1. Meeting the Need: Collaborative Justice and Treatment Courts AMERSA 2018 Conference  November 8, 2018

2. San Francisco Drug Court
History
Core Principles of Collaborative Courts
Research
Thank you Lipi for those wonderful introductions. Drug Court is one of the most successful models for both drug treatment and criminal justice diversion. So we’re very pleased to be included in the AMERSA conference to show you who and what we are and how we operate.
We’re going to show you a 5 minute film – CJC – based on geographic area in SF – but give you a look and feel for our DC program.
I will describe history, core principles and provide national and local statistics
Judge Eric Fleming -Legal Issues and legal Incentives, role of the Judge, importance of procedural fairness
Angelica Almeida -Medication Assisted TX and other city resources
 Linda Wu: heads up drug court treatment team, describe services we provide for Drug Court
Charles Houston -describe his experience of  being a former Drug Court participant , why it worked
               

3. History (1970 – 1990) Increased drug use and “war on drugs”
Staggering increases in criminal filings
Under funding of probation – unsupervised cases, inadequate reporting
Led to surge in incarcerated populations
1970s to 1990:
Things were not in good shape
Increase in criminal filings due to harsh sentencing laws (happy that years later that is now changing)
Sentencing laws resulted in a surge in incarceration
Inadequate probation services (community supervision) and treatment services
Simply, the court and city agencies were not prepared

4. History continued
Drug use not identified as concurrent problem to criminal activity
Treatment expensive
High recidivism; called revolving door syndrome
Within the COURT
There was no connection to the individual, addiction and crime that occurred – ALL about the CASE; NOW, all about the CLIENT
And no means within infrastructure to deal with this
Someone arrested who was also an addict might be assessed but months later
Even if the need for treatment was identified, it was rarely affordable
Increasing frustration with standard approaches; Former Chief Justice Judith Kaye from New York “the revolving door syndrome” was coined.
Cultural Trends - Turning
Began to see emphasis of accountability of our public institutions; when there was funding , funding tied to performance measures.
If we were going to start something new, we needed to think about results

5. When did Drug Courts begin?
Miami Dade first Drug Court
Oakland
National Association of Drug Court Professionals (Washington, DC)
1994 Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act – $29 million in drug court funding
Miami Dade: Ten Key Components: Leading components for over 15 years
TEAMS: Court, justice partners (DA-PD) Adult probation and Treatment
Integrate drug tx with the justice system
non adversarial approach (leave your traditional positions behind);
prompt entry into treatment (assessed/two weeks later)
ongoing judicial interaction/ case conferencing (clients return weekly, biweekly, monthly – come less the better they are doing),
ongoing education, and forge partnerships with CBOs
Development of a national organization – funding and refined guidelines NADCP
At the time, former Senator Joe Biden, under President Clinton and Attorney General Janet Reno, introduced the Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act 1994 – now up to $40 million – bipartisan issue

6. Core Principles Clear legal incentives
Judicial supervision (case conferencing)
Multiple “second chances”
Rewards and sanctions
Drug testing
Case management
Collaborative Team approach
Deeper Dive into the Framework of Drug Court : Core program principles
Legal Incentives: HUGE
If successful, reduction of offense/sealing of record; powerful leverage for achieving success. Judge Fleming say more about why we take high risk/high need cases
Judicial Supervision (case conferencing) – so much about what we do is about relationships and these programs are no exception. Team serves as surrogate family; judge as surrogate parent
Multiple second chances (Participants will resist, falter and have set backs and we expect it.) Recovery often includes relapse. Work really hard to hold on to people:
Rewards and Sanctions/ALL ABOUT BEHAVIOR CHANGE:
Rewards Praise from Judge ; Gift Cards; Reduced appearance in court
Negative responses: Admonishment, Essays, Sheriff Work Alternatives; REMAND
Client is assigned to Case Manager – Linda will address case management and how we work

7. Adult Drug Courts No. Drug Courts Institution(s) Crime Reduced
Citation
Mitchell et al. (2012)
U.S.F., G.M.U.
& Penn. State
Rempel et al. (2012)
12% 92
Urban Institute,
CCI & RTI
13% 23
Wilson et al. (2006)
Campbell
Collaborative
Latimer et al. (2006)
14% 55
Canada Dept. of
Justice 9% 66
Shaffer (2010)
NADCP – announced about 8 years ago.
Hands down, these programs work
Compilation of national studies by Doug Marlowe, Chief Researcher for NADCP
University of
Nevada 9% 76
Lowenkamp et al.
(2005)
University of
Cincinnati
Washington State Inst.
for Public Policy 8% 22
Aos et al. (2006) 8% 57

8. Cost Effectiveness Avg. Cost Saving Avg. Benefit Per Per Client
# Drug Courts
Avg. Benefit Per
$1 Invested
Citation
Rossman et al. (2011)
N = 23 (National Sample)
$5,680
$2.00
Bhati et al. (2008)
National Data
$2.21
N/A
Aos et al. (2006)
National Data
$4,767
N/A
Carey et al. (2006)
N = 9 (California)
$3.50
$11,000
N = 5 (Washington State)
Barnoski & Aos
(2003)
$2,888
$1.74

9. San Francisco Drug Court Program
2016 – 2017 Activity Report

10. San Francisco Drug Court Program January 1, 2016 – December 31, 2017
266 clients referred
58 clients graduated
Provide statistical info over a two year period
Clients referred: means that
Referred – one court date – may leave the program early on – stay for a month or leave after one court date
Not a direct ratio....
Core age is years – any earlier, not ready to deal with addiction

11. San Francisco Drug Court Program January 1, 2016 – December 31, 2017
Addiction and Homelessness
37% homeless or unstable housing
Transitional housing options important to us – federal grant

12. San Francisco Drug Court Program January 1, 2016 – December 31, 2017
Tough clients, co-occurring; meth use making it more difficult ; more violent
Generally 20% graduate
As many are court terminated or self terminated
*Unduplicated clients

13. San Francisco Drug Court Program
Meth over Heroin now

14. Collaborative Courts in San Francisco (Adult)
Adult Drug Court (1995)
Behavioral Health Court (2003)
Community Justice Center (2009)
Family Treatment Court (2007)
Intensive Supervision Court (2010)
Parole Revocation Court/Calendar (2015)
Veterans Justice Court (2013)
Young Adult Court (2015)
Drug Court was the first of San Francisco’s 9 programs, with the Veterans Justice Court and the Young Adult Court being the court’s most recent programs – model is the same but the target population differs
Now follow national standards that include specialized treatment curricula, drug testing procedures, behavioral accountability protocols, and new approaches to community supervision.

15. Contact Information
Lisa Lightman
Director, San Francisco Collaborative Courts
San Francisco Superior Court
phone