Michigans Problem-Solving Courts

SOLVING PROBLEMS

SAVING L IVES

Michigan Supreme Court

ii

Table of Contents

Message from the Michigan Supreme Court...iii Background: Treatment Courts Save Lives and Strengthen Michigan Communities...iv Problems Solved: Graduates Share Their Stories..viii Meet the Supreme Courts Problem-Solving Court Team..xiv Technical Analysis - Michigan Problem-Solving Courts: Performance & Outcomes 2013-2014p. 1 Michigans Problem-Solving & Other Non-traditional Courts..p. 53

Cover photos: (left) The first graduates of the 29th District Mental Health Treatment Court celebrate their accomplishment on February 25, 2015. Judge Laura Mack (not pictured), Chief Judge of the 29th District Court in Wayne, presided over the ceremony. (center) Diplomas await graduates of the Washtenaw County Veterans Recovery Court in Ann Arbor. (right) Pictured after the Washtenaw County Veterans Recovery Court graduation on April 1, 2015, are (l to r): Veterans Recovery Court Coordinator Darius Robinson; 15th District Court Judge Christopher Easthope, who presided over the ceremony; U.S. Navy Capt. Joseph Evans, graduation speaker; and Washtenaw County Sheriff s Department Lt. Eric Kunath.

iii

Message from the Michigan Supreme Court

Solving Problems, Saving Lives is more than a report about how Michigans 164 problem-solving and other non-traditional courts are succeeding in reducing crime, saving money, improving the quality of life and strengthening communities. Solving Problems, Saving Lives tells the stories of dedicated judges, court staff, prosecutors, law enforcement personnel and treatment professionals, working together, case by case, to make a positive difference in the lives of participants. Thanks to the hard work of our drug, sobriety, mental health, veterans treatment and other problem-solving courts, these stories have happy endings. But make no mistake; graduating from a problem-solving court is not easy. Getting to that happy ending involves intense supervision, drug testing, treatment, rehab sessions, many judicial status hearings, and other commitments that must be met to avoid sanctions. While the success stories in this report are compelling, our view that problem-solving courts are amazingly successful is based on data that show us participants have

much better outcomes than nonparticipants with similar backgrounds. Specifically, in virtually every type of court, participants are convicted of another crime at rates 25 percent to 75 percent lower than the control group. In addition, we are especially proud that Michigan is leading the nation in the number of veterans treatment courts. Our 22 courts are helping veterans get needed treatment and are making sure their service to our country is not forgotten. We can also measure the success of Michigans problem-solving courts in dollars and cents. Drug and mental health courts alone handled more than

10,000 cases over the past two years. In a state of ten million people, that might sound small, but consider this fact: A conservative estimate of the cost to incarcerate an offender in prison for one day is about $66. So, avoiding incarceration for those 10,000 participants saved taxpayers $66 per day. That means taxpayers are saving millions each year. What do these numbers mean to communities and families all across Michigan? Communities are safer and stronger. The quality of life is better, not just for participants but for all families. And most important: lives are being saved. These positive results, backed up by data, give us confidence to report to the people of Michigan that problem-solving courts are saving lives and strengthening communities all across our state.

Chief Justice Robert P. Young, Jr.

Justice Mary Beth Kelly MSC liaison to problem-

solving courts

These positive results,

backed up by data, give us confidence to report to the

people of Michigan that problem-solving courts are saving lives and strengthen-ing communities all across

our state.

iv

Background

Treatment Courts Save Lives and Strengthen Michigan Communities There is a solution to every problem. The hard part is finding that solution, especially for people confronting substance abuse or mental illness. All too often, those challenges lead to frequent interaction with Michigans criminal justice system without any attempt to treat the underlying cause. To address these underlying causes of crime, Michigan has 164 problem-solving and other non-traditional courts that help specific offenders get needed treatment under strictly supervised conditions with frequent drug tests and judicial status hearings. What are problem-solving courts? Problem-solving courts are non-traditional courts that focus on nonviolent offenders whose underlying medical and social problems (ranging from drug addiction to post traumatic stress disorder) have

contributed to recurring contacts with the criminal justice system. According to the National Center for State Courts, problem-solving courts have become an important feature of the American court landscape during the last decade, and Michigan is leading the way. Judges statewide have embraced the concept and now lead drug, sobriety, veterans, and mental health courts that are accessible to 97 percent of the state population.

How do these courts work? Problem-solving courts take a collaborative approach that seeks

Michigans 164 operational drug,

sobriety, veter-ans, and mental health courts are accessible to 97%

of the state

DRUG COURTS: Two years after admission to any type of drug court, graduates were 56% less likely to be convicted of any new offense.

v

Background

to reduce the chance participants will reoffend and improve outcomes for individuals, families, and communities. The key is leadership provided by judges statewide who volunteer to lead these courts, access needed resources, closely monitor and supervise participants, and foster the teamwork needed to tackle specific challenges. Offenders selected for participation are diverted from incarceration into treatment programs with the tight supervision they need to stay out of trouble. In addition, the administrative arm of the Michigan Supreme Courtthe State Court Administrative Office (SCAO)helps trial courts to facilitate efficient and comprehensive problem-solving court programs by providing training, education, planning, evaluation, monitoring, technical assistance, establishing operational standards and guidelines, and funding opportunities. Measuring Success The Supreme Court is committed to measuring court performance in order to

improve outcomes and service to the public. To that end, SCAO has compiled a Technical Analysis that provides data illustrating the success of these courts. Findings show that graduates of drug, sobriety, and mental health treatment courts are substantially less likely to commit another crime. Avoiding incarceration also generates substantial savings for taxpayers and participants improve their employment status. For example, the analysis shows that two years after admission to any type of drug court, graduates were 56 percent less likely to be convicted of any new offense.

DRUG COURTS: 97% of juvenile drug court participants improved their education level.

(continued)

Judges want to be able to participate in

the transformation to sober that individuals in courts achieve, and, in my

case, the successful reunification of families. As a family court judge, I see the awful effects on families that substance

abuse has, and it lasts through generations. Being part of the

successful transformation is the most rewarding part of the job.

-Hon. Susan L. Dobrich, Cass County Probate-

Family Court Judge & President, Michigan Association of Treatment Court Professionals

vi

Background

Other highlights:

50 percent of participants in drug courts improved their employment status.

Participants in mental health courts were 63 percent less likely to be convicted of any new offense after two years.

Participants in sobriety courts and adult district drug courts were 75 percent less likely to be convicted of any new offense after two years.

97 percent of juvenile drug court participants improved their education level.

98 percent of mental health court graduates improved their mental health.

During the two-year period covered in the Analysis, Michigan drug courts handled 9,154 cases while there were 1,059 participants in mental health courts. Operational veterans treatment courts doubled from eight programs in FY 2013 to 16 in FY 2014. Currently, Michigan leads the nation in the number of veterans courts with 22. For more information about problem-solving courts, visit www.courts.mi.gov/psc.

MENTAL HEALTH COURT PERFORMANCE OUTCOMES: 98 percent of mental health court graduates improved their mental health.

COST SAVINGS OF PROBLEM-SOLVING COURTS According to research conducted on six different programs, for every $1 invested in drug treatment court there was an average benefit of $2.21 to $6.32, and an average cost savings per defendant of $2,615 to $12,218. (Source: Aos et al. (2006); Barnoski & Aos (2003); Bhati et al. (2008); Carey et al. (2006); Finigan et al. (2007); & Loman (2004).

http://www.courts.mi.gov/psc

vii

Judges

Judges on the Importance of Problem-Solving Courts: I have operated an OWI sobriety court since 2007, and a veterans treatment court since 2009, and have experienced up close and personally the efficacy of problem-solving courts. Problem-solving courts are a win-win proposition. Individual defendants win because they are given a real opportunity to change their lives forever. Society and taxpayers win because the cost of operation of a problem-solving court is far less than the long term incarceration, AND the rehabilitated individual is far less likely to commit future crimes. -Hon. Raymond P. Voet, 64A District Court Judge, Ionia County "All too often, judges see members from multiple generations of the same family, become defendants due to addiction. Our treatment courts' proven ability to break this cycle of addiction, may, at the end of the day, be those courts greatest contribution to their respective communities." -Hon. Geno Salomone, 23rd District Court Judge, Wayne County If we are to have any hope of actually doing something about the problem of addiction, we must, to the extent possible, follow evidence-based practices, with the assistance, and perhaps direction, of qualified addiction professionals. You are not going to cure an addict by incarceration, and the problem-solving courts deal with this issue in a rational manner. The model should be followed by every court in the country. -Hon. Mark A. Wisti, 97th District Court Judge, Houghton County At the time I took the bench, Gratiot County did not have any problem-solving courts. We have now regionalized our program from just Gratiot County into the Mid-Michigan Regional Sobriety Court program serving Gratiot, Clinton and Montcalm counties. I am a firm believer in the treatment court model. As a judge, it has been an honor to work with our participants in their commitment to recovery. This work is vitally important and has truly been an enriching and rewarding professional and personal experience for me in my tenure on the bench. -Hon. Stewart D. McDonald, 65B District Court Judge, Gratiot County

Michigan Counties with

Problem-Solving Courts

viii

Problems Solved

Graduates Share Their Stories about How Problem-Solving Courts Worked for Them & Their Families Hero. Its a small word that often conjures larger-than-life images. Perhaps of a soldier battling a fierce enemy or firefighter rescuing a child from a burning home. But you might not know that we have everyday heroes around the state who have fought very different kinds of battles. As graduates of various problem-solving courts, the five people featured here have not only worked hard to save their own lives, but they are giving hope and strength to others who are struggling with the same battles by sharing their stories, speaking out, and, in some cases, volunteering and working in the very treatment courts that helped them. Stacy Salon Sobriety Court Graduate At age 35, Stacy Salon went to her physician for treatment of chronic pain resulting from a years-old shoulder injury. He prescribed her a narcotic pain medication and sent her on her way. I kept taking more and more pills as my pain increased, and within a year, got up to 30 pills a day, she says. Salon describes feeling emotionally numb to her three children and her husband at that time, and became physically ill if she stopped taking her meds. When her physician would no longer write prescriptions for her, she forged prescriptions for about six months until one pharmacist became suspicious. After learning of a bench warrant for her arrest, the college-educated dentists wife turned herself in and was charged with three counts of felony prescription fraud. Salon was sentenced to two years in the local sobriety court because there was no drug court in the area at that timeand became the courts first drug court participant.

ix

Problems Solved

She admits feeling terrible shame about her addiction before beginning her treatment at Munson Medical Center in Traverse City. I was a straight-A student, didnt drink or do drugs. I walked a straight path before this, she explains. There is so much shame and isolation with addiction. After completing her sobriety court program, she took 40 hours of training to become a volunteer recovery coach at Munsons Drug Alcohol Treatment Center. If I can save one person from doing what I did, its worth it, she explains. When I was sentenced to sobriety court, it changed me, Salon shares. I love myself today, I have faith in myself, I know how unbelievably strong I am today. And I dont know how Id have gotten there without Munson, and all the things I had to do for sobriety court. Its been such a journeyother than being arrested, I wouldnt change any of it. Earl Gunny Christensen Veterans Treatment Court Graduate On July 3, 2012, Earl Gunny Christensen began his day by drinking alcohol at the VFW Hall in Lansing. After drinking and socializing at the VFW, Christensen drove to several other local bars throughout the day. According to Christensen, he consumed approximately 20 whiskey drinks between the hours of noon and 10:00 p.m. that day. The police were called when a witness observed Christensen's vehicle strike a vehicle in the parking lot of one of those bars. According to the police report, he was eventually arrested at home for Operating While Intoxicated, after registering a .218 on the officers preliminary breath test machine. According to Christensen, the day of the incident was particularly difficult for him due to Fourth of July fireworks.

I wanted to show people

that this happens to all kinds of peoplecollege degree or not, wealthy or

not. It can happen to anyone.

(continued)

x

Problems Solved

They sounded like incoming enemy fire, he recalls. A decorated retired United States Marine who was honorably discharged in 1988,

Christensen earned the rank of E-7 Gunnery Sergeant, and had served his country for 24 years. With two tours in Vietnam under his belt, he served along the 17th Parallel, also known as the Demilitarized Zone in Vietnam. After his military career, he took a position with the Unites States Postal Service, retiring in 2007. On July 3, 2012, Christensen was arrested and later charged in the Ingham County Veterans Treatment Court (ICVTC) with operating a motor vehicle with a bodily alcohol content of .17 or more. He was ordered to complete an 18-month term of probation under the ICVTC. He was also connected with the Battle Creek VA for substance abuse treatment and treatment for post-traumatic stress

disorder (PTSD). He was diagnosed with small cell lung cancer shortly before entering the ICVTC, but eventually his cancer went into full remission. Christensen graduated ICVTC on March 24, 2014, and is now a mentor in the program. He worked for over one year to start a veteran-specific AA program. The National Council on Alcoholism in Lansing even donated a room at its facility for the meetings. He reports that he has maintained sobriety for 852 consecutive days and has no plans to ever return to drinking alcohol. I am where I am today because of the Veterans Court and AA and the programs that I never knew were available before. That is why I am gung-ho to help and Ill do anything I can to help the court, he explains. The turnaround in my life is a total miracle and I have nothing but gratitude for the Court and what it has done for me and allowed me to do for myself. More important than my military career is the help I received from the ICVTC to live a good, clean, honest life, and that is the miracle that has happened to me.

Christensen (l) with MSC Chief Justice Robert P. Young, Jr. at a Veterans Treatment Court Forum in November.

xi

Problems Solved

Rex Ross Mental Health Court Graduate As shared on Rexs behalf by Judge Sterling Schrock [Berrien County Trial Court]: Rex Ross suffered from PTSD, agoraphobia, and panic disorder all associated with a traumatic life experiencethe kidnapping and brutalization of his then 10-year-old daughter over a period of eight hours before rescue.

During the years following this event, Rex had several contacts with the criminal justice system, although his conditions didnt become disabling until a triggering event 15 years later. That same daughternow married and the mother of an infantexperienced her child being taken by her disgruntled husband during a difficult divorce. Rex relived the abduction of his own child, resulting in his conviction for felony assault against his son-in-law.

Fortunately, Rex agreed to participate in mental health court as part of his sentence. He attributes the special attention he received from his agent Stephen Church, the mental health professionals treating him, and regular review hearings with the court for keeping him on track to complete his probationary sentence and recover and reintegrate successfully into society.

When he began the process, he could be found sitting with his head down, rocking back and forth, muttering to himself, wringing his hands and visibly shaking. He complained of hearing voices and seldom, if ever, left his house, except to meet his court obligations.

During the 18-month process, he slowly improved, became more social, less paranoid, less shaky. No longer isolating himself, he re-established family relationships that were damaged by his behaviors while acutely ill.

He spoke at his graduation not just of his pride for his own success, but also with a lot of gratitude for the opportunity and encouragement for the other participants who were present. He continues to be a productive member of our community who has remained healthy and crime free.

Ross (center) with Chief Judge Alfred Butzbaugh (left) and Mental Health Court Judge Schrock (right).

xii

Problems Solved

Kristen Quinn Sobriety Court Graduate Shared in her own words: For years I joked about how I was a successful, functional

alcoholic. I know today that although I would say this just to be funny, there was a small part of me that thought it might be true. At a minimum, I knew that I abused alcohol every time I drank. But because I maintained a job and kept my bills paid, I wasnt able to see that alcoholism was slowly consuming my life. Even the consequences of multiple DUIs and a probation violation didnt corroborate it for me. It wasnt until I was about three months into sobriety court [52-1 District Court, Oakland County] that I realized that I was, in fact, a real alcoholic. Once I was willing and able to surrender to this truth and work the program of Alcoholics Anonymous as if my life depended on it (which it did), my life became manageable and even enjoyable. The incredibly challenging regimen of

sobriety court held me accountable and made sure I attended meetings until I was ready to do it on my own. As a result of sobriety court and my participation in AA, I am now a Group Service Representative of my home group: Monday Maintenance. I continue to sponsor newcomers to the program of Alcoholics Anonymous and guide them through the lifesaving 12 Steps of AA. But most importantly, I now have a personal relationship with God and strive to abide by His will each day. I have ceased fighting everything and everyone, and simply live my life on lifes terms one day at a time. I often tell people that I cant imagine how bad my life would have gotten had I not been forced into the program of AA by sobriety court. Left to my own devices, I probably would have continued drinking until I lost everything including my freedom. I am truly grateful for the rigorous program offered in sobriety court because it saved me years of pain and suffering, and led me to the solution.

Because I was actually treated as someone with a disease rather than a pari-ah of society, I was willing to accept all of the tools

offered me.

xiii

Problems Solved

David Pianki Expected May 2015 Drug Court Graduate: Shared in his own words: Eighteen months ago I would have never imagined saying this, but opiate court saved my life. Prior to getting my last charge, I had lost all hope, as well as my familys trust. I no longer liked my life; in fact, I hated it. I was 240 lbs., extremely unhealthy, and I was so miserable that I was ready to do whatever I needed to do to feel different. Thats where [52-1 Dis-trict Court, Oakland County] opiate court came in. The program required me to attend AA meetings every day and drug test every day, which gave me good mo-tivation not to use or drink. Since I had to go anyway, I decided I would try to make the best out of the AA meetings I was attending. I saw no reason not to; I was desperate and nothing else had worked. I also decided to start exercising and began running three miles a day. That later became much morerunning became a stress outlet for me. After a little while of attending meetings every day, people began to reach out to me, and I start-ed to make some good friends. One of these friends became my sponsor, and thats where things really started change in a positive way. As opiate court conditions reduced, I felt better and better about myself. I realized I had finally gained things in my life that I did not want to lose. Now I have been clean and sober for 17 months. I went from 240 lbs. down to 170 lbs., and run at least 30 miles a week, along with 12 hours of gym time a week. My family trusts me, and I spend a lot of time with them. I have money in the bank and have goals in my life. I have a beautiful girlfriend and baby daughter that I am going to be a great dad to. I am back in school for physical therapy, and just finished my first semester with As and Bs. I can honestly say I would have none of these things in my life if it werent for the conditions set by the opiate court. Opiate court truly saved my life and allowed me to be a happy person, and I am very grateful.

I completely immersed myself in the fellowship, and the work of the program. I was working on myself with the help of

other people.

xiv

Michigan Supreme Court Problem-Solving Courts Team

The State Court Administrative Office (SCAO) provides a variety of services and resources to the 244 trial courts in Michigan through its Trial Court Services division. This division includes a team of experts that are able to assist with the operational and management functions of problem-solving and other non-traditional courts to improve their performance by providing the training, education, planning, evaluation, monitoring, technical assistance, establishing operational standards and guidelines, and funding opportunities the courts need to efficiently and effectively serve the public. Meet the SCAO Problem-Solving Court Team: Jessica Parks parksj@courts.mi.gov Jessica Parks, PhD, is the Deputy Director of Trial Court Services for the State Court Administrative Office. She manages the problem-solving courts team, drafts internal policy, procedures, and manuals, and manages special projects. Previously, Jessica was the Problem-Solving Courts Manager and a Management Analyst, also at the State Court Administrative Office. Prior to joining the Michigan Supreme Court, Jessica was a professor of psychology at Kalamazoo College and at Kent State University in Kent, Ohio, where she taught classes in psychology and law, general psychology, and cognition. Jessica has a doctoral degree and masters degree from Kent State University and a bachelors degree from Hope College. Lauren Fetner fetnerl@courts.mi.gov Lauren Fetner is a Management Analyst with the Michigan Supreme Court - State Court Administrative Office. She currently works with the Regional DWI Courts, the Urban Drug Court Initiative, and Veterans Treatment Courts. She also oversees the states problem-solving court grant management system, WebGrants. Previously, Lauren worked for the Livingston County Specialty Courts in Howell. Lauren has a Bachelor of Science degree in Human Resources Management from Oakland University. Dian Gonyea gonyead@courts.mi.gov Dian Gonyea is a Management Analyst with the Problem-Solving Courts team in the Trial Court Services division of the State Court Administrative Office. Upon completing her Master of Science degree in Criminal Justice at Michigan State University, she worked as a senior data analyst for a survey research company for five years while volunteering at the 23rd District Court as Probation Officer. She accepted a full-time position at the 23rd District Court in 2009 as Drug Court Probation Officer and served two years under Judge

xv

Geno Salomone as a member of his drug court team. She was also a member of the Drug Court Case Management Information System (DCCMIS) Users Committee and now trains teams on the application of the Drug Court Analysis System. Her current responsibilities as an analyst include writing the annual report to Michigans legislature on the performances of drug courts, mental health courts, and other problem-solving courts, and assisting teams in evaluating their programs. Dana Graham grahamd@courts.mi.gov Dana Graham is a Management Analyst with the Michigan Supreme Court State Court Administrative Office. She administers the Michigan Drug Court Grant Program and Michigan Veterans Treatment Court Grant Program. She also oversees the states drug court data system the DCCMIS. Prior to beginning work with problem-solving courts, Dana was a law clerk at the Supreme Courts Friend of the Court Bureau and worked in communications for the Michigan Department of Information Technology. Dana graduated from Michigan State Universitys James Madison College and Thomas M. Cooley Law School. Carol Knudsen knudsenc@courts.mi.gov Carol Knudsen is a native of Traverse City, and has lived in the East Lansing area since 1993. Before moving to Lansing area, Carol was employed by the Grand Traverse Department of Social Services. After relocating to East Lansing, Carol worked for Governor John Engler. Carol has been employed by the State Court Administrative Office for 17 years. In 2004, Carol joined the Problem-Solving Court team, where she is an Administrative Assistant. Carol has an Associate in Applied Science Degree from Northwestern Michigan College. Michele Muscat muscatm@courts.mi.gov Michele Muscat is a Management Analyst within the Michigan Supreme Court State Court Administrative Office. She currently works with the Regional DWI Courts, the Urban Drug Court Initiative (UDCI), and the analytics in the Drug Court Analytic System. Previously, Michele worked for the 47th District Court in Farmington Hills, where she was a probation officer and handled a regular caseload as well as a caseload of sobriety court participants. Michele has a Bachelor of Science degree in Criminal Justice from Madonna University and a Masters Degree in Public Administration from Oakland University.

Michigan Supreme Court Problem-Solving Courts Team

(continued)

Michigan Supreme Court Problem-Solving Courts Team

Thomas Myers myerst@courts.mi.gov Thomas Myers is a Management Analyst in the State Court Administrative Office at the Michigan Supreme Court. He administers the Swift & Sure Sanctions Probation Pro-gram and the Office of Highway Safety Planning grant program. He also oversees the Ignition Interlock program. Before joining the Michigan Supreme Court, Thomas was a Judicial Law Clerk for Judge Daniel P. Ryan at the 3rd Circuit Court, and he worked in the private sector in the financial services industry. He is also a Research and Editing Assistant for Professor Joseph Kimble. Thomas graduated from Illinois State University and Western Michigan University Cooley Law School. Marie Pappas pappasm@courts.mi.gov Marie Pappas is a Management Analyst for the Michigan Supreme CourtState Court Administrative Office. She received her B.A. from Sienna Heights College. She has worked in New Jersey in the State prison system on orientation and intake for new in-mates, and the prisons work release program. Back in Michigan, she was employed by Clinton, Ingham, and Eaton County Community Mental Health, assigned to the Ingham County Jail, assessing mentally ill offenders for appropriate housing and services while providing substance abuse counseling for sentenced offenders. Marie subsequently worked as a probation officer with Shiawassee County District Court. Marie has been with SCAO since April of 2012, and her duties include monitoring grant funding and technical assistance for the Michigan Mental Health Court Grant Program along with the federally funded Byrne JAG drug court programs.

Michigan Problem-Solving Courts Performance and Outcomes

2014

Project Years

October 1, 2012 September 30, 2014

Provided by the

Michigan Supreme Court State Court Administrative Office

2

Executive Summary

Problem-solving courts are exactly that innovative courts designed to address the underlying problem that has resulted in an offender entering the criminal justice system. These problems range from drug and alcohol abuse to mental illnesses and include the unique challenges faced by military veterans. Trial judges throughout Michigan have stepped up to lead these courts and divert offenders into special programs designed to provide the treatment and supervision needed to solve the problem and help offenders stay out of trouble. Trial Court Services staff at the State Court Administrative Office (SCAO) support problem-solving courts by establishing operational standards and guidelines, and through training, evaluation, monitoring, and other assistance. Between October 1, 2012, and September 30, 2014, Michigan drug courts handled 9,154 cases. Of active cases, nearly half were in a sobriety court program and more than one-quarter were in an adult circuit court drug program, with the balance either in an adult district court, juvenile, or family dependency program. Adult participants used a wide variety of drugs, including heroin and methamphetamine, while 87 percent of juvenile participants identified marijuana as their drug of choice.

During the period, there were 1,059 participants in mental health courts. Of those, 53 percent entered with a misdemeanor charge and 46 percent entered with a felony charge. Of particular note was the finding that two-thirds of participants entering with a felony charge also had a co-occurring substance use disorder.

Measuring performance of trial courts in order to help them improve outcomes is a top priority of Michigans judiciary. As reflected in this report, the success of Michigans problem-solving courts in reducing recidivism is a notable achievement. For example,

Two years after admission to any type of drug court, graduates had less than half the recidivism rate for an alcohol or drug offense of comparison group members.

After two years, adult district court participants had recidivism rates for alcohol or drug offenses that were more than four times lower than their comparison counterpart, and sobriety court participants had recidivism rates that were more than three times lower than their comparison counterparts for alcohol or drug offenses.

Mental health court graduates had nearly three times lower recidivism rates than the comparison group members when evaluated after two years of admission into a program. Further results showed that lower recidivism rates among mental health court participants were still statistically significantly different even after five years of admission to mental health court programs. Moreover, virtually all participants improved their mental health and quality of life, and more than one-third improved their employment status.

In Michigan, operational veterans treatment courts doubled from eight programs in fiscal year 2013 to 16 in fiscal year 2014. These courts promote sobriety, recovery, and stability through a coordinated response, involving collaboration with drug and mental health courts, the Department of Veterans Affairs, volunteer mentors, and organizations that support veterans and their families.

3

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................................ 2 Overview of Drug Courts in Michigan ................................................................................................................... 4 Drug Courts Performance Outcomes ..................................................................................................................... 5 Drug Court Recidivism Rates - Any New Conviction ........................................................................................... 8 Drug Court Recidivism Rates - Alcohol or Drug Conviction .............................................................................. 10 Drug Courts Caseload Statistics by Court Type .................................................................................................. 12 Overview of Mental Health Courts in Michigan .................................................................................................. 18 Mental Health Courts Performance Outcomes .................................................................................................... 19 Mental Health Court Recidivism Rates ................................................................................................................ 20 Mental Health Courts - Caseload Statistics .......................................................................................................... 22 Michigan Swift and Sure Sanctions Probation Program ...................................................................................... 28 Michigan Veterans Treatment Courts ................................................................................................................... 30 Regionalization ..................................................................................................................................................... 33 Other Types of Problem-Solving Courts in Michigan .......................................................................................... 34 Maps of Michigans Problem-Solving Courts ...................................................................................................... 35 Drug Court Recidivism Methodology .................................................................................................................. 50 Mental Health Court Recidivism Methodology .................................................................................................... 51

4

Overview of Drug Courts in Michigan

Michigan Compiled Laws 600.1060(c) defines a drug treatment court as ". . . a court supervised treatment program for individuals who abuse or are dependent upon any controlled substance or alcohol." These programs offer an alternative to imprisonment for nonviolent criminal offenders with substance use disorders (SUD). To combat offenders cycling in and out of the criminal justice system, problem-solving courts use a specialized therapeutic jurisprudence model designed to treat the SUD underlying the criminal behavior and, therefore, reduce recidivism. Drug courts a subset of problem-solving courts focus on substance use or abuse through treatment, rehabilitation, intensive supervision, frequent judicial status hearings, drug testing, and graduated incentives and sanctions. Drug courts emphasize a holistic and team approach that often includes judges, prosecutors, probation officers, law enforcement personnel, defense counsel, and treatment providers. Drug courts have evolved over time and now include several models to serve specific subsets of the offender population. Although they share the same therapeutic jurisprudence model, each drug court model has program-specific components designed to meet the needs of its target population. Adult drug courts target nonviolent drug-related felony and/or misdemeanor cases and their framework is derived from Defining Drug Courts: The Key Components (Ten Key Components of Drug Courts). Sobriety courts target offenders who have been charged with driving while under the influence of drugs or alcohol and their framework is derived from The Ten Guiding Principles of Sobriety Courts. Juvenile drug treatment courts address the substance abuse of delinquent juveniles and some status offenders (i.e., juveniles deemed to be runaways, incorrigible, or truant). Their framework is derived from Juvenile Drug Court: Strategies in Practice (16 Strategies for Juvenile Drug Treatment Courts). The Tribal Advisory Committee describes its drug courts (tribal drug treatment courts) as Healing to Wellness courts. Lastly, family dependency treatment courts target selected child abuse and neglect cases where parental substance abuse is a primary factor. These programs have offered a solution to the problem of jail overcrowding, as well as to the problem of drug- and alcohol-related crime, and the overall number of drug courts has increased over the past four years.

39 42 43 41

25 29 30

38

14 16 16 17

9 10 10 12

3 3 3 5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014

Num

ber o

f Cou

rts

Michigan Drug Court Types Operational and Planning Courts

Adult Circuit and District Drug Courts

Sobriety Courts

Juvenile DrugTreatment Courts

Family DependencyTreatment Courts

Tribal Healing ToWellness Courts

5

Drug Courts Performance Outcomes

October 1, 2012 September 30, 2014

Several factors can be used to evaluate the success of drug courts, such as the percentage of participants who successfully complete a program, the percentage retained in the program, and whether participants improved their employment status or education level upon graduation. Further, participant abstinence from alcohol and drug use is a goal of all drug court programs and can be measured by the number of consecutive sobriety days graduates achieved. Finally, recidivism rates indicate whether drug courts are effective in reducing crime.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Adult Circuit Adult District FamilyDependency

Juvenile Sobriety

50% 55%

44%

51%

69%

Perc

ent o

f Suc

cess

ful C

ompl

etio

ns

Successful Completions by Court Type

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Adult Circuit Adult District FamilyDependency

Juvenile Sobriety

77% 79%

57%

72%

84%

Perc

ent o

f Par

ticip

ants

Ret

aine

d

Retention Rates by Court Type 12 Months after Admission

Success Rates In fiscal years (FY) 2013 and 2014, there were 3,259 participants who successfully completed a Michigan drug court program. Sobriety courts graduated the highest percentage of participants (69 percent), followed by adult district drug courts (55 percent). Juvenile drug treatment courts and adult circuit drug courts graduated nearly the same percentage (51 and 50 percent, respectively), while family dependency treatment courts graduated 44 percent of their participants.

Retention Rates National studies indicate that participants who stay in treatment longer and complete treatment are less likely to be rearrested for drug-related crimes. Retention rates for participants that were active for at least 12 months were measured. Sobriety courts retained 84 percent of their participants during the first 12 months in the program, adult district and circuit retention rates were 79 and 77 percent respectively, juvenile drug treatment courts retained 72 percent, and family dependency treatment courts retained 57 percent.

6

One goal of drug courts is to help participants become productive and contributing citizens in our society. Programs offer a wide variety of services that assist participants in attaining their GED or high school diploma, and to become gainfully employed. Participant needs, however, vary across drug court types. For example, sobriety court participants necessitated the least amount of education services because most had earned a high school diploma/GED or attended higher education prior to program entry. Similarly, sobriety court participants were often gainfully employed upon admission to a program. Thus, improvement rates in education level and employment status can be reflective of the participants needs upon admission.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Adult Circuit Adult District FamilyDependency

Juvenile Sobriety

21% 22% 18%

97%

15%

Perc

ent o

f Gra

duat

es

Improved Education Level by Court Type

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Adult Circuit Adult District FamilyDependency

Juvenile Sobriety

60% 56%

52% 52%

44%

Perc

ent o

f Gra

duat

es

Improved Employment Status by Court Type

Improved Educational Level Juvenile drug treatment courts had the highest percentage of graduates (97 percent) who improved their education level, suggesting they had progressed to the next grade. Adult district drug courts had the next highest percentage (22 percent), followed by adult circuit drug courts (21 percent). Family dependency treatment courts saw a notable decline from the last report in the number of graduates that improved their education level. However, this may be due to an increased number of participants with a higher level of education upon entry compared to the last report. Fifteen percent of sobriety court graduates had improved their level of education while in a program.

Improved Employment Status Overall, 50 percent of participants improved their employment status upon graduation. Adult circuit drug courts saw the highest improvement rate in employment status (60 percent), while adult district drug courts saw 56 percent of their participants improve their employment status before graduation. Family dependency and juvenile drug treatment court graduates both saw a 52 percent increase in employment status.

7

Another goal of drug court programs is to establish abstinence from alcohol and drug use among the participant population. The number of sobriety days a participant reached upon discharge is calculated using the participants date of admission and substance abuse testing results. If a participant had no positive substance abuse tests, sobriety days equal the number of days from the date of the participants admission to the date of the participants discharge. However, if a participant tested positive for alcohol or drugs, the number of sobriety days is counted from the date immediately following the positive result.

Graduates in adult circuit drug courts saw the highest number of consecutive sobriety days among the five court types, averaging 385 days upon graduation. Sobriety court graduates saw the next highest number of sobriety days, 367, followed by adult district courts, 348 days. Family dependency treatment court programs and juvenile drug treatment court programs are generally shorter in duration, and thus, graduates may have a lower number of consecutive sobriety days achieved at graduation.

0

100

200

300

400

500

Adult Circuit Adult District FamilyDependency

Juvenile Sobriety

385

348

241

189

367

Aver

age

Num

ber o

f Sob

riety

Day

s

Consecutive Sobriety Days by Court Type

8

Drug Court Recidivism Rates - Any New Conviction

Please refer to page 50 at the end of this report for a description of the drug court recidivism methodology.

Two years after admission to any type of drug court, drug court graduates had less than half the recidivism rate of comparison group members and this difference was statistically significant.1 The differences in recidivism rates were statistically significant for each court type.

Adult district drug court graduates recidivism rates were also four times lower than their comparison group members.2

Sobriety court participants had recidivism rates four times lower than their comparison counterparts.3

Adult circuit drug court graduates recidivism rates were half of their comparison group members.4 Juvenile drug court graduates recidivism rates were lower than their comparison group members

recidivism rates by seven percentage points.5

1 t (1, 5,459) = 15.306, p < 0.001 2 t (1, 353) = 5.470, p < 0.001 3 t (1, 3,171) = 13.180, p < 0.001 4 t (1, 1,382) = 7.432, p < 0.001 5 t (1, 550) = 2.777, p < 0.05

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

All Courts Adult Circuit Adult District Sobriety Juvenile

7% 9%

4% 3%

23%

16% 18%

16%

12%

30%

Perc

ent C

onvi

cted

With

in T

wo

Year

s Any New Conviction Within Two Years of Admission

Drug Court Graduates Comparison Members

9

Any New Conviction

Four years after admission to any type of drug court, drug court graduates had a recidivism rate of 16

percent, while the comparison group members recidivism rate was 23 percent, and this difference was statistically significant.6 The differences in recidivism rates were statistically significant for adult circuit, adult district, and sobriety courts.

Sobriety court participants had recidivism rates almost half of their comparison counterparts.7

Adult district drug court graduates recidivism rates were seven percentage points lower than their comparison group members.8

Adult circuit drug court graduates recidivism rates were six percentage points lower than their comparison group members.9

Juvenile drug court graduates recidivism rates were equal to their comparison group members recidivism rates.10

6 t (1, 4,055) = 8.261, p < 0.001 7 t (1, 2,336 ) = 8.490, p < 0.001 8 t (1, 248) = 2.307, p < 0.05 9 t (1, 1,043) = 3.441, p < 0.005 10 t (1, 425) = .000, p > .05

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

All Courts Adult Circuit Adult District Sobriety Juvenile

16%

22%

11% 10%

42%

23%

28%

18% 18%

42% Pe

rcen

t Con

vict

ed W

ithin

Fou

r Yea

rs

Any New Conviction Within Four Years of Admission

Drug Court Graduates Comparison Members

10

Drug Court Recidivism Rates - Alcohol or Drug Conviction

Two years after admission to any type of drug court, drug court graduates had less than half the recidivism rate for an alcohol or drug offense than that of their comparison group members and this difference was statistically significant.11 The differences in recidivism rates for each court type were statistically significant for adult circuit, adult district, and sobriety courts.

Adult district drug court graduates recidivism rates for an alcohol or drug offense were nearly five times lower than their comparison group members.12

Sobriety court participants had recidivism rates for an alcohol or drug offense more than three times lower than their comparison counterparts.13

Adult circuit drug court graduates recidivism rates for an alcohol or drug offense were more than two times lower than their comparison group members.14

Juvenile drug court graduates recidivism rates for an alcohol or drug offense were slightly lower than their comparison group members recidivism rates.15

11 t (1, 5,459) = 13.375, p < 0.001 12 t (1, 353) = 5.462, p < 0.001 13 t (1, 3,171) = 12.450, p < 0.001 14 t (1, 1,382) = 5.870, p < 0.001 15 t (1, 550) = 1.374, p > 0.05

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

All Courts Adult Circuit Adult District Sobriety Juvenile

5% 5%

3% 3%

19%

12% 12%

14%

10%

22%

Perc

ent C

onvi

cted

With

in T

wo

Year

s New Alcohol or Drug Conviction Within Two Years of Admission

Drug Court Graduates Comparison Members

11

Alcohol or Drug Conviction

Four years after admission to any type of drug court, drug court graduates had a recidivism rate for an

alcohol or drug offense of 13 percent, while the comparison group members recidivism rate was 18 percent, and this difference was statistically significant.16 The differences in recidivism rates for each court type were statistically significant for adult circuit, adult district, and sobriety courts also.

Sobriety court graduates recidivism rates for an alcohol or drug offense were nearly half of their comparison counterparts.17

Adult district drug court graduates recidivism rates for an alcohol or drug offense were six percentage points less than their comparison group members.18

Adult circuit drug court graduates recidivism rates for an alcohol or drug offense were four percentage points less than their comparison group members.19

Juvenile drug court graduates recidivism rates for an alcohol or drug offense were higher than their comparison group members recidivism rates.20

16 t (1, 4,055) = 6.476, p < 0.001 17 t (1, 2,336) = 7.179, p < 0.001 18 t (1, 248) = 1.841, p < 0.05 19 t (1, 1,043) = 2.682, p < 0.05 20 t (1, 425) = 1.018, p > 0.05

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

All Courts Adult Circuit Adult District Sobriety Juvenile

13% 15%

9% 8%

36%

18% 19%

15% 15%

33%

Perc

ent C

onvi

cted

With

in F

our Y

ears

New Alcohol or Drug Conviction Within Four Years of Admission

Drug Court Graduates Comparison Members

12

Drug Courts Caseload Statistics by Court Type

October 1, 2012 September 30, 2014 Between October 1, 2012, and September 30, 2014, Michigan drug courts handled a total of 9,154

cases. Of the active cases, 4,535 participants (49 percent) were in a sobriety court program; 2,476 participants (27 percent) were in an adult circuit drug court program; 1,234 participants (14 percent) were in an adult district drug court program; 600 (7 percent) were in a juvenile drug treatment court program; and 309 (3 percent) entered a family dependency treatment court program.

27%

14% 3% 7%

49%

Percentage of Active Cases by Court Type

Adult Circuit Adult District Family Dependency Juvenile Sobriety

13

Gender and Age

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Adult Circuit AdultDistrict

FamilyDependency

Juvenile Sobriety

32% 36%

81%

23% 27%

68% 64%

19%

77% 73%

Perc

ent o

f Act

ive

Part

icip

ants

Gender by Court Type

Females Males

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Adult Circuit AdultDistrict

FamilyDependency

Juvenile Sobriety

33 35 31

15

35

Aver

age

Age

of A

ctiv

e Pa

rtic

ipan

ts

Average Age at Screening by Court Type

Gender Overall, males were more likely to enter a drug court program; however, females were the majority in family dependency treatment courts. Juvenile drug court programs had the highest rate of male participants (77 percent), followed by sobriety courts (73 percent).

Average Age of Participants at Screening

Overall, the average age of participants entering an adult drug court program was 34 years, and the average age of youths entering a juvenile drug court program was 15 years. Sobriety court and adult district drug court participants averaged the oldest age of the adult population (35 years), participants in adult circuit drug courts averaged 33 years of age, and the average age of participants in family dependency treatment courts was 31 years.

14

Ethnicity

The 2013 Michigan Census21 identified 80 percent of Michigan residents as White, 14 percent as Black or African American, 5 percent as Hispanic or Latino, 3 percent as Asian, and less than one percent as Native American. The ethnicity of persons participating in a Michigan drug court during FY 2013 and 2014 are shown below by court type. The majority of participants in all drug court types was White and totaled 80 percent. African American participants totaled 13 percent, and Hispanic/Latino participants totaled 3 percent. The ethnic composition of Michigan drug court participants is similar to Michigans overall population.

. Individual values are rounded and may not total 100 percent. *Asian/Pacific Islander, Multiracial, Native American, and individuals not identifying with any of the above categories are

included in Other.

21 http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/26000.html

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Adult Circuit Adult District FamilyDependency

Juvenile Sobriety

14%

24%

14%

21%

9%

81%

71%

79%

67%

84%

3% 1% 3% 3% 4% 3% 4% 4% 9%

3%

Perc

ent o

f Act

ive

Part

icip

ants

Ethnicity by Court Type

African American White Hispanic/Latino Other*

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/26000.html

15

Employment and Education

Overall, 55 percent of adult participants were either employed part- or full-time when admitted into a program. Not surprisingly, 95 percent of the youths in juvenile drug courts reported that they were either unemployed or not in the labor force.

Individual values are rounded and may not total 100 percent.

The education levels for adults entering drug court programs are shown in the graph below. Youths entering a juvenile drug treatment court program were excluded from the chart, as most youths are in high school during their participation in a program.

Individual values are rounded and may not total 100 percent.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Adult Circuit Adult District FamilyDependency

Juvenile Sobriety

20%

36%

8% 0%

57%

11% 16% 14%

5%

15% 8%

12% 9%

76%

6%

61%

35%

69%

19% 23%

Perc

ent o

f Act

ive

Part

icip

ants

Employment Status at Admission by Court Type

Employed Full > or = 35 Hours Employed Part Time < 35 Hours Not in Labor Force Unemployed

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Adult Circuit Adult District Family Dependency Sobriety

26% 24%

38%

11%

47%

36% 36% 37%

26%

41%

27%

51%

Perc

ent o

f Act

ive

Part

icip

ants

Education Level at Admission by Court Type

12th Grade or Less HS Diploma or GED More Than HS

16

24%

19% 11%

8%

15% 11% 12%

Adult Circuit AlcoholHeroin

Marijuana

Cocaine/Crack

Meth/Amphetamine

Opiate

Other

18%

15% 18%

11%

17% 14% 7%

Family Dependency AlcoholHeroin

Marijuana

Cocaine/Crack

Meth/Amphetamine

Opiate

Other

56%

15%

11%

7% 3% 6% 3% Adult District Alcohol

Heroin

Marijuana

Cocaine/Crack

Meth/Amphetamine

Opiate

Other

86%

2% 6%

2% 4%

Sobriety AlcoholHeroin

Marijuana

Cocaine/Crack

Other

8%

87%

5%

Juvenile

Alcohol

Marijuana

Other

Participant Drug of Choice Active Cases

FY 2013 and FY 2014 Participant drug of choice identified at admission is shown by the court type.

Adult circuit drug courts and family dependency treatment courts had the widest variety of drugs used by their participants. They also had the largest populations of heroin, opiate, and methamphetamine or amphetamine users. More than half of the participants in adult district drug courts identified alcohol as their drug of choice, while 15 percent reported heroin and 11 percent reported marijuana as their drug of choice. Sobriety courts and juvenile drug treatment courts had the smallest variety of drugs used by participants. Sobriety court participants drug of choice was predominately alcohol (86 percent). Some sobriety courts accept participants who are struggling with drug use other than alcohol. The majority of juvenile drug treatment court participants (87 percent) identified marijuana as their drug of choice.

17

Charge Types

Michigans drug courts accept and provide services to persons with nonviolent offenses and persons involved in family division child abuse or neglect petitions. Judges with cross-assignment or courts that have implemented concurrent jurisdiction plans are able to accept offenders not typical to their courts. For example, adult district courts are accepting participants who had been charged with a felony (21 percent). Among the juvenile population, 18 percent entered a program with a felony charge type, and 14 percent of sobriety court participants had a felony charge type.

Charge Type for Active Cases by Court Type

Court Type Felony Misdemeanor Civil/Petition Status/Other

Adult Circuit 98% (N=2,431) 2%

(N=42)

18

Overview of Mental Health Courts in Michigan In FY 2009, eight courts received funding to pilot mental health court programs; in FY 2013, Michigan's

Budget Boilerplate added one court to the pilot project. As a result of the success of the pilot mental health court programs, Michigan's legislature introduced legislation to codify the structure of mental health courts in May 2013 and appropriated funds in the budget to expand the program statewide in FY 2014. The additional funding resulted in the number of mental health programs more than doubling in FY 2014.

The Michigan mental health courts (MHCs) target offenders who have been diagnosed with a serious

mental illness, serious emotional disturbance, or a developmental disability as defined by MCL 333.1100a(25) and 333.1100d(2)(3), and the severe nature of the mental illness or functional impairment must necessitate intensive clinical services. MHCs offer eligible offenders the opportunity to participate in a court-based treatment program to address their mental illness instead of sentencing them to lengthy jail or prison terms. MHCs provide intense judicial oversight, treatment through local community mental health service providers, drug testing when appropriate, referrals to community services such as housing or clothing resources, enrollment in educational classes and certificate programs, transportation assistance, and assistance with obtaining employment. Courts that receive Michigan Mental Health Court Grant Program (MMHCGP) funds from the SCAO collaborate closely with community mental health service providers to ensure that participants have access to a wide range of treatment services.

The SCAO provides access to the web-based Drug Court Case Management Information System (DCCMIS), which was designed to collect mental health court program-related data. Mental health courts funded under the MMHCGP are required to utilize the system. Some programs funded through other means have also chosen to use the DCCMIS to assist with their program evaluation efforts and are included in the overall performance measures and caseload statistics.

8 8 9

19

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014

Num

ber o

f Men

tal H

ealth

Cou

rts

Number of Michigan Mental Health Courts

Mental Health Courts

19

Mental Health Courts Performance Outcomes

October 1, 2012 September 30, 2014

Factors used to evaluate the success of mental health courts include successful completion of the program, improvement in employment or education, improvement in mental health, improvement in quality of life, medication compliance, and reduced criminal recidivism. There were 655 participants discharged from a mental health court during FY 2013 and FY 2014.

*Performance measures include graduates from two juvenile mental health courts (N=45). As the number of juvenile mental health courts and their participants continues to increase, future performance measures may be reported separately for adult and juvenile participants in mental health courts.

48 percent of participants (N=313) successfully completed a mental health court program.

45 percent of graduates had improved their educational level upon graduation.

41 percent of graduates had improved their employment status upon graduation. 98 percent of graduates had improved their mental health.

95 percent of graduates had improved their quality of life.

82 percent of graduates were compliant with their medication(s).

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

SuccessfulCompletions

ImprovedEducation

Level

ImprovedEmployment

Status

ImprovedMentalHealth

ImprovedQuality of

Life

CompliantWith

Medication

48% 45% 41%

98% 95%

82%

Perc

ent o

f Gra

duat

es

Performance Measures for Graduates*

20

Mental Health Court Recidivism Rates Please refer to page 51 at the end of this report for a description of mental health court recidivism

methodology. Recidivism Rates

Several time frames were selected in order to calculate new conviction rates among the two groups. Recidivism rates were calculated at

one-, two-, three-, four-, and five-year periods after the mental health participant was admitted into the program or the comparison group

member was screened and rejected from the drug court program.

Mental health court participants had a lower recidivism rate one year after their admission into a program when compared to the comparison group members. The recidivism rate for the mental health court participants (N = 278) was 7 percent, compared to the recidivism rate for the comparison group (N = 116) at 22 percent. The comparison group had more than three times the recidivism rate of the mental health court participants, and the difference between groups was statistically significant.22

When recidivism rates are compared at the one-year interval, participants of the mental health court programs are often still participating in the program and have not yet graduated. Therefore, the mental

22 t(1,393) = 3.635, p < = 0.001

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

1 Year 2 Years 3 Years 4 Years 5 Years

7%

17%

27%

35% 41%

22%

46%

56%

64% 70%

Perc

ent

Conv

icte

d

Recidivism Rates Mental Health Court Graduates Compared to

Co-Occurring Disordered Standard Probationers

MHC Comp

21

health court participants are under close judicial monitoring, are receiving treatment and medication compliance checks, are being drug tested regularly, and have the support of a team of professionals who are able to assist as problems arise. Recidivism rates calculated at two-, three-, four-, and five-year time intervals are more telling because the participants are no longer under the jurisdiction of the mental health court.

After two years most mental health court participants have been free of the courts jurisdiction for

almost one year. The impact of mental health court continued well beyond program participation. When recidivism rates were calculated after two years the mental health court participants (N = 232) had a recidivism rate of 17 percent, while the comparison group (N = 110) had a 46 percent recidivism rate. This reduced recidivism rate for mental health court participants compared to the comparison group was statistically significant,23 as well.

Recidivism was measured at a three-year time interval. The percentage of mental health court

participants (N = 173) convicted of a new offense was 27 percent, while the percentage of the comparison group members (N = 95) convicted of a new offense was 56 percent. The difference in the recidivism rates among the two groups was statistically significant.24

Recidivism was also measured at a four-year time interval. The percentage of mental health court participants (N = 118) convicted of a new offense was 35 percent, while the percentage of the comparison group members (N = 84) convicted of a new offense was 64 percent. The difference in the recidivism rates among the two groups was statistically significant.25

Lastly, recidivism was measured at a five-year time interval. As Michigans mental health programs are

relatively new, the number of cases eligible for evaluation at this time period is small. However, the results were still significantly different26 in favor of mental health court participants. The percentage of mental health court participants (N = 66) convicted of a new offense was 41 percent, while the percentage of the comparison group members (N = 67) convicted of a new offense was 70 percent.

As more participants graduate from mental health courts the data available for analysis of the

programs effectiveness will grow and provide opportunity for more in-depth analyses and further conclusions. A reduction in recidivism after five years of participating in a program is remarkable. The recidivism rates combined with participants experiencing an improvement in mental health, quality of life, and medication compliance shows that mental health courts are indeed effective.

23 t(1,341) = 5.409, p < = 0.001 24 t(1,267) = 4.659, p < = 0.001 25 t(1,201) = 4.313, p < = 0.001 26 t(1,132) = 3.522, p < = 0.001

22

Mental Health Courts- Caseload Statistics

October 1, 2012 September 30, 2014

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Felony Misdemeanor Other

46%

53%

1%

Perc

ent o

f Act

ive

Part

icip

ants

Active Cases by Charge Type

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Felony Misdemeanor Other

40% 42% 44%

60% 58% 56%

Perc

ent o

f Act

ive

Part

icip

ants

Gender by Charge Type

Female Male

Active Cases The number of active cases during FY 2013 and FY 2014 was 1,059. Of those, more than half (53 percent) had entered the program on a misdemeanor charge, while 46 percent had a felony charge type. The remaining one percent had a civil/petition charge type, a status offense charge type, or some Other charge type, which includes city ordinances.

Gender Overall, males (59 percent) were more likely to enter a mental health court program. Among the felony participants, 60 percent were male; among the misdemeanor participants, 58 percent were male; and 56 percent of participants entering on an Other charge type were male.

23

Ethnicity

African-American participants have slightly more representation in mental health courts than in the general population. The 2013 Michigan Census identified 80

percent of Michigan residents as White, 14 percent as Black or African American, 5 percent as Hispanic or Latino, 3 percent as Asian, and less than one percent as

Native American. Overall, 69 percent of active cases were White, and 26 percent were Black or African American.

Asian/Pacific Islander, Multiracial, Native American, and individuals not identifying with any of the above

categories are included in Other.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Felony Misdemeanor Other

35%

19% 19%

60%

77%

63%

2% 1%

13%

2% 3% 6%

Perc

ent o

f Act

ive

Part

icip

ants

Ethnicity by Charge Type

African American White Hispanic/Latino Other

24

Age and Co-Occurring Substance Use Disorder

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Felony Misdemeanor Other

15 14 14

34 34

42

Aver

age

Age

of A

ctiv

e Pa

rtic

ipan

ts

Average Age of Participants by Charge Type

Juvenile Adult

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Felony Misdemeanor Other

34%

44%

75%

66%

56%

25%

Perc

ent o

f Act

ive

Part

icip

ants

Co-occurring Disorder Diagnosis by Charge Type

Mental Illness Mental Illness and SUD

Average Age at Admission Overall, adult participants averaged 34 years of age when screened for a mental health court program. Among the juvenile mental health courts that had active cases during FY 2013 and FY 2014 the average overall age at screening was 14 years.

Co-Occurring Disorder Every mental health court participant must be diagnosed with a serious mental illness, serious emotional disturbance, or a developmental disability to be eligible for a mental health court program. In addition to a mental illness diagnosis, 60 percent of the participants were diagnosed with a co-occurring substance use disorder (SUD) upon admittance. Felony participants were more likely to deal with co-occurring substance use disorders (66 percent) than participants charged with other types of offenses.

25

Drug of Choice and Diagnoses

Of the 60 percent of active participants that were diagnosed with a co-occurring substance use disorder (N=637), 33 percent identified marijuana as their drug of choice, while 25 percent identified alcohol as their drug of choice. The following chart shows the participants drug of choice by their charge type.

Drug of Choice by Charge Type*

Barbiturates, benzodiazepines, club drugs, hallucinogens, inhalants, sedatives, and hypnotics are included as other drugs. *There was one case where the drug of choice had not been entered.

The most common diagnosis among mental health court participants was a type of bipolar disorder,

accounting for 31 percent of the participants. Also common was a type of depression and a type of schizophrenia. In FY 2013 and FY 2014, mental health court participants were diagnosed with 1 of 65 different DSM mental health disorders. However, three categories of mental illness were most common. A type of bipolar disorder accounted for 31 percent, a type of depression accounted for 21 percent, and a type of schizophrenia accounted for 18 percent of mental health court participant diagnoses. The remaining participants (29 percent) were diagnosed with a variety of mental illnesses, ranging from psychotic disorder to mild or moderate retardation. The following graph illustrates diagnoses by charge type.

Individual values are rounded and may not total 100 percent.

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

Felony Misdemeanor Other

17% 20%

13%

38%

26%

6%

24%

19%

44%

22%

35% 38%

Perc

ent o

f Act

ive

Part

icip

ants

Diagnosis of Participants by Charge Type

Type of Schizophrenia Type of Bipolar Type of Depressive Other

Charge Type Alcohol Marijuana Crack/Cocaine Heroin/Opiate Other

Felony 16% (N=52) 25%

(N=80) 22%

(N=70) 29%

(N=94) 7%

(N=23)

Misdemeanor 35% (N=110) 42%

(N=132) 7%

(N=21) 9%

(N=28) 7%

(N=22)

Other 0% (N=0) 50%

(N=2) 0%

(N=0) 25%

(N=1) 25%

(N=1)

26

Education Level

Overall, 52 percent of the adult participants had a high school diploma or GED, or had more than a high school education when admitted to a mental health court program.

The education level and employment status of adult participants when admitted to mental health

court programs and the type of charge they entered on are found in the next two graphs. Juvenile participants are not presented in the graphs because all reported having an education level of the 12th grade or less at the time of admission and were likely still in school. Additionally, all youths but one were unemployed, a full-time student, or not in the labor force at the time of admission.

Fifty-nine percent of participants with a misdemeanor charge type had obtained a high school diploma, GED, or attended higher education, and 55 percent of participants entering with a felony charge type had achieved the same level of education.

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

55%

60%

Felony Misdemeanor Other

46%

41%

50%

36% 35% 33%

19%

24%

17%

Perc

ent o

f Act

ive

Part

icip

ants

Education Level at Admission by Charge Type

12th Grade or Less High School Diploma or GED More Than High School

27

Employment Status

Overall, most adult participants in mental health court programs were unemployed (52 percent) or not in the labor force (38 percent) at admittance.

Only ten percent of participants were employed part- or full-time when admitted into a mental health court program.

Sixty-five percent of participants with a felony charge type were unemployed upon admission into a

program, and 42 percent of misdemeanants were unemployed at admission. Participants with a charge type of Other were most likely to claim they were not in the labor force (75 percent), which is defined as being a full-time student, retired, disabled, or volunteer. However, there were few active cases with this type of charge (N=16). Forty-seven percent of misdemeanants claimed that they were not in the labor force.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Felony Misdemeanor Other

4% 4% 0%

4% 7%

0%

65%

42%

25% 27%

47%

75%

Perc

ent o

f Act

ive

Part

icip

ants

Employment Status at Admission by Charge Type

Employed Full-Time Employed Part-Time Unemployed Not in Labor Force

28

Michigan Swift and Sure Sanctions Probation Program

The Swift and Sure Sanctions Probation Program (SSSPP) is an intensive probation supervision program that targets high-risk felony offenders with a history of probation violations or failures. Governed by MCL 771A.1, et seq., SSSPP is modeled after Hawaii's Opportunity Probation with Enforcement (HOPE) program, which studies have shown to be successful in improving the rate of successful completion of probation among high-risk probationers. The HOPE program was created in 2004 because probation-as-usual was viewed as arbitrary, unfair, and ineffective at changing an offenders behavior for the better. In contrast, swift and sure sanctions probation is designed to be fair, swift, certain, consistent, and proportionate. Goals of SSSPP include:

Reducing new crime. Reducing positive drug tests. Reducing missed appointments with probation officers and case managers. Reducing probation revocation. Reducing incarceration. Improving the speed and efficiency of responding to probation violations.

SSSPP participants are closely monitored through frequent and random testing for drug and alcohol

use, and participants are required to attend frequent meetings with probation and/or case management staff. SSSPP aims to improve probationer success by promptly imposing graduated sanctions, including small amounts of jail time, for probation violations.

Michigans SSSPP started in 2012 when four courts piloted a program. Since then, the number of

courts receiving funding for implementing a SSSPP has grown to 18.

4

13

18

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014

Num

ber o

f SSS

PP C

ourt

s

Swift and Sure Sanctions Probation Program

Swift and Sure SanctionsProbation Program

29

The SCAO contracted with a research team from the University of North Carolina-Wilmington to conduct a cost-benefit analysis of Michigan SSSPPs, and the evaluation was completed in the winter of 2015. The results of the evaluation showed that Swift and Sure program participants were 36 percent less likely to re-offend as compared to the probation-as-usual group and that Swift and Sure participants had a lower percentage of jail sentences (13.7 percent) than the probation-as-usual group (21.6 percent). Additionally, the study found that the average costs to taxpayers based on rearrests were less for the SSSPP participant when compared to the probation-as-usual group. This suggests that less recidivism and resultant declines in incarceration for those enrolled in the Swift and Sure program pays off in reduced system and victimization costs.

30

Michigan Veterans Treatment Courts

Michigan veterans treatment courts (VTC) follow the drug court model and require compliance with The 10 Key Components of Drug Courts as outlined in the federal guidelines. Michigan Compiled Law 600.1200, et seq. outlines the operation of veterans treatment courts in Michigan.

These programs integrate principles from both drug court and mental health court to serve military

veterans. VTCs promote sobriety, recovery, and stability through a coordinated response that involves collaboration with the traditional partners found in drug courts and mental health courts, as well as the Department of Veterans Affairs, volunteer veteran mentors, and organizations that support veterans and veterans families.

The number of VTC programs has risen from eight programs in FY 2013 to 16 programs in FY 2014.

There were 367 veterans active in a VTC program among 14 courts in FYs 2013 and 2014.

Although the number of active cases in FY 2013 and FY 2014 was relatively low due to the newness of the programs (N=367), veteran information is provided on the following pages. As VTCs continue to serve the veteran population that has come into contact with the criminal justice system, graduate data will become available for reporting.

8

16

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

FY 2013 FY 2014

Num

ber o

f Vet

eran

s Tre

atm

ent C

ourt

s

Number of Michigan Veterans Treatment Courts

Veterans TreatmentCourts

31

Gender, Ethnicity, and Drug of Choice

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Female Male

6%

94%

Perc

ent o

f Act

ive

Part

icip

ants

Gender

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

White AfricanAmerican

Hispanic/Latino Other

73%

23%

1% 3% Perc

ent o

f Act

ive

Part

icip

ants

Ethnicity

74%

7%

8%

4% 3%

5%

Drug of Choice Among Active Participants

Alcohol

Heroin

Marijuana

Cocaine/Crack

Opiate

Other

Gender The majority of veterans actively working a program in FY 2013 and FY 2014 were male (94 percent). The average age of veterans was 41 years.

Ethnicity The majority of veterans in a program were White (73 percent), followed by African American (23 percent). The category Other includes Multi-Racial, Asian/Pacific Islander, and Native American.

Drug of Choice The most common drug of choice among veterans was alcohol (74 percent), followed by marijuana (eight percent) and heroin (seven percent).

32

Employment Status, Education Level, and Charge Type

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Employed FullTime > Or =

35 Hours

EmployedPart Time 0.05. 29 Sixty-three percent of the mental health court group was male, while 53 percent of the comparison group was male, 2 (1, 399) = 3.517, p > 0.05. 30 Seventy-four percent of the mental health court group was White, while 83 percent of the comparison group was White, 2 (1,399) = 5.971, p > 0.05. 31 Forty-three percent of the mental health court group was unemployed, while 51 percent of the comparison group was unemployed, 2 (1, 398) = 11.416, p > 0.05. 32 Mental health court participants averaged 1.5 prior felonies, while the comparison group averaged 1.6 prior felonies, t(1, 251) = .226, p > 0.05. Mental health court participants averaged 3.8 prior misdemeanors, while comparison participants averaged 4.0 prior misdemeanors, t(1, 251) = .386, p > 0.05. 33 Thirty-five percent of mental health court participants entered the program on a felony charge type, while 56 percent of the comparison group had a felony charge type when they were referred for screening into a drug court program, 2(1, 399) = 15.454, p < 0.05. 34 Forty-three percent of mental health court participants entered the program with a 12th grade education level or less, while 34 percent of the comparison group had a 12th grade education level or less when they were referred for screening into a drug court program, 2(1, 399) = 8.333, p < 0.05.

Michigan Drug Courts

Shaded programs are funded in fiscal year 2015 through SCAO grant programs

Court County Type Status

1st Circuit Court Hillsdale Family Dependency

Operational

2A District Court Lenawee DWI Operational

2nd Circuit Court (UTC03) Berrien Adult Operational

3B District Court St. Joseph DWI Operational

3rd Circuit Court Wayne Adult Operational

3rd Circuit Court Wayne Juvenile Operational

4th Circuit Court Jackson Adult Operational

4th District Court Cass Adult Operational

5th Circuit Court (UTC02) Barry Adult Operational

5th Circuit Court (UTC02) Barry Juvenile Operational

6th Circuit Court Oakland Adult Operational

6th Circuit Court Oakland Juvenile Operational

7th Circuit Court Genesee Adult Operational

7th Circuit Court Genesee Family Dependency

Operational

8th Circuit Court Ionia/Montcalm Adult Operational

8th District Court Kalamazoo DWI Operational

9th Circuit Court Kalamazoo Adult - Men Operational

9th Circuit Court Kalamazoo Adult - Women Operational

9th Circuit Court Kalamazoo Family Dependency

Operational

9th Circuit Court Kalamazoo Juvenile Operational

10th Circuit Court Saginaw Adult Operational

10th Circuit Court Saginaw Family Dependency

Operational

10th District Court Calhoun DWI Operational

11th Circuit Court Schoolcraft Family Dependency

Operational

13th Circuit Court Grand Traverse Juvenile Operational

14B District Court Washtenaw Adult Planning

15th District Court Washtenaw DWI Operational

16th Circuit Court Macomb Adult Operational

16th Circuit Court Macomb Juvenile Operational

16th District Court Wayne DWI Operational

18th Circuit Court Bay Adult Operational

18th Circuit Court Bay Family Dependency

Operational

18th Circuit Court Bay Juvenile Operational

18th District Court Wayne DWI Operational

19th Circuit Court Manistee Juvenile Operational

19th Circuit Court Benzie Juvenile Operational

20th Circuit Court Ottawa Adult Operational

21st Circuit Court Isabella Adult Operational

21st Circuit Court Isabella Juvenile Operational

22nd Circuit Court Washtenaw Juvenile Operational

23rd Circuit Court Alcona Adult Operational

23rd Circuit Court Iosco Family Dependency

Planning

25th Circuit Court Marquette Adult Operational

25th Circuit Court Marquette Family Dependency

Operational

25th Circuit Court Marquette Juvenile Planning

30th Circuit Court Ingham Family Dependency

Operational

33rd Circuit Court Charlevoix Juvenile Operational

33rd District Court Wayne DWI Operational

34th Circuit Court Ogemaw Family Dependency

Operational

35th District Court Wayne DWI Operational

36th Circuit Court Van Buren Adult Operational

36th Circuit Court Van Buren Family Dependency

Operational

36th District Court Wayne Adult Operational

37th Circuit Court Calhoun Adult - Men Operational

37th Circuit Court Calhoun Adult - Women Operational

37th District Court Macomb Adult Operational

39th District Court Macomb DWI Operational

41B District Court Macomb Adult Operational