Cut DUI Recidivism for Good: A Multi-Track DUI...
Transcript of Cut DUI Recidivism for Good: A Multi-Track DUI...
Cut DUI Recidivism for Good: A
Multi-Track DUI Court Approach to
Repeat Offenders
Going to Scale for Public Safety
NADCP 2018 CONFERENCE
MAY 31, 2018, HOUSTON TX
JUDGE RICHARD A. VLAVIANOS, SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY
Objectives:
1. Identify the highest risk DWI/DUI offenders and design a strategy to hold them accountable
2. Use evidence-based screening and assessment to separate high-risk/high-need offenders from other high-risk DWI/DUI offenders
3. Identify how the highest risk DWI/DUI break out within Dr. Doug Marlowe’s matrix
4. Use monitoring to effectively handle offenders with different risks and needs, including high-risk/low-needs offenders who constitute the largest percentage of many repeat DUI caseloads
Expanding Our Vision
. . .
. . .
. . .
Task - Draw four straight lines connecting all nine boxes
“It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you in trouble.
It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.”
WHY DUI?
Homicides should be the main public safety focus
DUIs are only misdemeanors –need to focus on
more serious crime
California Homicides 2013
1,746FBI Uniform Crime Report
Murder or Non-Negligent Manslaughter
California Alcohol & Drug Involved
Crash Fatalities 2013
1,699DMV DUI MIS Report
2013 - California Homicides and Impaired
Driving Deaths Compared
Total = 3,445
Homicide = 1,746
Alcohol/Drug Impaired Driving =1,699
Homicide
51%
Impaired Driving
49%
Imagine - 36% Reduction in DUI Deaths
Total = 2,833
Homicide = 1,746
Alcohol/Drug Driving = 1,087
-612 lives
Homicide
67%
Impaired Driving
33%
Deaths
SWITRS
REPEAT OFFENDERS
TARGETING THE HIGH RISK GROUP
Repeat Offenders Constitute:
1.43% of California Drivers
26% of California DUI Offenders
59% of California drivers in alcohol/drug fatal or injury crashes
DMV MIS Report 2015
DUI OFFENDERS ARE
DIFFERENT!
KNOWING THE CLIENT
What do we know about DUI offenders?
High risk for a new DUI does not mean high
risk for other types of criminal recidivism
More likely to be high functioning in other
areas (Many alcoholics still get up every
morning and go to work and take care of
their children)
DUI offenders don’t often show up as high
risk on risk assessments standardized on the
typical criminal justice population
Are DUI offenders really different?
❑ More likely to be:
❑ Male
❑ White
❑ Older
❑ Highly educated
❑ Employed
❑ Of a higher income level
❑ Scored as low risk on assessment
❑ Need DUI specific tool – DUI RANT, IDA, CARS
Are DUI offenders really that different
from drug offenders?
❑ Engage in behavior that is dangerous and frequently causes serious injury or
fatalities
❑ Denial - drinking alcohol is not illegal, highly prevalent, and even encouraged
in many activities
TRADITIONAL DUI
COURTS WORK!
GOOD NEWS
TRADITIONAL DUI COURT
Treatment
Designed for addicted/dependent offenders
Intensive treatment
Intensive court supervision
75 – 100 participants, no >125
Great success rates
Evidence based model for addicted offenders
Traditional DUI Court Data
Georgia study – 3 courts (NHTSA)
20% reduction in recidivism
Up to 65% for graduates
Wisconsin study – 1 court (Temple)
Michigan study – 3 courts (NPC)
Minnesota study – 9 courts (NPC)
Traditional dui
courts are Not For
Everyone!
SOME BAD NEWS
Who They Work For
Only Individuals who are high risk and high need!
Increases recidivism/no effect for the rest
Minnesota Study in 9 DWI Courts
Completed September 2014
DWICourt #1n = 51
DWICourt #2n = 48
DWICourt #3n = 46
DWICourt #4n = 273
DWICourt #5n = 33
DWICourt #6n = 43
DWICourt #7n = 140
DWICourt #8n = 30
DWICourt #9n = 74
0.31 0.29
0.14
0.36 0.30
0.210.19
0.81
0.25
0.57 0.59
0.20
0.54 0.53
0.34 0.30
0.75
0.28
0.46
0.87
0.65
0.52
0.700.65
0.47 0.44
0.62
Nu
mb
er
of
Re
-Arr
ests
Graduates All Participants Comparison
Participants (regardless of graduation status), at the majority of the 9 DWI courts had lower re-arrest rates but not all of them
% Appropriate for DUI CourtRisk/Needs Data on Repeat Offenders - San
Joaquin Co. using DUI RANT
819 over 27 months in S.J. County
31% High Risk/High Need
69% not – Traditional DUI Court is NOT APPROPRIATE
48% - High Risk/Low Needs
17% - Low Risk/Low Needs
4% - Low Risk/High Needs
LIMITATIONS OF TRADITIONAL DUI COURTS
Numbers - should be no >125
S.J. County - >500 repeat offenders per year
Need to work with many more high risk offenders
than traditional DUI Court handles
Traditional DUI Court can exclude:
Many high risk substance abusers who need
lesser interventions; and
Those who do not volunteer
43
32
38
43
37
15
9
29
9
34
10
6
30
20
31
36
19
11
19
911
28
13
36
22
38
18
9
17
14
24
18
5
40
18
21
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
California OTS Safety Ranking Alcohol Involved Collisions By County
1=Worst; 58=Best
1 2 3 4 5 6
Expanding Our Vision
. . .
. . .
. . .
Moving the traffic safety needle
through
a more comprehensive and systemic
approach
MORE GOOD NEWS
THE MULTI-TRACK DUI COURT
TRADITIONAL DUI COURT PRINCIPLES
THAT CAN BE USED
Monitoring & accountability to court
Same judge
Compliance monitored
Consequences - certain & swift
Positive reinforcement
ACCOUNTABILITY WORKS!!!
MULTI-TRACK MODEL DESIGN
All Repeat Offenders!!!
Track One – Everyone except High Risk/High Needs
Mostly Substance Abusers
Court Monitoring, no treatment
Track Two – High Risk, High Needs
Addicts
DUI Court – Monitoring and Treatment
DUI RANT Screening determines track
COURT MONITORING TRACK
Report to Case Manager - verifes compliance
Added probation conditions
Alcohol/drug monitoring 1 year; Abstain clause
Court reviews scheduled for - 1 mo.; 6 mo.; 1 yr.
Court appearance added with non-
compliance
Swift response to non-compliance
Recognition for compliance 81% of clients - 29% of costs
MONITORING TECHNOLOGIES
Transdermal Monitoring (ankle bracelet)
Ignition Interlock Device
Remote Testing (cell phone)
Daily Testing (24/7 program)
Drug Testing
Transdermal Monitoring (ankle
bracelet)Positives
24/7 monitoring for alcohol
Works almost anywhere/anytime
Psychological effect – constant reminder
Best technology for monitoring abstinence
Negatives
Does not prevent driving impaired
Tampers
Client must download or base station
Highest cost ($8-10/day)
Ignition Interlock Device
Positives
Prevents driving that vehicle impaired
Can be used as a breath test
Cost efficient - $95-110/month
Negatives
Does not prevent driving other vehicles impaired or monitor alcohol consumption
Need 4 tests per day as breath test
Limited to the location of the vehicle
Need device with a camera (higher cost)
Remote Testing (cell phone)
Positives
Ease of use
Can be used anywhere
Identity not an issue
Negatives
Does not stop driving impaired
Want at least 4 tests per day
Missed tests
Cost = $6-8/day
Daily Breath Testing (24/7)
Positives
Most affordable
Can be used with police to make sanctions swift and
certain
Can use with other technologies
Negatives
Does not prevent impaired driving
Easiest to drink around
Can be used as a step down
Drug Testing
Urine Testing
Must have integrity – cannot be beat
2 – 3 times per week
Random testing
Drug Patch
Gives 24/7 testing
Must be replaced bi-weekly
Making Monitoring Work
Non-negotiable – IT WORKS!
Costs
Mostly offender paid – they can
Some grant funding for those who can’t
Checked at least every two weeks for certainty and
celerity
Any violations, missed tests, or tampers advanced to
the next court calendar
OUTCOMES
SAFETY
SWITRS
OTHER OUTCOMES
Overall impact
NUMBERS
Active clients - 489
Since inception (10 years) - 4,301
Completions - 3,666
Successful – 82%, 2991
Recidivism – 11%, 471
32% Reduction overall
50% Reduction in collisions
SWITRS
17
25
32 32
43
55
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
California OTS Safety Ranking Alcohol Involved Collisions By County
1=Worst; 58=BestSan Joaquin County –4th best
Questions?