Specific Inclusion Criteria

Between 2009 and 2011, 35 graduates went through the program, with over half of graduates succeeding in going three or more years without new charges (DeKalb County Court House, 2012). DeKalb County’s drug court recidivism rate is approximately 20%, which is 31.7% lower than Illinois’s prison recidivism (DeKalb County Court House, 2012). The work of the DeKalb County Drug Court, and the statistics it holds makes “[the] drug courts [a] proven commodity in the community…” (DeKalb County Court House, 2012). Illinois’s primary drug abuse treatment programs focus on heroin, marijuana, and cocaine (ONDCP, 2010). The DeKalb County Drug Court works to enhance the public safety by combining treatment and intensive judicial supervision in a therapeutic court setting, focusing on non-violent substance abuse offenders to assist the participant in choosing and developing a law abiding drug free way of life (DeKalb County Drug Court, 2012). DeKalb County’s C.L.E.A.N. Program is a diversion and treatment program. Non-violent voluntary substance abuse offenders participate in an intensive treatment program for 14 to 24 months which helps them succeed in becoming and remaining drug free (DeKalb County Drug Court, 2012). C.L.E.A.N. is not a soft-on-crime prevention program. It provides comprehensive supervision and monitoring with strict contact procedures with judicial

In assignment one, I stated that substance abuse disorders can cause barriers for ex-prisoners reentering back into the community because research shows that “individuals who are released from prison are more likely to encounter difficulties with substance abuse, as 73.6% individuals in the criminal justice system have drug and alcohol involved with their criminal behavior. “Researchers found that 80% of individuals incarcerated in state prison have serious substance abuse problems. Substance abuse has a significant role in recidivism upon release from prison and desire to use substances or craving of substance was the most common barrier to reentry” (Phillips and Spencer 127-128). In order to decrease substance abuse in prison reentry and create defensible solutions for ex-offenders, the criminal justice must create incarceration-based therapeutic programs for adults that will use an in-depth drug treatment program model for treating ex-offenders who are addicted to drugs, and change the ex-offender’s attitude, perception, and behavior linked to substance abuse. The program will aim to stop the ex-offender from using drugs and create will power inside the ex-offender not to back track into a life of drug

The sixth key component requires that sanctions and rewards be coordinated into the programs to govern responses to participant’s compliance and non-compliance (NADCP, 1997). Some rewards could be praise from the judge, reduced supervision, reduced fines and etc. while some sanctions could be fines, community service, or even jail confinement. The seventh key component focuses on the importance of judicial interaction throughout the program, which can sometimes occur on a weekly basis. Key component number eight explains how imperative monitoring and evaluation is to measure the achievement of program goals and measure effectiveness. It is imperative for drug courts to display some sort of positive outcome by “gathering and managing information due to them monitoring daily activities, evaluating the quality of services provided, and producing longitudinal evaluations” (Mackin et al., 2012). The ninth and tenth components promote the importance of interdisciplinary education and forging partnerships with other agencies and community-based organizations. Education and training are important to maintain a specific level of professionalism and expanding collaborations would be helpful to provide a continuum of services for drug court participants.

The need for the Jail Diversion Program arises from the increasing number of mental health problems among the jail population in the United States. According to Bell, Decker, & Sullivan (2013), 64 percent of the adults incarcerated in the US prisons in

Dependent Variable. The effectiveness and the impact of the drug court will be assessed by analyzing the recidivism rates between the treatment group and the comparison group of probationers. Recidivism will be measured by examining both felony and misdemeanor charges and arrests, and drug related arrests will further be examined. Outcome data pertaining to arrests will be collected from the months of June, July, and August of 2016, allowing for an average follow-up time of 517 days. The data to be collected will include official rearrest results upon the completion of the drug treatment program and upon the completion of a probation sentence for the comparison group. Through the arrest results, further examination will be conducted on the severity of the crimes committed and whether they involved drug offenses.

With California jails and prisons still struggling with finding a reform for non-violent drug offenders the states recidivism rates continue to reach unprecedented numbers. Between 1983 and 1998, drug admissions to state and federal prisons increased sixteen-fold, from over 10,000 drug admissions in 1983 to almost 167,000 new prison entries for drug offenses in 1998 (Worrall et al, 2009). This has been a direct result of our legal system incarcerating offenders who have substance abuse related issues instead of providing a way for treatment or rehabilitation outside of incarceration. Through public policies regarding criminal justice interventions that address drug use and crime, an initiative was created to provide treatment services

Also, we need data and additional detailed information on the participants who were not satisfied. As stated in the article, “What Works in Reducing Recidivism”, the “Treatment Principle”, states “the most effective programs are behavioral in nature” (Latessa, Lowenkamp, p523, University of St. Thomas Law Journal). The report provided by staff does not clearly identify how many participants in each program and which program had the lower success rate and least

Prior to placement, a complete biopsychosocial assessment should be given, focusing on drug abuse and history, paying close attention to the 6 months just prior to his incarceration. Additionally, his educational background, support networks, employment history, as well as past attempts at sobriety and any treatments and periods of abstinence should be noted. Additionally, an assessment should be taken of his mental health symptoms, and with proper releases, compared with the jail counseling staff to previous depression/anxiety inventories given prior to the initiation of medication

Pre-booking programs focus on individuals with mental illness and/or co-occurring substance-use disorders who come into contact with law enforcement officials in the community. If the individual's behavior is believed to be nonviolent and related to a severe mental illness, intervention can be sought preceding formal charges or transport to a jail facility. The most common form of jail diversion in the United States is post booking. After being arrested, booked and confined, individuals suspected of having a severe mental illness or co-occurring substance-use disorder are identified and screened for mental health problems, program or diversion eligibility, and their willingness to participate in jail diversion. Whether criminal justice charges are reduced, dismissed, deferred until treatment conditions are met, or simply additional jail time is avoided also varies greatly by which post-booking model is offered to the defendant (Parker,

It was clear and still is clear that a problem exists with very few remedies to stem this growing problem. In 2008 a step toward a solution was taken when the very first Veterans Court, in Buffalo, N.Y., was initiated, and since then there have been hundreds jurisdictional courts initiating such programs across the country (Wolfe, 2013). Today we see a solution to a long standing problem on an individual level to a society level. The program looks at the underlying cause to the individual’s actions at the first sign of potential problem. It gives the first time offender the opportunity to re-group and re-structure his or her life through various services with judicial supervision. This is not a fly by night program to just say something is being done. The program includes; individual case management, intensive probation, substance abuse and mental health counseling, family counseling services, and drug and alcohol counseling with testing. ("Veterans Court,"

Both jail and prison offer some type of early released programs, in this case probation and parole will briefly be discussed. Probation is a prison sentence that is suspended on the condition that the offender follow certain prescribed rules and commit no further crime (Seiter, 2008). Parole is similar to probation except that it is after a period of incarceration, which involved determinate and indeterminate sentencing (Seiter, 2008). The other types of prison sentencing include mandatory minimums, three-strike laws, and truth-in-sentencing (Wilson, 2001). The only difference is that a parole board allows convicts to serve the remainder of their term in society under supervision and strict limitations (Wilson, 2001). In summary both jails and prisons should strive to provide as much educational, health, and counseling opportunities as possible to reduce the likelihood of recidivism. Second, funding for the jail and prison systems will be briefly discussed.

The sample for this study is accumulated by individuals in the criminal justice system including law enforcement, corrections officers, and mental health analysts that are involved with individuals that are being booked or process in Ada County Jail. The individuals that are being analyzed are mentally ill and homeless that has been booked into Ada County Jail in Boise, Idaho that requires treatment for mental health issues. This research will be gathered from a probability sampling technique. Since the individuals being questioned are typically homeless or continually entered into the system, the data being analyzed will already be entered into the system. Therefor this study will be conducted using a simple or systematic random sampling technique.

Offenders with AsPD in probations settings are a diverse population (e.g.: offender with a disability) thus the different needs of sub-groups require specific consideration.

The National Registry for Evidence-Based Programs and Practices (NREPP), which is preserved by the United States’ Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), provide a list of all evidence-based practices that are beneficial for youth offenders (SAMHSA, 2017). Per SAMHSA (2017), between 50-70 percent of the youth in the juvenile justice system, have a mental disorder and up to 60 percent have been diagnosed with a substance use disorder (SAMHSA, 2017). Of those youth with dual diagnosis, approximately 30 percent have lost the ability to function as a result of their disorder (SAMHSA, 2017). Therefore, to determine the best treatment plan for youth offenders, evidence-based practices focus on the importance of

Research on recidivism reveals a variety of different ways to define and measure its effectiveness on the outcome. One instrument widely used in assessing offenders is the Level of Service Inventory-Revised (LSI-R). The LSI-R was developed with short-term offenders and community supervisees. It assesses largely risk factor for recidivism and is designed to inform parole management decisions (Manchak et al., 2008). The 54 items of the LSI-R assess ten “risk-needs” factors: criminal history, education/employment, financial, family/marital, accommodation, leisure/recreation, peers/companions, alcohol/drug problems, emotional/personal, and attitude/orientation (p. 478). Results indicate that the LSI-R moderately predicts general, but not necessarily violent recidivism (p. 477). The utility of the LSI-R in predicting community recidivism is well established for probationers and minor offenders.