC program.
For additional information on Back
on TRAC, please contact Suzanne
Byrnes at 703-575-9400, ext. 33
or by e-mail at [email protected].
“DISPARITIES FOCUS GROUP HOLDS
INAUGURAL MEETING”
Hon. John Schwartz, Hon. M.
Lynn Sherrod, Deborah Peterson
Small, Al Vilapiano (Inflexxion)
and Margaret Watts. We are also
very grateful to Hythiam, Inc. and
Ammon, Inc. for their support
of this project. We look forward
to providing you with updates
on the work of this group.
“RECOVERY MANAGEMENT
AND
DRUG COURTS”
The planning process of assisting the client
through a process of change that leads to
a lifetime of sobriety needs to start at the
beginning of the drug court experience and
not end at graduation. There must be an
understanding that the process by which a
participant achieves abstinence is complex,
individual, and long-term. Each treatment
component should be seen as a continuation
of therapy, or an extension of treatment,
rather than as a discrete event taking place
after the previous treatment phase is complete.
To that end, there must be a coordinated
effort among the team members to recognize
that this approach is a vital element to their
work in drug court and that the consistent
message that recovery is a life long commitment transcends to the judge who is in the
ideal position to reinforce this concept each
time a client appears for their status hearing.
For participants to sustain abstinence from
drugs, continuing care planning (including
care and services after graduation from drug
court) must be included as part of the initial
treatment assessment and protocol that
outlines both the short and long-term objectives and goals to be achieved throughout
the treatment experience. In particular,
effective continuing care practices focus on
early identification of and intervention with
relapse events, with the aim of preventing
the lapse from becoming a full-blown relapse
(McLatchie and Lomp, 1988; Donovan,
1998). Thus, effective relapse responses
should be systematically included as part
of the client’s continuum of care and ongoing treatment regimen, rather than as
an add-on following the completion of the
initial treatment episode (Donovan, 1998).
Drug court programs may benefit from
adopting the concept that all the services
that the program provides are part of a much
longer continuum of treatment designed to
assist the participant in achieving long-term
lifestyle behavioral changes rather than
viewing the drug court as an intense
intervention that is completed after all the
requirements of the program have been
accomplished and graduation has occurred.
A group of expert drug court practitioners
has assisted NDCI in the identification of
effective continuing care practices. A literature review was conducted and NDCI
solicited drug court programs throughout
the country to share their unique and effective practices being used to improve the
likelihood of the participant successfully
achieving a sober, productive lifestyle. NDCI
will be producing a publication summarizing the results of this process and detailing
effective drug court continuing care practices. In addition to the document, NDCI
will use this process to develop protocols
and a cadre of expert practitioners who will
be able to provide onsite technical assistance services designed to assist individual
drug court programs in the development
and implementation of improved continuing
care practices. For further information about
this initiative contact Alec Christoff, Project
Director, Adult Technical Assistance NDCI
at 703-575-9400, ext. 11 or by e-mail at
[email protected].
References
1. Donovan, D.M. (1998). Continuing Care:
Promoting the Maintenance of Change.
In A.S. Bellack and M. Hersen (Eds.),
Treating Addictive Behaviors (Vol. 2,
pp. 317-336). New York: Plenum.
2. White, W. and Sanders, M (2004).
Recovery Management and People
of Recovery: Redesigning Addiction
Treatment for Historically Disemboweled
Communities. Retrieved Jan 30, 2006,
from BHRM.org.
3. White, W. (2005, October). Recovery
Management: What If We Really Believed
That Addiction Was a Chronic Disorder?
GLATTC Bulletin, Retrieved Jan 30, 2006.
4. White, Boyle, Loveland, Corrington,
(2003). What is Behavioral Health
Recovery Management? A Brief Primer.
Retrieved Jan 30, 2006, from BHRM.org.
Jayme Delano is employed by the Bureau of Governmental
Research at the University of Maryland in College Park.
29
“THE CASE
FOR FEDERAL
DRUG COURTS”
hostility. An atmosphere of monotony, futility, hate,
loneliness, and sexual frustration pervades the
dank dungeons and cold hangars like a miasma,
while time grinds out weary months and years.
(Not every prison is like this, but too many are.) 1
The disappointing news is that, despite
widespread agreement on the issue, the
establishment of federal drug courts has been
slow. In response to my letter to Attorney
General Alberto Gonzales in June of this
year, where I proposed creating a nationwide
system of federal drug courts, Mary Beth
Buchanan, Director of the Executive Office
of United States Attorneys, stated:
[A]dult drug court programs were established in the
late 1980s as a local response to increasing numbers of drug-related cases and expanding jail and
prison populations. The programs were designed
to reduce recidivism and substance-abuse behavior
by engaging defendants in judicially monitored
substance abuse programs. A recent report by the
General Accountability Office entitled, “Adult Drug
Courts: Evidence Indicates Recidivism Reductions
and Mixed Results for Other Outcomes” confirms
that most of the adult drug court programs that
were evaluated led to recidivism reductions . . . . 2
In addition, Director Buchanan noted that, several
years ago, the District of Columbia successfully
integrated a drug court into its judicial system. She
also observed: The Department of Justice, through
the Office of Justice Programs (OJP), has supported the use of drug courts since Congress enacted
Title V of the Violent Crime Control and Law
Enforcement Act of 1994, which authorized the
Attorney General to make grants to states, state
courts, local courts, units of government, and
Indian tribal governments to establish drug courts.
In 1995, the Drug Courts Programs Office was
established by OJP to administer the Drug Court
Grant Program and to provide training, financial
and technical assistance, and other guidance to
communities interested in drug courts. More
recently, the Bureau of Justice Assistance, a component of OJP, began directing Drug Court
Discretionary Grant Program, including administration of the grants for that program. The
Department expects to continue this guidance and
financial assistance for communities interested in
drug court programs.
The Director’s response, however, only
acknowledges that federal grant monies
have been, and will continue to be, dispersed to various states for the purpose
of supporting existing, and creating new,
state drug courts. There doesn’t appear
to be any effort to establish federal district
drug courts at this time.
This fact is curious, especially considering
how the rate of recidivism has dropped in
state drug courts, as the Director acknowledges. Moreover, since state courts first began
incorporating drug courts, the cost of incarceration in state prisons for those subject to
incarceration for drug offenses has markedly
decreased nationwide. With such positive
benefits, one might think there would be
greater outcry for the implementation of
federal drug courts.
One federal judge opposes federal drug
courts because the Judicial Conference has
always opposed specialized courts in any
capacity. This mis-comprehends the procedure involved. Federal drug courts would
not adjudicate individual cases, but would
instead function as a procedural alternative
to sentencing, allowing federal district judges
to immediately place offenders on probation
while also requiring mandatory drug rehabilitation treatment. No incarceration would
be necessary.
Another federal district judge from a border
state is concerned that federal drug courts
would not adequately punish offenders who
operate large drug cartels. This fear is alleviated by the fact that federal district judges
would still retain the discretion to sentence
these offenders if they so choose. I would
argue, however, that federal district judges
should exercise this discretion sparingly.
Scholars, judges, and practitioners alike
have long opined on the failures and shortcomings of the National Crime Commission
and the Federal Sentencing Guidelines.
See Michael Tonry, Sentencing Matters 109;
see also The Honorable Gerald Heaney, 1
Federal Sentencing Reporter, Vol. 4, No. 3
(Nov/Dec. 1991).
The Judicial Conference should
recommend disbursement of federal
monies to help implement federal
drug courts. Federal drug courts, in
turn, would provide a more humane
post-violation remedy to offenders in
lieu of incarceration. Sadly, however,
this cannot become reality as long
as we are burdened by the Federal
Sentencing Guidelines, advisory
though they may be, and mandatory
minimum sentences.
Since my op/ed article, federal
judges have approached nearly
every senator and member of
Congress to urge their support for
the creation of federal drug courts,
but to no avail. We must continue
trying, however, as congressional
support for this system is essential.
I believe that Congress will, and
must, realize the virtue of federal
drug courts. The benefits gained
from the implementation of a federal drug court system are simply
too many to ignore.
Donald P. Lay is a United States Senior Circuit
Judge for the Eighth Circuit.
References
1. Karl Menninger, M.D., The Crime
of Punishment 73 (1968); see also
Charles Colson, Justice that Restores
(2001); Michael Tonry, Sentencing
Matters (1996); Norval Morris and
Michael Tonry, Between Prison and
Probation (1990); Norval Morris,
The Future of Imprisonment (1974).
2. Letter From Mary Beth Buchanan,
Director, Executive Office for
United States Attorneys, United
States Department of Justice, to the
Honorable Donald P. Lay, Senior
Circuit Judge, United States Court
of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
(June 8, 2005).
30
NDCI Making
Strides to Ensure
Quality Research
By Doug Marlowe, Ph.D.
National Drug Court
Research Agenda
NDCI and NADCP are committed
to identifying the most pressing
practice-relevant and policy-relevant
research questions facing the drug
court field. With funding from the
Office of National Drug Control
Policy (ONDCP), the NDCI and
the National Institute of Justice
(NIJ) convened a nationally recognized expert panel of drug court
researchers and practitioners called
the National Research Advisory
Committee (NRAC). Throughout
2005, the NRAC specified standardized procedures for identifying
“second generation” research questions and ultimately settled upon a
list of 23 research priorities. This
list underwent field-review by a
national sample of drug court
administrators and practitioners
(100, to date). This research agenda
will be published as a stand-alone
monograph by ONDCP and NDCI.
The NRAC trusts that the monograph will navigate drug court
research for many years to come.
To this point, the NRAC has
focused primarily on adult criminal
drug courts because this is the
most prevalent type of problemsolving court program, they have
been in existence the longest and
they have the largest body of
research evidence supporting
their efficacy. In planned future
meetings, the NRAC will identify
“STATELINE”
• A “Best Practices Manual for Criminal Drug Treatment Courts” is in the final stages of completion
and will be released this spring. The same process will soon be started to develop a “Best Practices
Manual for Family Drug Treatment Courts.”
• A universal treatment application designed specifically for the juvenile treatment courts has been
developed and is currently being released.
• A new court rule has been adopted that establishes a procedure for appropriate local criminal
court cases to be adjudicated in superior court drug treatment courts.
A number of steps have also been taken to further the integration of the drug treatment court program
into the normal operational procedures of the courts. Presentations were made at the statewide chief
clerks’ conferences clarifying their roles and responsibilities as supervisors of the drug treatment courts.
Special training sessions on the universal treatment application are being conducted to help court
managers review and better understand the performance of their drug treatment courts. Operational
reports are being developed in both the family and criminal universal treatment application to measure
and report the status of the drug treatment courts in a manner that is familiar to the chief clerks.
These efforts all support the goal of expanding the drug treatment court program statewide and
integrating it into the normal operations of the New York State Unified Court System.
Rhode Island
Submitted by Linda Lynch
Rhode Island Family Court Hosts Conference
On Wednesday, December 7, 2005, Rhode Island Family Court Chief Judge Jeremiah S. Jeremiah, Jr.
hosted a Conference entitled “Reviewing Our Past—Preparing For the Future.” The Conference was
an opportunity to bring the critical issues of gang violence and methamphetamine to the forefront, as
well as the devastation caused by them. The conference offered an opportunity to discuss the many
successes achieved through special problem solving courts. It also was a chance to hold a forum to
discuss the ever-emerging issues of gang violence and methamphetamine and to prepare for the future.
Peter Carlisle, Prosecuting Attorney, City and County of Honolulu, Hawaii, was a featured plenary
speaker and spoke about his experience with the deadly drug methamphetamine in Honolulu.
“Hawaii has suffered from the effects of a crystal meth crisis for years. ‘Ice’ has impacted every facet
of life in our island community. Rhode Island has been spared so far, but, its ‘ice’ age is coming.
The time to prepare is now!” advised Carlisle. A highlight of the conference was when he introduced
Tiffini Limahai, Miss Hawaii 1998, who participated in the conference in her first public speaking role
since her entry into a Hawaii drug court program for methamphetamine addiction.
Rhode Island Judiciary Celebrates National Adoption Day
“Creating Families Now and Forever: A Celebration of Adoption and Foster Care” was the theme of a
special event hosted by the Rhode Island Family Court and Chief Judge Jeremiah S. Jeremiah, Jr. in
recognition of “National Adoption Day.” The celebration coincided with events being held across the
United States to draw attention to the adoption process and the large number of children available for
adoption. The court finalized 26 adoptions with 20 different families. The celebration was supported
by many sponsors and community agencies. The Rhode Island Family Court welcomed over 250
participants to the event.
31
“STATELINE”
“NDCI MAKING STRIDES TO
ENSURE QUALITY RESEARCH”
Vermont
Submitted by Karen Gennette
Vermont has three adult drug courts operating in Chittenden, Rutland and Bennington Counties. There
is also a family treatment court and a mental health court in Chittenden County. Approximately 180
participants are being served by these courts and 30 clients have graduated. These problem-solving or
review courts are fairly new in Vermont—the earliest to start operations began in January 2003. In
addition, two counties have started planning to establish adult drug courts, another is planning a
family treatment court and a fourth is planning a juvenile drug court.
The Vermont Court Administrator’s Office is also working on a statewide management information
system. Presently, each of the drug courts is operating on their individual systems without having any
networking capability within the individual drug court teams or statewide. A statewide enhancement
grant will allow drug court operations in Vermont to explore and develop networking capability,
statewide data collection and evaluations.
Wisconsin
Submitted by Elliot Levine
The Wisconsin Association of Treatment Court Professionals held its Second Annual Conference
entitled “Tools for Change” in Green Bay February 7-8.
Two treatment courts were recently funded in Wisconsin. Ashland County is expanding their juvenile
drug court and Waukesha County is creating a new Intoxicated Driver Court.
The Wisconsin 2006-07 Budget Bill created a fund for the new Treatment Alternatives and Diversion
Program. This is a joint effort between the Wisconsin Office of Justice Assistance, the Department of
Health and Family services and the Department of Corrections. This program provides funds for
treatment courts and other alternative treatment programs for those in the criminal justice system.
This requires counties in part to form advisory councils, to follow evidence-based practices and create
programs using graduated sanctions and incentives.
Upcoming State Association Meetings
State
Dates
Location
Contact
New York
March 1-2, 2006
Buffalo
Ann Bader at [email protected]
Missouri
April 26-28, 2006
Osage Beach
Ann Wilson at 573-526-8848
Mississippi
May 3-5, 2006
Tunica
Joey Craft at [email protected]
New Mexico
Oct. 30-31, 2006
Albuquerque
Peter Bochert at [email protected]
If you have information that you would like to see listed in Stateline, or if you have any questions
regarding the NADCP Congress, please contact Jennifer Columbel, Director of Public Policy,
at 703-575-9400, ext. 14.
research priorities for other prevalent types of problem-solving
courts, including DWI courts,
juvenile drug courts and family
dependency treatment courts.
Standardized Performance Indicators
and Model Evaluation Plans
The NRAC also met on several
occasions in 2005 to develop a
“logic model” and standardized
performance indicators for drug
court program evaluations. This
culminated in a document (Cary,
in press) on standardized data
elements for drug courts that has
been very well received by the U.S.
Department of Justice’s Bureau of
Justice Assistance (BJA). We are
awaiting approval from BJA to
publish that document, entitled
“Local Drug Court Research:
Navigating Performance Measures
and Process Evaluations.”
NRAC will continue this work
in 2006 by addressing:
• Standardized data elements for other
problem-solving courts, including
juvenile drug courts, DWI courts and
family dependency treatment courts;
• Identification of appropriate
comparison groups
• Development of model evaluation
plans; and
• Development of model automated
data collection strategies
Doug Marlowe, Ph.D., J.D., is NADCP’s Research
Committee Chair and is a researcher at the
Treatment Research Institute at the University
of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia.
32
A resource for members for the past several years,
the National Association of Drug Court Professionals (NADCP)
provides unlimited access to information on federal legislation,
as well as up-to-date information on funding opportunities
and important data on drug courts.
As a NADCP member, you will enjoy the following benefits:
• Valuable resources for the development and establishment of drug courts
• Discounted registration at NADCP’s national conferences
• Dissemination of topical information to practitioners and government leaders
• Voting privileges at the NADCP membership meetings
• General access to public relations initiatives and educational projects
• Links to products and services
Let the NADCP help you. Become a member today!
For more information on becoming a NADCP member, contact Pat Beauchemin at 703-575-9400 ext. 15 or [email protected]
4900 Seminary Road, Suite 320 • Alexandria, VA 22311
Phone: 703-575-9400 • Fax: 703-575-9402 • www.nadcp.org
Seattle2006
The great Pacific Northwest
awaits NADCP as this
year’s conference heads
to beautiful Seattle!
T
he Washington State Convention and
Trade Center in downtown Seattle
will host the 12th Annual Drug Court
Training Conference June 21-24, 2006. The
conference hotel is the Sheraton Seattle Hotel
and Towers. The conference is steps away
from the famous Public Market, Nordstrom’s
flagship store, Pioneer Square and a host of
notable Seattle attractions.
Mark your
calendars now!
Registration Form
NADCP’s 12th Annual Drug Court Training Conference
JUNE 21-24, 2006 • WASHINGTON STATE CONVENTION AND TRADE CENTER • SEATTLE, WASHINGTON
DEADLI NE: MAY 26, 2006
Please type, print clearly or attach business card. Please fill out completely all information requested in the boxed areas with
personal contact information written as you would have it appear in the conference networking directory.
Mr. / Ms. / Judge / Dr. Name: _________________________________________________________________________________________
Job title ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Agency/Court/Company: ____________________________________________________________________________________________
Mailing Address: ___________________________________________________________________________________________________
City:________________________________________________________State ___________________Zip/Postal Code: _______________
Phone: (
) ______ - ____________
Fax: (
) ______ - ____________
E-mail: _____________________________________
Registration Deadlines
Registration Fees (check applicable rate)
Pre-registration due date is Friday, May 26, 2006. All registrations
post-marked or faxed after May 26, regardless of prior applicable
discount, will be charged at the on-site rate of $525.00. On-site
registrants should come to the on-site registration counter in Seattle.
Registration will not be processed without payment.
Cancellation/Substitution Policy
By close of business on Friday, May 26, 2006, full refund less $75.00
processing fee. Request for refund must be made in writing.
Substitutions are permitted at all times.
General Registration Information
Registrations without payment will not be processed. Do not fax
registration forms without payment. One registration form per registrant
only. Duplications of this form are acceptable. Information should be
clear and legible. Pre-registration guarantees your inclusion in the
Networking Directory. Registration fees include pre-conference workshops. Guests welcome for exhibitor reception and luncheon on a la
carte pricing basis to be paid on-site. Federal Tax ID #54-1791197.
Registration Fee Payment
Registration fees may be paid by check, money order or credit card
(Visa and MasterCard only). Your fee does not include annual membership dues. You do not need to be a member of NADCP to attend
the conference. Payments by credit card may be transacted on-line at
http://ga4.org/drugcourts/events/06conference.details.tcl or faxed to
703-575-9402. Make checks payable to NADCP. Purchase orders
and AMEX are not accepted.
Ì $500.00
Pre-Registration Rate
Ì $450.00
Member Pre-Registration Rate with valid ID
number (ID #________________________)
Ì $425.00
Student Rate with valid student ID.
(please attach photocopy of ID)
Ì $250.00
International Attendee Rate for anyone
from outside the U.S. or its territories.
Ì $200.00
Day rate for attendance on Wednesday,
Thursday or Friday only (circle date)
Ì $400.00
Two day rate for attendance on Wednesday
and Thursday or Thursday and Friday only
(circle dates)
Ì $525.00
On-site registration rate for all registrants
after May 26.
$ _______
Total Payment
Payment Information (required to process registration)
Purchase Orders and American Express are not accepted.
Check/ Money Order Number: ___________________________
Special Needs (check those that apply)
Ì Visa
Ì Vegetarian Ì Low Sodium Ì Sign Language Ì ALD
Ì Braille Ì Large Print Ì Disk Ì Wheelchair
Ì Other _________________________________________________
Card No. __________-__________-___________- ____________
Membership
Ì I am interested in becoming a member of NADCP.
Please send me a membership application!
Ì MasterCard
Expires ______/_______
Name on Card _________________________________________
Signature______________________________________________
Please mail registration and payment to: NADCP Annual Conference, P.O. Box 79289, Baltimore, MD 21279-0289
Questions? Phone: 877-266-1374 or 703-575-9522, E-mail: [email protected]
35
“SPOTLIGHT
ON THE GREEN
COUNTY MISSOURI COURT”
Serious and repeat offenders—those with
multiple DWIs—meet the criteria for the
DWI court.
The state probation conducts an interview
with the defendant and reviews the criminal
history. Offenders with a history of sexual
offenses or violence, limited intellectual
functioning, severe mental illness, or who live
outside Greene County are usually excluded
from the program. The program is voluntary;
however, most felony defendants face incarceration as an alternative to DWI Court.
If the defendant is accepted into the program, he or she faces a minimum of eighteen
months of intensive judicial supervision,
mandatory drug and alcohol testing,
escalating sanctions and treatment. Before
graduating, the offender must have six
months of sobriety, stability in employment
and living circumstances and a solid
connection to the recovery community.
There have been 232 offenders admitted
to the Greene County DWI Court:
• 206 males, 26 females
• Ages: (19 to 20) 6
(21 to 30) 49
(31 to 40) 88
(41+) 89
• 65 graduates (1 graduate re-offended and
was charged with a new DWI)
• 61 terminations (80 percent were sent
to prison)
• 74 percent retention rate
• average census is 100-115 participants
Public safety is a major concern for a DWI
court. Participants must be held accountable
and their alcohol and other drug use monitored closely. Through a grant, the Greene
County DWI Court has been able to utilize
trackers who make frequent, random visits
to the participants’ homes and conduct
breath analyzer testing for alcohol. The
trackers get to know the participants
and report changes in behavior or living
circumstances that assist the team in individualizing services to the participant.
Drug testing is a major cost factor in
managing a DWI court. About 70 percent
of the DWI Court participants report using
controlled substances, therefore drug testing
is conducted in the same manner as in a
drug court setting. Ethyl glucuronide (EtG)
testing was implemented in the DWI Court
in July, 2005. EtG is a minor metabolite of
ethanol (ethyl alcohol). It is formed in vivo
as a consequence of alcohol consumption.
A small fraction (0.02 percent) of a dose of
alcohol is conjugated in the liver with glucuronic acid to form ethyl glucuronide. EtG
can be detected in the blood for up to 36
hours and in the urine for up to five days
after heavy alcohol use. A positive finding
of EtG in the urine of an individual provides
strong evidence that the person recently
consumed alcohol, even if the alcohol itself
is no longer detectable. Since the court
began EtG testing, nine participants have
tested positive. Four were ready to graduate.
The participants have spread the word that
EtG testing is “impossible to beat.”
The participants are evaluated for naltrexone, a medication that was originally used
to treat dependence on opioid drugs but
that has recently been approved by the FDA
as a treatment for alcoholism. In clinical
trials evaluating the effectiveness of naltrexone, patients who received naltrexone were
twice as successful in remaining abstinent
and in avoiding relapse as patients who
received a placebo. The DWI court participants report that naltrexone helps them
in their recovery. Statistical data is being
evaluated to determine its effectiveness.
The Greene County Adult Drug Court
includes a mental health court (MHC)
program. If a DWI Court participant shows
signs of mental illness, it is possible to
access the services of the MHC team. One
participant was transferred to MHC because
his mental illness interfered with his ability
to actively take part in DWI Court.
The success of the Greene County DWI
Court has been due to the collaboration
of community agencies. Before the Greene
County DWI Court was implemented, there
appeared to be some inconsistency in the
treatment of felony DWI offenders. Under
the Missouri Department of Corrections
Probation/Parole Office’s rules and regulations, most felony DWI defendants scored
as low risk because their criminal history is
limited to DWIs. A low risk score qualifies
a defendant for minimum or unsupervised
probation. Despite this, the local state
probation office has dedicated three officers
to the DWI Court because they
recognize the risk to the public
when a defendant continues to drink
and drive. The judges in Greene
County have been supportive in
passing the local rule that mandates
felony DWI offenders be screened
and by maintaining consistency
in sentencing. The prosecutor files
felony DWI cases within a week
of receiving the case information.
A local treatment agency sends
three substance abuse counselors
to DWI court staffings. Vocational
and employment assistance agencies
lend their services to the participants. Working together, the DWI
court team members in Greene
County have been able to implement
a program that raises the level
of public safety for the citizens
of Greene County.
Marilyn Gibson is the Adult Drug Court
Administrator of the Greene County DWI
Drug Court in Springfield, Missouri.
“TALE OF TWO STATES: THE ROAD TO
RECOVERY FOR COURTS AFFECTED BY...”
would have relapsed but for the
hurricane.” Judge Jackson said some
may use the hurricane as an excuse.
Employment is a requirement for
drug court participants. Although
businesses and industries were wiped
out, Judges King and Simpson said
more jobs are available now than
ever before as a result of the damage
recovery effort.
“We have more jobs down there
than we have people to fill them.
They have ‘help wanted’ signs in
every store I pass. I have some
people now making more money
than they have every made,”
Judge Jackson said. Judge Simpson
agreed. “In this environment,
there is no reason for anyone to
be unemployed.”
Beverly Pettigrew Kraft is the Public Information
Officer for the Administrative Office of Courts in
Jackson, Mississippi
NADCP Welcomes Forest Labs as New Corporate Partner
By Pat Beachemin
The National Association of Drug Court
Professionals (NADCP) announces its partnership with Forest Laboratories, Inc., a
leading drug treatment provider in alcoholism.
Forest Laboratories markets Campral™, an
FDA-approved medication for the treatment
of alcohol dependence, in the U.S. NADCP
is excited that Forest Laboratories has joined
the organization as a Pioneer Member
because of the company’s commitment to
the recovery community and the proven
efficacy of Campral™for helping alcoholics
maintain abstinence.
Campral™ was approved by the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration (FDA) on July 29,
2004, for the maintenance of abstinence from
alcohol in patients with alcohol dependence
who are abstinent at treatment initiation.
Treatment with Campral™ can be part of a
comprehensive management program that
includes psychosocial support. The approval
of Campral™ was the first in nearly ten
years of a treatment for alcohol dependence.
“A major treatment goal for alcohol dependence is to increase rates of abstinence,” said
Barbara Mason, Ph.D., professor, Department
of Neuropharmacology, Scripps Research
Institute. “Campral™, when used in combination with psychosocial support, can help
committed patients reach this goal because
it is thought to help restore the brain's
chemical balance that has been disrupted
by long-term excessive drinking.”
This partnership is consistent with NADCP’s
mission to promote education for drug
court and other court-based intervention
programs The Pioneer Membership will
enable Forest Laboratories to provide educational workshops on alcohol dependence
and the role of medications to treat the
disease at the annual meeting for NADCP.
NADCP
T N
A
HE
ATIONAL
OF DRUG COURT
SSOCIATION
PROFESSIONALS
4900 Seminary Road, Suite 320,
Tel. 703-575-9400 Fax 703-575-9402
www.nadcp.org
The National Drug Court Institute is supported by
the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP),
Executive Office of the President, and the Bureau of
Justice Assistance (BJA), U.S. Department of Justice.
“NADCP wholly supports the use
of medications as adjuncts to treatment,” said CEO Karen FreemanWilson. “Campral™ is a proven
product and when used as a part of
a treatment plan can greatly assist
drug court participants on the road
to recovery. For this reason, we are
extremely excited about our partnership with Forest Laboratories.
NADCP looks forward to working
with our new Pioneer member in
assisting our entire membership to
gain knowledge about the utility
of Campral™ as a pharmacological
adjunct to the treatment of participants. The partnership with Forest
Laboratories is an added solution
for practitioners in the drug courts
and the criminal justice systems.”
NON-PROFIT
U.S. POSTAGE
PAID
PERMIT NO. 5655
ALEXANDRIA, VA
Let the NADCP help you.
A resource for members for the past several years,
the National Association of Drug Court Professionals (NADCP)
SUPPLEMENT
NADCP NEWS
Become a member today!
provides unlimited access to information on federal legislation,
as well as up-to-date information on funding opportunities
and important data on drug courts.
As a NADCP member, you will enjoy the following benefits:
• Valuable resources for the development and establishment of drug courts
• Discounted registration at NADCP’s national conferences
• Dissemination of topical information to practitioners and government leaders
• Voting privileges at the NADCP membership meetings
• General access to public relations initiatives and educational projects
• Links to products and services
4900 Seminary Road, Suite 320 • Alexandria, VA 22311
Phone: 703-575-9400 • Fax: 703-575-9402 • www.nadcp.org
October 18, 2005
The National Association of Drug Court Professionals and Forest Laboratories, Inc.
The National Association of Drug Court Professionals (NADCP) announces its partnership with Forest Laboratories, Inc.
(NYSE: FRX), a leading drug treatment provider in alcoholism. Forest Laboratories markets Campral™, a FDA approved
medication for the treatment of alcohol dependence, in the U.S. The NADCP selected Forest Laboratories to join the
organization as a Pioneer Member because of the company’s commitment to the recovery community and the proven
efficacy of Campral™ for helping alcoholics maintain abstinence.
Campral™ was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on July 29, 2004, for the maintenance of
abstinence from alcohol in patients with alcohol dependence who are abstinent at treatment initiation. Treatment with
Campral™ should be part of a comprehensive management program that includes psychosocial support. The approval
of Campral™ was the first in nearly ten years of a treatment for alcohol dependence.
This partnership is consistent with NADCP’s mission to promote education for drug court and other court-based intervention programs. In many cases, a court may consider requiring convicted DWI offenders to take medications approved
for alcohol dependence to assist them in maintaining sobriety while attempting to change behavioral patterns related to
drinking. It is generally recommended that medication be combined with psychosocial therapies for the most benefit.
“A major treatment goal for alcohol dependence is to increase rates of abstinence,” said Barbara Mason, Ph.D., professor,
Department of Neuropharmacology, Scripps Research Institute. “Campral™, when used in combination with psychosocial support, can help committed patients reach this goal because it is thought to help restore the brain’s chemical balance that has been disrupted by long-term excessive drinking.”
“NADCP wholly supports the use of medications as adjuncts to treatment,” said CEO Karen Freeman-Wilson, a retired
Judge. “Campral™ is a proven product and when used as a part of a treatment plan can greatly assist drug court participants on the road to recovery. For this reason, we are extremely excited about our partnership with Forest Laboratories.”
The Pioneer Membership will enable Forest Laboratories to provide educational workshops on alcohol dependence and
the role of medications to treat the disease at the annual meeting for NADCP. The annual meeting includes lawmakers,
judges and addiction treatment professionals, as well as drug court practitioners from the U.S.
Judge Freeman-Wilson stated, “NADCP looks forward to working with our new Pioneer member in assisting our
entire membership to gain knowledge about the utility of Campral™ as a pharmacological adjunct to the treatment
of participants. The partnership with Forest Laboratories is an added solution for practitioners in the drug courts and
the criminal justice systems.”
About Forest Laboratories and Its Products
Forest Laboratories’ growing line of products includes: Lexapro® (escitalopram oxalate), an SSRI antidepressant indicated for the initial and maintenance treatment of major depressive disorder and for generalized anxiety disorder in adults;
Namenda® (memantine HCl), an N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA)-receptor antagonist indicated for the treatment of
moderate to severe Alzheimer’s disease; Celexa® (citalopram HBr), an antidepressant for adults; Benicar®* (olmesartan
medoxomil), an angiotensin receptor blocker indicated for the treatment of hypertension; Benicar HCT® (olmesartan
medoxomil-hydrochlorothiazide), an angiotensin receptor blocker and diuretic combination product indicated for the
second-line treatment of hypertension; Campral®* (acamprosate calcium), a glutamate receptor modulator, indicated
for the maintenance of abstinence from alcohol in patients with alcohol dependence who are abstinent at treatment
initiation in combination with psychosocial support; and COMBUNOX™ (Oxycodone HCl and Ibuprofen) an opioid
and NSAID combination indicated for the short-term management of acute, moderate to severe pain.
Except for the historical information contained herein, this release contains “forward-looking statements” within the meaning
of the Private Securities Reform Act of 1995. These statements are subject to risks and uncertainties that affect our business,
including risk factors listed from time to time in the Company’s SEC reports, including the Company’s Annual Report on Form
10-K for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2005.
* Benicar is a registered trademark of Sankyo Pharma, Inc., and Campral™ is a registered trademark under license from Merck Santé s.a.s., subsidiary of
Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany.
The gold standard drug testing system –
and the gold standard team behind it
Meet the Syva Ensemble
Gold standard assays
Fast, accurate drugs-of-abuse tests that have been trusted for over 30 years.
Gold standard instruments
A comprehensive menu of instrumented tests with a wide selection
of low– and high–volume platforms and point–of–care products.
The single source for all your drug testing needs.
Gold standard team commitment
An expert team of specialists dedicated to providing customized support, 24/7.
To find out more about the Syva Ensemble, contact your Syva representative,
call 1 800 242 DADE (3233), option 3,3 or visit www.dadebehring.com.
SMARTesting™ Case Study: Butler County,
Ohio Common Pleas Court
By Jacquie Sheehey
In a recent case study of the Butler County,
Ohio Common Pleas Court, SMARTesting™
reduced drug the court’s drug testing costs
by 64 percent while enabling them to actually test more offenders.
SMARTesting™ enables courts to develop
the most cost-effective drug testing protocol
without compromising the integrity of
the program. Prior to implementing a
SMARTesting™ program, Ohio’s Butler
County Common Pleas Court routinely tested
with six-panel drug screens. SMARTesting™’s
data management showed Butler County
how to develop a more efficient program—
a five-panel screen on initial intake and
thereafter a three-panel screen based on
positive rates for specific drugs. The result:
SMARTesting™ with Varian was much more
cost-effective.
allows the court to track drug trends and
adjust their program accordingly, generate
random schedules, track test status, notify
officers and judges of results within minutes
(as opposed to hours or days) and notify
officers by e-mail of positive results.
10,817 tests
x $1.00 per drug test
With more offenders to test for drug
abuse—and budgets decreasing—getting a
better return on investment (ROI) with your
drug testing program counts is critical.
SMARTesting™ gives you the tools you
need in three vital areas.
• Run targeted tests. SMARTesting™ ‘s
data management component generates
reports that show you positive rates for
specific drugs in your geographic area.
• Reduce unnecessary testing. With
SMARTesting™, you can tailor testing
to individual offenders’ drugs of choice
thus eliminating tests that are not necessary and increasing testing for those who
need it as a deterrent.
• Cut drug testing costs. Varian’s product
portfolio offers a wide range of testing
products—including multi-drug cups, stiks
and oral fluid devices—that complement
a SMARTesting™ program by enabling
you to select the most cost-effective test
for each situation.
$10,817
3,606 probationers tested
For information on SMARTesting™,
call 1-800-737-9667, ext. 3.
With SMARTesting™, Butler County has been
able to test more offenders while spending
nearly $30,000.00 less. In addition, it
Jacquie Sheehey is Marketing Manager for Varian, Inc.
in Cary, NC.
1st qtr. 2004 (prior to SMARTesting™)
14,345 tests
x $2.80 per drug test
$40,166
2,869 probationers tested
1st qtr. 2005 (SMARTesting™ pilot)
Correction:
The ad for Hythiam, Inc. was inadvertently omitted from the last issue of NADCP News. We regret the error.
3-!24ESTING
!NYTHING ELSE IS TRIAL AND ERROR
7HENPUBLICSAFETYISUNDERYOURINFLUENCETEST3-!24%2
WITH6ARIAN/UR3-!24ESTINGPROGRAMOFFERSINTELLIGENTDATA
MANAGEMENTOFOUTCOMESTHATHELPYOUSELECTTHEMOSTCOST
EFFECTIVETESTFOREACHSITUATION!TTHECOREISSOFTWARETHAT
AUTOMATESTHEGATHERINGANALYZINGMANAGINGANDSHARINGOF
DATA "YCOMBININGTHISPOWERFULTOOLWITH6ARIANSPRODUCTS
THATHAVETHEHIGHESTRATEOFACCURACYINTHEINDUSTRYYOU
WILLREALIZEABETTERRETURNONYOURINVESTMENTANDHELP
ENSUREPUBLICSAFETY
4OLEARNMOREABOUT3-!24ESTING
CALL sss ORVISITOURWEB
SITEAT WWWVARIANONSITECOM
AMMON ANALYTICAL LABORATORY
1622 South Wood Avenue • Linden, New Jersey 07036
Tel: 908 862-4404 • E-mail: [email protected]
AMMON ANALYTICAL LABORATORY
specializes in Analytical Toxicology identifying therapeutic
and abused drugs. We also do clinical work as a service
to our clients, however our primary product is Drug Testing.
Our clients include Substance Abuse Programs, Methadone
Programs, Criminal Justice systems such as probation,
parol and Drug Courts. Our Forensic toxicology license
allows us to perform Work Place testing (non Federal
mandated), and postmortem toxicology for medical
examiners. Our laboratory is an authorized collection
station for the DOT required testing policies. Toxicology
is not a division of our business. It is our business.
Have The Defendants In Your Cour t
Crossed The L ine?
Find Out With
®®
“The First Saliva-Based, Drug & Alcohol Testing System”
•
•
•
•
•
Lab quality results in five minutes
Eliminates adulteration & gender issues
Saliva - ‘blood comparable’
Simultaneously tests for drugs & alcohol
Completely automated collection and testing method
®
®
Inc.
1205 S. Dupont Ave., Ontario, CA 91761
909.418.3000 . fax 909.418.3003
www.LifePointInc.com . [email protected]

nadcp news - DWI Courts

Transcription

Similar documents

GTN Copyright Working Copy.pptx

The Main Sites of Activity During the Rising. The Four

BOCCE BALL COURT

Protecting Fair Courts

Pdf Claudia in Aldiana Alcaidesa 2016 - Ever

South Towne Expo Center Sandy, UT No Sunday Play

PDF

daycare field trips at adversity vbc - Adversity

W oodsmoke Ranch - Enjoy LaSalle County