PSC Annual Report

FY 2018 PROBLEM-SOLVING
COURTS ANNUAL REPORT

SOLV I NG PROBLEM S, SAV I NG LI V E S
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Letter From Justice Elizabeth T. Clement..................................................................3

Executive Summary......................................................................................................4
Overview of Michigan’s Problem-Solving Courts.....................................................8
Drug Courts.........................................................................................................................................8
Mental Health Courts..........................................................................................................................9
Veterans Treatment Courts..................................................................................................................9
Why Certification?............................................................................................................................ 10
Certification Process......................................................................................................................... 10
Michigan’s Certification Of Problem-Solving Courts.............................................10

Drug Court Graduates’ Outcome Measures..................................................................................... 11
Drug Court Data Analyses.................................................................................................11

Drug Court Caseload Statistics......................................................................................................... 11
Drug Court Recidivism..................................................................................................................... 13
Drug Court Graduates’ Performance Measures............................................................................... 16
Ignition Interlock Data Analyses...............................................................................19

Ignition Interlock Participants’ Outcomes........................................................................................ 19
Ignition Interlock Recidivism............................................................................................................20
Mental Health Court Data Analyses................................................................................21

MHC Caseload Statistics................................................................................................................... 21
MHC Graduates’ Outcomes Measures............................................................................................. 21
MHC Recidivism...............................................................................................................................23
MHC Graduates’ Performance Measures.........................................................................................24
Veterans Treatment Court Data Analyses..................................................................... 26

VTC Caseload Statistics....................................................................................................................26
VTC Graduates’ Outcomes...............................................................................................................26
VTC Graduates’ Performance Measures.......................................................................................... 27
© 2019 M I S U P R E M E C O U R T | S O L V I N G P R O B L E M S , S AV I N G L I V E S
A MESSAGE FROM
JUSTICE ELIZABETH T. CLEMENT
As the Michigan Supreme Court’s liaison to problem-solving courts,

my career has come full circle with respect to these innovative and
successful programs that are saving lives and solving problems.
When I worked in the Michigan Legislature, I helped draft legislation
authorizing the creation of problem-solving courts, and in the
Governor’s office, I was a strong advocate for the administration to
support and expand access to every resident statewide.
Now, I have the honor and privilege of attending graduation ceremonies

all across Michigan where participants who have completed rigorous
problem-solving court programs tell amazing stories of transformation
and rebirth. Like Jeff Baldwin, a graduate of Kent County Veterans
Treatment Court, who said:
“This program gave me structure. It gave me a reason to live, basically. Having a huge
veteran base around me—I just would not have that without this program.”
I am so proud of the judges and court staffs, supported by their local communities, who work hard to
change the lives of participants. Like Ivy Calkins, a graduate of St. Clair County Mental Health Court,
who said:
“They gave me a chance in mental health court. Judge Tomlinson wasn’t going to give up on me.
He knew I had potential, and he showed me a completely different side of the court system. He
showed me that courts can help. I really appreciate the program and the people involved in it.”
Make no mistake: Drug and sobriety courts, mental health courts, and veterans treatment courts
are not easy and certainly not a free pass. These programs are tough and participants undergo strict
supervision, frequent testing, and much-needed treatment. Not everyone graduates and some would
rather sit in jail than do the work necessary for a healthy and complete recovery.
But those who push themselves and make the sacrifices needed to graduate—like Jeff and Ivy—
recognize that the results are worth it because they can have a new beginning and a second chance.
Problem-solving courts are a special passion for

me. We must never give up on those who are
struggling because success means stronger and
safer communities and more graduates working
and caring for their families.
F Y 2 018 P R O B L E M - S O LV I N G C O U R T S A N N UA L R E P O R T PAG E 3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Independence. Accessibility. Engagement.

Efficiency. These four principles are the foundation
AS OF JANUARY 1, 2019, for our Court as we work to ensure that the doors of
THERE WERE 188 our justice system are open to all. Taken together,
PROBLEM-SOLVING COURTS these principles send a strong message that Michigan
STATEWIDE, INCLUDING: courts treat all litigants equally, regardless of power or
party; that income must not be a barrier to justice; that
judges must be connected to the community; and that
• 128 drug treatment/sobriety courts courts must be prudent stewards of public resources.
• 58 hybrid drug treatment/sobriety courts
The judges who lead Michigan’s 188 problem-
• 31 sobriety courts solving courts work to uphold these principles.
Indeed, through regional initiatives, these courts
• 9 adult and 13 juvenile drug treatment are accessible to all Michigan residents; programs
courts engage the community to support participants as
they deal with addiction through treatment; and by
• 8 family dependency courts solving problems instead of incarcerating participants,
communities save money. But most importantly, lives
• 9 tribal healing-to-wellness courts are saved and communities are safer.
• 1 adult and 1 family
dependency court in Problem-solving courts focus on providing treatment
planning stages and intense supervision to offenders as an alternative
to incarceration. These include drug and sobriety,
mental health, veterans, and other nontraditional
• 33 mental health courts courts. The Michigan Supreme Court (MSC), through
(27 adult and 6 juvenile courts) its State Court Administrative Office (SCAO), assists
trial court judges in the management of these courts
• 2 adult mental health courts in the
by providing training, education, operational
planning stage
standards, monitoring, certification requirements,
and funding.
• 27 veterans treatment courts
Judges and court staff operating these courts
are dedicated team members who invest their time
beyond standard court hours to help participants who
may be struggling with their addiction or mental
illness. The Michigan Supreme Court recognizes the
many judges across the state who voluntarily take on
these additional dockets to truly solve problems and
save lives.
Graduates Find Work, Commit Fewer Repeat Offenses
Of the 2,984 participants discharged from a drug

or sobriety program (including adult, hybrid, EMPLOYMENT STATUS
BY PROGRAM TYPE*
juvenile, family dependency) during FY 2018, 100%
Unemployed at Admission Unemployed at Discharge
1,925 participants (65 percent) had successfully
Percent of Graduates
80% 67%
64%
completed a program, while 29 percent were 60% 55%
discharged unsuccessfully due to noncompliance, 9%
39%
40% 30%
31%
absconding, or a new offense.
20% 13%
12% 12%
4% 9%
0% 2%
0%
Maintaining steady employment is a critical Adult Drug Sobriety Courts Hybrid Courts Family
Courts Dependency
factor in the success of these graduates.
Follow-up analysis shows a dramatic drop in * Juvenile drug court offenders were not included as their main goal
unemployment. 3
while working a program is to improve their education level.
100% GRADUATES
Just as important: graduates are much less ANY NEW CONVICTION WITHIN THREE YEARS OF ADMISSION
likely to reoffend. For example, participants 80%

Percent Convicted
Drug Court Graduates Comparison Members

who successfully complete an adult drug court 60%
program, in particular, are two times less likely 40% 34%

29% 27%
to be convicted of a new offense within three 25%
19% 20% 18%
years of admission. 20% 10%
6% 10%
0%
Adult Drug Sobriety Hybrid Juvenile Family
Courts Courts Courts Courts Dependency
Ignition Interlock Devices

Successful in Preventing New Offenses
5
In FY 2018, there were 1,501 active participants

among 67 sobriety, drug, hybrid, and veterans
treatment court programs who were members of Graduates using interlock
the interlock program with an installed device on devices were 4 TIMES LESS
their vehicles. There were 725 participants using LIKELY to be convicted of a
ignition interlock devices who were discharged from new offense within three years
a treatment court program during FY 2018. Of those of admission to the program.
671 (93 percent) successfully completed a problem-
solving court program.
Mental Health Courts Successful in Improving Quality of Life
During FY 2018, there were 1,414 participants

100% UNEMPLOYMENT AT ADMISSION
in mental health courts statewide, including AND DISCHARGE BY COURT TYPE
juvenile, adult district, and circuit court 80%
programs. There were 625 participants 60% 51%
discharged from 32 mental health courts in FY 43%
40%
2018 and of those, 355 participants (57 percent) 20%
successfully completed a program. 20% 15%
0%
Adult Circuit Adult District
The drop in unemployment is a good measure Mental Health Court Mental Health Court
of the success of mental health courts and
reflects the improving quality of life for
graduates. 26
100% GRADUATES
NEW CONVICTION WITHIN THREE YEARS OF ADMISSION
For example, unemployment among adult 80%
Percent Convicted
MHC Graduates Comparison Members

circuit mental health court graduates was 60%
reduced by more than half and by more 36%
41% 38%
40%
than two-thirds among district program 25% 25%
15%
graduates. 20%
0%
Adult Circuit Adult District Juvenile
In addition, graduates were much less likely to Mental Health Court Mental Health Court Mental Health Court
commit another crime.

31
Reoffense rates vary across different court

programs, but on average graduates were “ The love that Judge Skocelas and his team
about half as likely to commit another showed for me had a huge impact on my
crime within three years of admission to a life. They truly cared, and you could see it in
program. the way that they looked at you, in the way
that they talked to you, and in the resources
Furthermore, virtually all participants in they informed you about. They really wanted
mental health courts improved their mental people to succeed.”
health status, making their lives more stable — Makenzie Scimeca
and productive. Allegan County Mental Health Court Graduate
Michigan is National Leader in Veterans Treatment Courts
When veterans become entangled in the criminal

justice system, veterans treatment courts (VTCs)
respond in a nontraditional way by providing them 100% UNEMPLOYMENT AT
a structured environment that is already ingrained ADMISSION AND DISCHARGE
80%
in military personnel, treatment toward restoration,
Veterans Treatment Courts
and mentoring from fellow veterans. In FY 2018, 60%
Michigan had 25 VTC programs. Since the end of 40%

23%
the fiscal year, the number of courts has grown to 27. 20%
5%
During 2018, 596 participants were active in 25 0%

VTC programs statewide. Of the 241 veterans
discharged during FY 2018, 172 participants (71
percent) had successfully completed a program. 39
VTC programs do not yet have data comparisons

available to assess success rates relative to similar
State Court Administrative
veterans who are not participants in a program. Office Committed to Successful,
However, we do have substantial other measures of Well-Managed Programs
success, including a more than 75 percent drop in
unemployment.
The State Court Administrative Office very
The high success rate of VTCs is an early measure carefully reviews the results of treatment court
of their effectiveness. VTCs had retained 92 percent programs to make sure that best practices
of their participants over a 12-month period, are employed and that courts maintain
which is important for allowing time for treatment high standards. Judges enforce strict rules
engagement and increasing the likelihood of success of participation that exceed the minimum
in the program. Having veteran peers as mentors supervision and oversight of standard probation.
may be partially responsible for this high retention Compliance with frequent drug testing,
rate since military culture is built on supporting monitoring contacts, and treatment attendance
one another. In addition, VTCs are very structured and engagement are necessary to be successful
and disciplined in their expectations, which is in the program and to achieve recovery. Despite
naturally familiar to military personnel. Michigan the hard work of problem-solving court teams
will continue to honor those who served our country and the proven rigid structure of these treatment
by assisting our veterans suffering from invisible models, not all participants are able to achieve
wounds of war in their recovery. recovery.
OV ERV IEW OF MICHIGA N’S
PROBLEM-SOLV I NG COU RTS
Problem-solving courts (PSCs) are judicial members work together sharing information to
programs that offer an alternative to assess participants’ compliance and progress,
imprisonment for nonviolent criminal offenders and contribute insight and recommendations
by using a therapeutic jurisprudence model. that stem from their professional knowledge.
To combat offenders cycling in and out of the Michigan has 188 drug courts, tribal healing-
criminal justice system largely due to addiction to-wellness courts, mental health courts, and
or mental illness, PSCs treat the underlying veterans treatment courts combined. Judges
source contributing to the criminal behavior and team members operating these PSCs are
and reduce reoffending. Participants are held dedicated team members who invest their time
accountable through intensive supervision, beyond standard court hours to help participants
frequent judicial status review hearings, who may be struggling with
random and frequent drug testing, and a variety their addiction or mental
of incentives and sanctions. PSCs emphasize a illness. Because of their
holistic and team approach that includes judges, commitment, PSCs not
prosecutors, program coordinators, probation only save lives but help
officers and case managers, law enforcement, offenders to live
defense counsel, and treatment providers. Team productive lives.
Drug Courts
Michigan Compiled Law 600.1060(c) defines a derived from The Ten Guiding Principles of Sobriety
drug treatment court as “...a court-supervised Courts. Hybrid courts combine the adult drug court
treatment program for individuals who abuse or model and the sobriety court model accepting both
are dependent upon any controlled substance or types of offenders. Michigan also has juvenile drug
alcohol.” Drug courts have evolved over time courts, which accept criminal and status offenders
and now include several models to serve specific (i.e., juveniles deemed to be runaways, incorrigible,
offender populations, and although they share or truant), and their framework is derived from
the same therapeutic jurisprudence model, each Juvenile Drug Court: Strategies in Practice. The
drug court model has specific program guidelines Tribal Advisory Committee describes its tribal drug
that frame its operations. Adult drug courts are treatment courts as “Healing to Wellness” courts
defined as programs that target drug-related where a cultural awareness component lends further
non-drunk driving felony and/or misdemeanor support. Lastly, family dependency treatment courts
offenses, and their framework is derived from target child abuse and neglect cases where parental
Defining Drug Courts: The Key Components substance abuse is a primary factor. All of these
(Ten Key Components of Drug Courts). Sobriety programs have offered a solution to the problem of
courts accept only offenders driving under jail overcrowding, as well as to the problem of drug-
the influence and their framework is and alcohol-related crime.
Mental Health Courts
Michigan mental health courts (MHCs) target clothing resources; enrollment in educational classes
offenders who have been diagnosed with a serious and certificate programs; transportation assistance;
mental illness, serious emotional disturbance, or and assistance with obtaining employment. MHCs
a developmental disability as defined by MCL that receive funding through SCAO collaborate
330.1100a(25) and 330.1100d(2)(3), and the severe closely with community mental health service
nature of the mental illness or functional impairment providers to ensure that participants have access to
must necessitate intensive clinical services. MHCs a wide range of treatment services. In addition to
offer eligible offenders the opportunity to participate having mental illness, participants may suffer from
in a court-based treatment program to address their co-occurring substance use disorders that also must
mental illness instead of sentencing them to lengthy be addressed through treatment. In FY 2018, just
jail or prison terms. MHCs provide intense judicial over half (51 percent) of active participants had a
oversight; treatment through local community co-occurring substance use disorder when they were
mental health service providers; drug testing; screened for a mental health court program.
referrals to community services such as housing or
Veterans treatment courts (VTCs) across the country

have been on the rise in answer to the growing
number of veterans returning from duty. These
programs serve military veterans who suffer from
To see the official list of each
mental illness, substance use disorders, or traumatic type of PSC in Michigan as of
brain injuries, and integrate principles from both January 1, 2019, visit:
the drug court and mental health court models.
Michigan Compiled Law 600.1200, et seq. was
passed in October 2012 to standardize the operations
courts.mi.gov/psc
of VTCs, which incorporates additional team and click on the type
members such as trained veteran mentors, Veteran
Justice Outreach Coordinators, and treatment of PSC to learn more.
providers from the Department of Veterans Affairs.
MICHIGAN’S CERTIFICATION
OF PROBLEM-SOLVING COURTS
Why Certification?
While the model design for each type of PSC is the the best outcomes, SCAO developed a certification
foundation upon which courts build and implement process where PSCs are required to adhere to
their programs, incorporating nationally recognized certain nationally recognized best practices and
best practices and state standards (statute and Michigan statute. A program found in compliance
case law) to the ongoing operations of PSCs is with certification requirements can collect program
essential to ensuring that programs produce the fees to supplement participation, discharge and
best possible outcomes. Best practices are evidence- dismiss cases in accordance with their respective
based practices that, when incorporated with strict PSC statute, and is eligible for grant funding through
adherence, make PSCs more effective at reducing SCAO. In addition, certified drug, sobriety, hybrid,
recidivism, and thus should be the goal of every and veterans treatment court programs can offer
PSC. To ensure that Michigan PSCs are producing ignition interlock restricted driver’s licenses.
Certification Process
In 2013 and 2015, the National Association of Drug When reviewing courts for certification, SCAO’s
Court Professionals (NADCP) published the Adult PSC team of analysts conduct on-site evaluations
Drug Court Best Practices Standards, Volumes I and ensuring that program operations adhere to all
II1, is a blueprint on how treatment courts should required best practices and standards. The analysts
operate to improve outcomes for offenders with spend one to two days observing courtroom
substance use disorders or mental illness. Drawing procedures and staffing meetings, conducting
heavily from these manuals and their resources, interviews with all team members, and evaluating
SCAO collaborated with the Michigan Association of the program’s data. Courts that are in compliance
Treatment Court Professionals in 2016 to determine are officially awarded certification for four years.
which best practices for Michigan’s drug courts were Courts that are awaiting their official site visit
required in order to achieve the level of certification, are granted provisional certification until their
and subsequently published the Michigan Adult programs are officially reviewed.
Drug Court Standards, Best Practices, and Promising
Drug courts began the certification process in FY
Practices in March 2017. In 2018, SCAO published
2018, when 27 courts received official certification
the required best practices and standards for VTCs
following site visits! In FY 2019, PSC analysts will
and MHCs.
add mental health and veterans treatment courts
to the cycle of visits toward official certification.
View standards and best practices manuals for
1
https://www.nadcp.org/standards/
each type of PSC at www.courts.michigan.gov/
PSCcertification.
DRUG COURT DATA ANALYSES
OCTOBER 1, 2017 – SEPTEMBER 30, 2018
Drug Court Caseload Statistics
During FY 2018, Michigan’s drug courts: During FY 2018, the total number of participants who were
active in a drug court program was 6,669 and is broken down
• Screened 4,365 potential participants. by program type:
• Admitted 2,992 offenders into a program. • Hybrid programs totaled 4,160 participants (62 percent).
• Discharged 2,984 participants. • Sobriety programs totaled 1,698 participants (26 percent).
• Adult drug programs totaled 384 participants (6 percent).
• Juvenile drug programs totaled 248 participants (4 percent.)
• Family dependency programs totaled 179 participants
(3 percent).
Drug Court Graduates’ Outcome Measures
Outcome measures are used to determine the abstinence from alcohol and drug use is a goal of
effectiveness of a program. Short-term goals of all all drug court programs and can be measured by
drug courts include evaluating the percentage of the number of consecutive sobriety days graduates
participants who successfully completed a program, achieved. The different types of services provided
the percentage retained in the program, and whether by drug court programs are also measured when
participants improved their employment status or evaluating program success. Longer-term goals of
education level upon graduation. Further, participant drug courts include reducing recidivism, which also
results in a reduced cost to the community.
Success Rate
SUCCESS RATE BY PROGRAM TYPE
Percent of Successful Completions
100%
Of the 2,984 participants discharged from a program
75%
80%
64% during FY 2018, 1,925 participants (65 percent)
60% 47% 49% 50% had successfully completed a program, while 29
40% percent were discharged unsuccessfully due to
20%
noncompliance, absconding, or a new offense. The
remaining 7 percent were discharged for reasons
0%
Adult Drug Sobriety Hybrid Juvenile Family such as voluntarily withdrawal, “Other,” transferred
Courts Courts Courts Drug Courts Dependency to another jurisdiction, death, or medical discharge.
Consecutive Sobriety Days AVERAGE NUMBER OF SOBRIETY
DAYS BY PROGRAM TYPE
Juvenile drug court programs have the smallest
Average Number of Sobriety Days

500 415
432
number of consecutive sobriety days but 340
400 319
333
are shorter in duration than adult programs. 316
277
294
Graduates of family dependency treatment court 300
170
171
programs accept neglect and abuse petitions 200
that are typically adjudicated within one year. 100
All programs met the national best practice that 0

says participants should have a minimum of 90 Courts Courts Courts Drug Courts Dependency
continuous days of sobriety from alcohol and
drugs before graduating.
2
EMPLOYMENT STATUS
Employment Status BY PROGRAM TYPE*
100%
Substance abuse often interferes with
80% 67%
64%
productivity on the job, the ability to maintain 55%
60%
employment, or being proactive in seeking 9%
39%
30%
31%
employment among adult offenders. Best 40%
practices state: “In order to graduate, participants 20% 13%

12%
2%
12%
4% 9%
0%
who are able to join the labor force must have 0%
Adult Drug Sobriety Courts Hybrid Courts Family
a job or be in school, in instances where health Courts Dependency
insurance and other social benefits are not
at risk.” Graduates’ unemployment rate at * Juvenile drug court offenders were not included as their main goal
admission is compared to their unemployment 3 while working a program is to improve their education level.
rate upon graduation.
IMPROVED EDUCATION LEVEL

Education BY PROGRAM TYPE
94%
Juveniles had the highest rate of improved 100%
education level, suggesting they were able to stay 80%
in school and advance to the next grade while in 60%
the program. 40%

14% 12% 12% 17%
20%
0%
Courts Courts Courts Drug Courts Dependency
Drug Court Recidivism
Michigan’s Public Act 2 of 2017 amended the years after admission, which includes time after
Code of Criminal Procedure and included participation in a program. In order to better align
specific measures for evaluating recidivism. MCL with MCL 761.1(s), recidivism is now measured at
761.1(s) states: “’Recidivism’ means any rearrest, three and five years after admission into a
reconviction, or reincarceration in prison or jail for drug court.
a felony or misdemeanor offense or a probation or
parole violation of an individual as measured first According to NADCP’s Adult Drug Court Best
after 3 years and again after 5 years from the date of Practices and Standards Vol. II, when evaluating
his or her release from incarceration, placement on recidivism outcomes, a comparison group of
probation, or conviction, whichever is later.” offenders who did not enter a drug court and are
statistically comparable to participants should be
Michigan’s drug courts sentence eligible offenders used to assess whether program services had a
into programs differently. Some prosecutors may favorable impact on reducing recidivism. SCAO uses
require an upfront jail stay to be served prior the Judicial Data Warehouse (JDW), Michigan’s
to the probationary term in the program, while repository of court cases, to match participants of
others expedite sentencing directly into a program PSCs to offenders who have not participated in a
diverting offenders from jail. Others may enter the PSC on demographics and criminal histories.
program on a deferred/delayed status where the The result is a statistically comparable one-to-one
sentencing type is dependent upon whether the matched pair where recidivism is evaluated over
participant is fully compliant with court orders, time for the pair. For a more in depth description of
engaged in treatment and their recovery, and Michigan’s recidivism methodology, visit
successful in completing the program. Because of www.courts.michigan.gov/PSC.
the varying sentencing approaches, Michigan’s drug
court recidivism methodology uses the admission
date into a program as the starting point for
evaluating future criminal activity.
Research studies recommend that participants of

a program be evaluated for recidivism while in
the program and post-program. In previous years,
Michigan measured recidivism two years after
admission, which mostly includes the time spent
working a drug court program, and again at four
Oakland County Juvenile Drug Court Graduation, March 3, 2018.

Judge Mary Ellen Brennan, Oakland County Juvenile Drug Court,
listening to a new graduate of the program as he thanks the court
for the help he received.
Recidivism Rates for Graduates
The three-year analyses of graduates who entered a program included a total of 14,309 matched pairs, and the
five-year analyses included 11,112 matched pairs. The recidivism rates are broken out by program type.
100% GRADUATES 100% GRADUATES

ANY NEW CONVICTION WITHIN THREE YEARS OF ADMISSION ANY NEW CONVICTION WITHIN FIVE YEARS OF ADMISSION
80% 80%
Percent Convicted
Percent Convicted
Drug Court Graduates Comparison Members Drug Court Graduates Comparison Members
60% 60%
42% 43%
34% 37%
40% 29% 40%
25% 27% 26% 26% 26%
20% 22% 23%
19% 18% 18%
20% 10% 10% 20% 11%
6%
0% 0%
Adult Drug Sobriety Hybrid Juvenile Family Adult Drug Sobriety Hybrid Juvenile Family
Courts Courts Courts Courts Dependency Dependency
5 100% GRADUATES 6 100% GRADUATES

ALCOHOL OR DRUG CONVICTION ALCOHOL OR DRUG CONVICTION
WITHIN THREE YEARS OF ADMISSION WITHIN FIVE YEARS OF ADMISSION
80% 80%
Percent Convicted
Percent Convicted
Drug Court Graduates Comparison Members Drug Court Graduates Comparison Members
60% 60%
34%
40%
27%
40% 30%
22% 23% 23%
19% 19%
22%
15% 16% 15% 17%
20% 20% 12% 13%
6% 7% 9% 8%
4%
0% 0%
Dependency Courts Courts Courts Courts Dependency
8
7
“ There is so much shame and

isolation with addiction. But it’s
something that can happen to
anyone — college degree or
not, wealthy or not. When I was
sentenced to sobriety court, it
changed me. I love myself today.”
— Stacy Salon
86th District Sobriety Court in Traverse City
Oakland County Adult Treatment Court Graduation, October 3, 2018.
Graduates and court staff gather with judges to celebrate. (Front row) Judge
Hala Jarbou, Oakland County ATC; Judge Phyllis McMillen, Oakland County
ATC; Justice Elizabeth Clement; and Oakland County Circuit Court & ATC
Chief Judge Shalina Kumar.
Recidivism Rates for All Participants
The three-year analyses of all participants who entered a program included a total of 24,199 matched pairs, and
the five-year analyses included 19,247 matched pairs. The recidivism rates are reported by program type.
100% ALL PARTICIPANTS 100% ALL PARTICIPANTS

ANY NEW CONVICTION WITHIN THREE YEARS OF ADMISSION ANY NEW CONVICTION WITHIN FIVE YEARS OF ADMISSION
80% 80%
Percent Convicted
Percent Convicted
Drug Court Participants Comparison Members Drug Court Participants Comparison Members
60% 60%
47%
40% 43%
40% 34% 34% 35% 36%
30% 40% 29% 28% 28%
22% 25% 22% 23%
19% 20% 22% 18%
20% 11% 20%
0% 0%
Courts Courts Courts Courts Dependency Courts Courts Courts Courts Dependency
9
100% ALL PARTICIPANTS 10
100% ALL PARTICIPANTS
ALCOHOL OR DRUG CONVICTION ALCOHOL OR DRUG CONVICTION
WITHIN THREE YEARS OF ADMISSION WITHIN FIVE YEARS OF ADMISSION
80% 80%
Percent Convicted
Percent Convicted
Drug Court Partipants Comparison Members Drug Court Participants Comparison Members
60% 60%
34%
40% 40% 30%
22% 22% 25% 24%
18% 19% 21% 19% 19% 19%
16% 16%
20% 12%
8% 12% 15% 14% 20% 13%
0% 0%
Courts Courts Courts Courts Dependency Courts Courts Courts Courts Dependency
11 The differences in recidivism rates when evaluating 12 of drug court should be to address responsivity
graduates and when evaluating all participants needs, or conditions that may interfere with the
clearly show that when participants receive the full person’s response to treatment and rehabilitation.
swath of treatment and social services and graduate Such conditions may include a lack of housing or
a program, the reduction in recidivism is much transportation, co-occurring mental health disorders,
more impactive. The initial focus of drug courts or withdrawal symptoms from drugs and alcohol.
is to stabilize participants by linking them quickly When courts address these conditions early on, they
to treatment services, creating the best chance of reduce the likelihood of failure in or absconding
treatment engagement and lessening the likelihood from the program, thus giving participants time to
of absconding or noncompliance. Participants’ needs, engage in treatment.
then, should be addressed in a specific sequence,
which has proven to produce better outcomes. Subsequent phases address the conditions or
Drug courts use a phase structure to ensure the disorders that cause crime, or the criminogenic
delivery of services at appropriate times. For needs. These conditions include the addiction to
example, the primary focus during the first phase the drug, hanging with delinquent peers, criminal
thinking and impulsivity, and family conflicts. maintenance needs such as low self-esteem, lack of
Criminogenic needs are addressed by court staff job skills, and lack of education or vocational skills
through intense supervision and by therapists using are addressed.
evidence-based models of treatment that treat
addiction and address criminal thinking patterns. When courts adhere to this phase structure design
addressing needs when appropriate, they are more
The final phase of drug court is referred to as the likely to retain participants. As the data show,
maintenance phase. By this phase, participants retaining participants to successful completion
are stabilized and have learned coping skills that increases their chances of living a productive life
aid in their sustained recovery. Here, less pressing without a return to crime.
Drug Court Graduates’ Performance Measures
Drug court programs are more structured and Treatment

regimented than standard probation. They require
participants to engage in substance abuse treatment, Best practices state: “The drug court offers a
test for drugs and alcohol randomly and frequently, continuum of care for substance abuse treatment,
appear before the judge for updates one to two including detoxification, residential, sober living,
times per month, and participants are monitored day treatment, intensive outpatient, and outpatient
intensively by probation and law enforcement services.” Potential participants are clinically
where home checks are conducted for compliance. assessed for a determination of what modality of
Programs reward good behavior with varying substance abuse treatment is needed toward their
incentives and address bad behavior with program recovery. Clinicians are guided by the American
sanctions, and do so quickly to stimulate behavior Society of Addiction Medicine to help determine
change. The following performance measures the level of care. The average number of hours of all
reference best practices from NADCP’s Adult Drug types of substance abuse treatment modalities are
Court Best Practice Standards Vol. I and Vol. II. shown by program type.
“ When I first got into drug court, it was

hard for me to stay structured. But as time SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT
Average Number of Treatment Hours
600
progressed, it benefitted me because I can 500

HOURS BY PROGRAM TYPE
now plan what I need to get done and plan 400
fun activities to better myself. Drug court

306
300
helped me learn how to plan my life in 200 156
178
positive ways.”
121
100 68
— Dylan Colbeck 0
Charlevoix County Juvenile Drug Treatment Court graduate Adult Drug Sobriety Hybrid Juvenile Family
13
Drug/Alcohol Tests DRUG AND ALCOHOL TESTS
Testing for alcohol and drugs is essential for 700
BY PROGRAM TYPE
monitoring abstinence and new use, and must be 589
Average Number of Tests

600
performed randomly and frequently. Best practices 500
state: “Urine testing is performed at least twice per 400
316
290
week until participants are in the last phase of the 300
176
program and preparing for graduation.” 200
85
100
0
Positive Drug/Alcohol Tests Adult Drug Sobriety Hybrid Juvenile Family
According to best practices and standards,
programs use scientifically valid and reliable
PERCENT OF POSITIVE DRUG AND
testing procedures. If participants deny use after 14
ALCOHOL TESTS BY PROGRAM TYPE
Average Percent of Positive Tests

having a positive test result, a confirmatory 15 13
analysis is performed to rule out false positives.
10
Incentives 5 4
1 2
The drug court concept incorporates a strength- <1
0
0
based approach by reinforcing productive behavior Adult Drug Sobriety Hybrid Courts Juvenile Family
that supports recovery. Best practices state: “The Courts Courts Drug Courts Dependency
drug court places as much emphasis on incentivizing

productive behaviors as it does on reducing crime, AVERAGE NUMBER OF PROGRAM
15 40
substance abuse, and other infractions.” Drug INCENTIVES BY PROGRAM TYPE
Average Number of Incentives
courts have been found to reduce substance use and 30 27

criminal behaviors when they focus on incentivizing
18
productive behaviors as much as they do on reducing 20
15
16
12
noncompliant behavior. 10
Sanctions 0
Adult Drug Sobriety Hybrid Courts Juvenile Family
Courts Courts Drug Courts Dependency
According to best practices, sanctions should
be imposed as quickly as possible following
noncompliant behavior, as this is the crux 16
10 AVERAGE NUMBER OF PROGRAM
Average Number of Sanctions
of behavior modification. Courts should SANCTIONS BY PROGRAM TYPE

not wait until the next review hearing if
the noncompliance can be addressed more 5 4
3 3 3
immediately. In addition, participants should 2 2
not receive punitive sanctions if they are not

responding to treatment interventions but are 0
otherwise engaged in and attending treatment, Courts Courts Drug Courts Dependency
and compliant with program requirements.
17
Days in Jail for
Drug Court Sanction
20
AVERAGE NUMBER OF DAYS
IN JAIL AS PROGRAM SANCTION
Average Number of Jail Days

Drug courts that use high-magnitude sanctions such
15
as lengthy jail stays are less effective than programs 12
11 10 10
that develop and use a wide range of creative 10
7
intermediate-magnitude sanctions. Using too severe
5
of sanctions can lead to a ceiling effect where
programs run out of sanctions before treatment 0
can become effective, and the results are poorer Adult Drug
Courts
Sobriety
Courts
Hybrid Courts Juvenile
Drug Courts
Family
Dependency
outcomes. According to best practices, jail sanctions
that are longer than three to five days in duration
begin to produce diminishing returns, and jail stays 18
of more than one week are associated with increased
recidivism.
AVERAGE NUMBER OF STATUS REVIEW

Review Hearings HEARINGS BY PROGRAM TYPE
Average Number of Review Hearings
40
31
According to the National Association of Drug 30 28
Court Professionals, “Research has consistently 23 24 22
shown that the perceived quality of interactions 20
between participants and the drug court judge is

10
among the most influential factors for success in
the program.” During review hearings, participants 0
have a chance to interact one-on-one with the judge. Courts Courts Drug Courts Dependency
The judge addresses participants in an attentive,
fair, and caring manner and offers supportive and
encouraging words toward their recovery and 19
program requirements. Participants are afforded

reasonable opportunity to explain their perspectives,
which helps to build trust in the team and respect
for the court. AVERAGE NUMBER OF MONTHS IN
Average Number of Months in Program
25 PROGRAM BY PROGRAM TYPE

18 18
Length in Program
20 17
15 13
10
Programs vary in length where juvenile drug 10
courts are generally shorter in duration than adult
5
programs, while family dependency treatment
courts adhere to statutory permanency placement 0
plan timelines. Courts Courts Drug Courts Dependency
20
IGNITION INTERLOCK DATA ANALYSES
In 2013, Public Act 226 allowed eligible repeat In FY 2018, there were 1,501 active participants
Operating While Impaired (OWI) offenders the among 67 sobriety, hybrid, and veterans treatment
ability to receive a restricted license through the court programs who were members of the interlock
ignition interlock program by participating in a program with an installed device on their vehicle(s).
sobriety or drug court program. Eligible users are
ordered by a drug court judge to have a Breath The majority of participants who had ignition
Alcohol Ignition Interlock Device (BAIID) installed interlocks installed were compliant with the terms
on all vehicles that they own or operate. The device of its use:
is designed to prevent the vehicle from starting if
• Less than one percent of users removed the
the driver has blood alcohol content above a pre-
ignition interlock device without approval.
established level, which is monitored by blowing
into the device. The passing of PA 226 and favorable • Less than one percent of users tampered
results of the interlock pilot project, which can be with the device.
found in the Michigan DWI/Sobriety Court Ignition • One percent operated a vehicle without the device2.
Interlock Evaluation 2015 Report, opened other
courts to offering the device to eligible participants. 2
Missing data were removed from the analyses.
Ignition Interlock Participants’ Outcomes

Therapy for substance abuse includes learning interlock devices who were discharged from a
new coping skills to help prevent relapse. When treatment court program during FY 2018. Of those,
671 (93 percent) successfully completed a PSC
participants are engaged in therapy it increases the program.
likelihood that they will succeed in a treatment • Five percent were discharged unsuccessfully due
court program and maintain abstinence. However, to noncompliance, absconding, or a new offense.
participants often lack a means of transportation • Two percent were discharged for reasons such
making it difficult to get to treatment, and other as voluntarily withdrew, “Other,” transferred to
requirements that can lead to program failure. another jurisdiction, death, medical discharge, or
Providing transportation through interlock enables statutorily ineligible.
participants to comply with program requirements
such as treatment to help in their recovery. Graduates with ignition interlock devices:
• Achieved an average of 363 days of
Evaluating the rate of program completion and the consecutive sobriety.
number of consecutive sobriety days for interlock • Spent an average of 527 days in a PSC program.
participants is a good measure of their success
• Averaged 460 drug and alcohol tests, and less
toward continued abstinence.
than one percent of those tests was positive.
• There were 725 participants using ignition
Ignition Interlock Recidivism
Recidivism Rates for All Participants

The three-year analyses of all participants in a drug court program that used interlock
included a total of 2,320 matched pairs, and the five-year analyses included 1,228 matched pairs.
100% ALL INTERLOCK PARTICIPANTS 100% ALL INTERLOCK PARTICIPANTS

ANY NEW CONVICTION WITHIN ALCOHOL OR DRUG CONVICTION WITHIN
80% THREE AND FIVE YEARS OF ADMISSION 80% THREE AND FIVE YEARS OF ADMISSION
Percent Convicted
Percent Convicted
Program Participants Comparison Members Program Participants Comparison Members

60% 60%
40% 40%
16% 20%
13% 16%
20% 9% 20%
5% 4% 7%
0% 0%
3 Years 5 Years 3 Years 5 Years
21 22
Rates for Graduates
The three-year analyses of graduates of a drug court program that used interlock included
a total of 2,126 matched pairs, and the five-year analyses included 1,125 matched pairs.
100% INTERLOCK GRADUATES 100%

INTERLOCK GRADUATES
ANY NEW CONVICTION WITHIN ALCOHOL OR DRUG CONVICTION WITHIN
80% THREE AND FIVE YEARS OF ADMISSION THREE AND FIVE YEARS OF ADMISSION
80%
Percent Convicted
Percent Convicted
Program Graduates Comparison Members Program Graduates Comparison Members

60% 60%
40% 40%
16% 20%
20% 13% 16%
8% 20%
4% 3% 6%
0% 0%
3 Years 5 Years 3 Years 5 Years
23 24
MENTAL HEALTH COURT DATA ANALYSES
MHC Caseload Statistics
During FY 2018, Michigan’s mental health courts: During FY 2018, the total number of participants
who were active in working a drug court program
• Screened 1,467 potential participants.
was 1,414 and is broken down by circuit courts,
• Admitted 737 offenders into a program. district courts, and juvenile populations:
• Discharged 625 participants. • Adult district mental health courts totaled

723 participants (51 percent).
• Adult circuit mental health courts totaled
• Juvenile mental health courts totaled
MHC Graduates’ Outcomes Measures
Factors used to evaluate the success of MHCs Success Rate

include successful completion of the program,
improvement in employment or education, There were 625 participants discharged from 32
improvement in mental health, improvement in mental health courts in FY 2018 and of those, 355
quality of life, medication compliance, and reduced participants (57 percent) successfully completed
criminal recidivism. a program. Thirty-six percent were discharged
unsuccessfully due to noncompliance, absconding,
or a new offense, while seven percent were
Percent of Successful Complettions
100% SUCCESS RATE BY COURT TYPE discharged for reasons such as voluntarily withdrew,
80%
65% “Other,” death, medical discharge, or transferred to
60%
55% 56%
another jurisdiction.
40%
20%
0%
Adult Circuit Adult District Juvenile Mental
Mental Health Court Mental Health Court Health Court
25
100% UNEMPLOYMENT AT ADMISSION
AND DISCHARGE BY COURT TYPE
80%
Employment Status 60% 51%
43%
40%
The mental health court statute states: “A mental 20%
15%
health court shall provide a mental health 20%
court participant with all of the following: … 0%

Mental health services, substance use disorder Adult Circuit Adult District
Mental Health Court Mental Health Court
services, education, and vocational opportunities
as appropriate and practicable.” Programs * Juvenile mental health court offenders were not included as their main
goal while working a program is to improve their education level.
collaborate with community agencies to find 26
necessary employment for participants. Adult
circuit mental health court graduates saw a 53 IMPROVED EDUCATION 100%
percent reduction in unemployment, while adult
100% LEVEL BY COURT TYPE
district mental health court graduates saw a Percent of Graduates
80%
71-percent reduction. 60%
40%
20% 13% 12%
0%
Improved Education Level Adult Circuit Adult District Juvenile
Mental Health Court Mental Health Court Mental Health Court
An improved education is not the goal of every

participant, but youths in mental health courts 27 IMPROVED MENTAL HEALTH
were especially likely to continue their education, BY COURT TYPE
progressing through high school. 100% 97% 100%
100%
80%
60%
Improved Mental Health 40%
and Medication Compliance 20%

0%
An improvement in mental health suggests Mental Health Court Mental Health Court Mental Health Court
greater stability among participants, and with

many, this can be achieved through medication.
28
Program requirements and communication about FULL COMPLIANCE WITH
participants include whether they are taking their MEDICATION BY COURT TYPE
prescribed medications as directed by doctors. 100% 91% 92%
77%
Frequent medication checks are conducted to 80%
promote mental stability toward an improved 60%
mental health. 40%

20%
0%
29
Improved Quality of Life
IMPROVED QUALITY OF LIFE
An improved quality of life can be obtained by BY COURT TYPE
connecting participants to community-based 100% 96% 98%
100%
treatment, housing, and other needed services.
80%
Mental health courts, through supervision, 60%
care and treatment, help participants gain 40%
independent functioning, improve their social 20%
and family relationships, and achieve mental 0%
stability, thereby reducing crisis interventions. Adult Circuit
Mental Health Court
Adult District
Mental Health Court
Juvenile
Mental Health Court
30
MHC Recidivism
Recidivism Rates 100% GRADUATES

for Graduates 80%
Percent Convicted
MHC Graduates Comparison Members

The three-year analyses of participants who 60%
41%
graduated a mental health court program 40%
36% 38%
25% 25%
included a total of 924 matched pairs and 15%
20%
the four-year analyses included 468 matched
pairs across all three court types. Specifically, 0%
juvenile mental health courts had only 80 pairs Mental Health Court Mental Health Court Mental Health Court
for the three-year analysis and 42 pairs for the
five-year analysis. As their numbers grow, the
differences in recidivism rates between young 31 100% GRADUATES
participants and their comparison group may NEW CONVICTION WITHIN FIVE YEARS OF ADMISSION
80% MHC Graduates Comparison Members
become statistically significant.
Percent Convicted
60% 54%
43% 45%
40% 33% 31%
28%
20%
0%
32
F Y 2 018 P R O B L E M - S O LV I N G C O U R T S A N N UA L R E P O R T PAG E 2 3
100% ALL PARTIPANTS
Recidivism Rates 80%
MHC Participants Comparison Members
Percent Convicted
for All Participants 60%
40% 43%
35% 37%
40%
The three-year analyses of all participants in a 25% 30%
mental health court program included a total of 20%
1,864 matched pairs, and the four-year analyses 0%

included 956 matched pairs across all three court Adult Circuit Adult District Juvenile
types. Specifically, juvenile mental health courts
had only 125 pairs for the three-year analysis and
62 pairs for the five-year analysis. As their 33 ALL PARTICIPANTS
100%
numbers grow, the differences in the recidivism NEW CONVICTION WITHIN FIVE YEARS OF ADMISSION
rate and their comparison group may become 80% MHC Participants Comparison Members
Percent Convicted
statistically significant. 60% 48%
56%
48%
43%
37% 39%
40%
20%
0%
MHC Graduates’ Performance Measures

34
Overall, graduates of a mental health court symbolic, and personalized to the participant;
program averaged: participants should receive certificates of completion
after each phase advancement; and the team should
• 12 incentives and 2 sanctions. display before review hearings who is to receive
• 23 scheduled review hearings. incentives for good behavior.
• 434 days in a mental health court program.
Incentives
20 AVERAGE NUMBER OF
Average Number of Incentives
INCENTIVES BY COURT TYPE

Problem-solving courts are predicated on a strength- 15
based approach focusing on participants’ individual 12 12
strengths and empowering them to take the lead 10
10
in resolving their problems. Incentivizing progress
and achievements encourages participants to stay 5
engaged in their treatment, and compliant with
medication and court requirements. According to 0
best practices, incentives should be tangible, Adult Circuit Adult District Juvenile
35
Sanctions
Programs should share with participants AVERAGE NUMBER OF
Average Number of Sanctions

10
a written schedule of sanctions to lend SANCTIONS BY COURT TYPE
predictability to the consequences of different
5
noncompliant behavior. Teams, however, 2 2
1
can overrule the sanction associated with the
0
behavior when there is good reason. Adult Circuit Adult District Juvenile
36
Scheduled Review Hearings AVERAGE NUMBER OF SCHEDULE

Average Number of Review Hearings
40
REVIEW HEARINGS BY COURT TYPE
Team members attend review hearings on 30 27
a regular basis and contribute information 21 22

20
that is relevant to participant progress when
prompted by the judge. Judges use motivational 10
interviewing techniques to elicit behavior
change when interacting with participants at 0
review hearings. Mental Health Court Mental Health Court Mental Health Court
37
AVERAGE NUMBER OF MONTHS

Average Number of Months in Program
Length in Program 25 IN PROGRAM BY COURT TYPE

20 17
Program participation ranges from 15
14
12
approximately one to one and a half years. 10
0
38
F Y 2 018 P R O B L E M - S O LV I N G C O U R T S A N N UA L R E P O R T PAG E 2 5
VETERANS TREATMENT COURT DATA ANALYSES
Veterans often return with physical injuries and When veterans become entangled in the criminal
many return with what is known as invisible justice system, veterans treatment courts respond
wounds, inflicted by horrific experiences. These in a nontraditional way by providing them a
unseen wounds rob veterans of peace of mind and structured environment that is already ingrained in
can lead to hopelessness, alienation, or regret. The military personnel, treatment toward restoration,
emotional trauma of war can cause the anxiety and mentoring from fellow veterans. In FY 2018,
disorder known as PTSD or post-traumatic stress Michigan had 25 VTC programs.
disorder. It is estimated by the Department of
Veteran Affairs that 8 out of every 100 veterans
suffer from PTSD. Sadly, many veterans turn to
alcohol or drugs to self-medicate, which can spiral
into run-ins with the law.
VTC Caseload Statistics
During FY 2018, Michigan’s veterans treatment drug courts:

• Screened 350 potential participants. During FY 2018, the total number of participants
• Admitted 266 offenders into a program. who were active in working a VTC program was
596 among 25 courts.
• Discharged 241 participants.
VTC Graduates’ Outcomes
Outcomes that measure the effectiveness of VTCs Success Rate

include the success rate of completing a program,
the number of sobriety days achieved, an improved • Of the 241 veterans discharged during FY 2018,
quality of life, and finding gainful employment. 172 participants (71 percent) had successfully
Recidivism analyses for VTCs are not available yet, completed a program.
as the research on recidivism outcomes is still in • Twenty-one percent were discharged
its infancy, with few studies measuring recidivism unsuccessfully due to noncompliance,
using comparison groups. absconding, or a new offense.
• Eight percent were discharged for reasons
such as “Other,” death, transferred to another
jurisdiction, or voluntarily withdrew.
Graduate Accomplishments
• Graduates averaged 341 consecutive days
of sobriety.
• Despite most veterans having obtained at least
a GED prior to entry into a program, 15 percent
still had improved their education level at
Macomb County Veterans Treatment Court Graduation, May 10, 2018.
discharge. Chief Judge Carrie Fuca, 41B District Court, reading the certificate for a
• Ninety-seven percent reported an improved new graduate of the Macomb County Veterans Treatment Court.
quality of life upon graduation.

100% UNEMPLOYMENT AT
ADMISSION AND DISCHARGE
80%
Employment Status
60%
Twenty-three percent of graduates were 40%

23%
unemployed at admission and 5 percent of 20%
5%
graduates were unemployed at discharge, 0%
resulting in a 78 percent reduction in unemployment. Unemployed at Admission Unemployed at Discharge
VTC Graduates’ Performance Measures

39
While working a program graduates averaged: The high success rate of VTCs is an early measure
of their effectiveness. VTCs had retained 92 percent
• 12 incentives and 1 sanction. of their participants over a 12-month period,
• 22 scheduled court review hearings. which is important for allowing time for treatment
• 194 drug/alcohol tests. engagement and increasing the likelihood of success
• Five percent of drug/alcohol tests were positive. in the program. Having veteran peer mentors as
• 518 days in a program. team members may be partially responsible for this
high retention rate since military culture is one of
supporting each another. In addition, VTCs are very
“ Each month, I’d leave the program and structured and disciplined in their expectations,
my spirits were soaring, I was rising; I which is familiar to military personnel. Michigan
couldn’t even believe how good I felt will continue to honor those who served our country
afterwards. On graduation day, I felt like by assisting our veterans suffering from invisible
I could jump up and touch the stars.” wounds of war in their recovery. It is one step
toward providing the help that they have earned.
— Kevin Hier,
Ingham County VTC graduate
FY 2018 PROBLEM-SOLVING
COURTS ANNUAL REPORT
SOLV I NG PROBLEM S, SAV I NG LI V E S
ONE COURT OF JUSTICE

courts.mi.gov
@misupremecourt
facebook.com/misupremecourt
linkedin.com/company/michigan-supreme-court
youtube.com/michigancourts
17th District Veterans Treatment Court. Judge Karen Khalil with new graduate.
Cover photos (l to r):
Michigan Hall of Justice. Veteran mentors at Justice For Vets Mentor Boot Camp.
Berrien County Drug Treatment Court. Judge Donna Howard with new graduate
and family.
Van Buren County Drug Treatment Court. New graduate thanking the court.
For more information, contact the Michigan Supreme Court Office of Public Information:
P.O. Box 30052 | Lansing, MI 48909 | MSC_Public_Info@courts.mi.gov | 517-373-0129

PSC Annual Report

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

PSC Annual Report

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

FY 2018 PROBLEM-SOLVING

COURTS ANNUAL REPORT

Letter From Justice Elizabeth T. Clement..................................................................3

Michigan’s Certification Of Problem-Solving Courts.............................................10

Drug Court Data Analyses.................................................................................................11

Ignition Interlock Data Analyses...............................................................................19

Mental Health Court Data Analyses................................................................................21

Veterans Treatment Court Data Analyses..................................................................... 26

As the Michigan Supreme Court’s liaison to problem-solving courts,

Now, I have the honor and privilege of attending graduation ceremonies

Problem-solving courts are a special passion for

Independence. Accessibility. Engagement.

Of the 2,984 participants discharged from a drug

likely to reoffend. For example, participants 80%

Drug Court Graduates Comparison Members

program, in particular, are two times less likely 40% 34%

Ignition Interlock Devices

In FY 2018, there were 1,501 active participants

During FY 2018, there were 1,414 participants

MHC Graduates Comparison Members

commit another crime.

Reoffense rates vary across different court

When veterans become entangled in the criminal

Michigan had 25 VTC programs. Since the end of 40%

During 2018, 596 participants were active in 25 0%

VTC programs do not yet have data comparisons

Veterans Treatment Courts

Veterans treatment courts (VTCs) across the country

Drug Court Caseload Statistics

Drug Court Graduates’ Outcome Measures

Average Number of Sobriety Days

that are typically adjudicated within one year. 100

All programs met the national best practice that 0

practices state: “In order to graduate, participants 20% 13%

rate upon graduation.

IMPROVED EDUCATION LEVEL

education level, suggesting they were able to stay 80%

in school and advance to the next grade while in 60%

the program. 40%

Research studies recommend that participants of

Oakland County Juvenile Drug Court Graduation, March 3, 2018.

100% GRADUATES 100% GRADUATES

5 100% GRADUATES 6 100% GRADUATES

“ There is so much shame and

100% ALL PARTICIPANTS 100% ALL PARTICIPANTS

Drug Court Graduates’ Performance Measures

Drug court programs are more structured and Treatment

“ When I first got into drug court, it was

progressed, it benefitted me because I can 500

fun activities to better myself. Drug court

Average Number of Tests

Average Percent of Positive Tests

drug court places as much emphasis on incentivizing

courts have been found to reduce substance use and 30 27

of behavior modification. Courts should SANCTIONS BY PROGRAM TYPE

not receive punitive sanctions if they are not

Average Number of Jail Days

AVERAGE NUMBER OF STATUS REVIEW

between participants and the drug court judge is

program requirements. Participants are afforded

25 PROGRAM BY PROGRAM TYPE

Ignition Interlock Participants’ Outcomes

Recidivism Rates for All Participants