By Cynthia Price
Legal News
“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 Michigan’s criminal justice system without any attempt to treat the underlying cause,” reads the first paragraph under “Background” in “Solving Problems Saving Lives.”
Whether the underlying cause is alcohol or drug addiction, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, or mental illness, problem-solving courts work collaboratively with those whose brushes with the law indicate they need help.
The Michigan Supreme Court publication sings the praises of such courts, which it defines as “non-traditional courts that focus on nonviolent offenders whose underlying medical and social problems... have contributed to recurring contacts with the criminal justice system.”
“Solving Problems Saving Lives” contains a lot of statistics, but it also tells the stories of many of the players, from State Court Administrative Office personnel to graduates of programs around the state.
Chief Justice Robert Young says in his introductory message, “‘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.”
He also reports that Michigan leads the nation in the number of Veterans Treatment Courts at 22.
The report states, “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.”
In addition:
—Half of drug court participants saw improvement in employment status.
—After two years, mental health court participants were 63 percent less likely to be convicted of any new offense.
—After two years, sobriety court participants and adult district drug court participants were 75 less likely to be convicted of a new offense.
—97 percent of juvenile drug court participants improved their education level.
—98 percent of mental health court graduates improved their mental health.
As Young points out, there are also dollars and sense benefits of the courts, which divert participants from going to prison. The 9,154 cases that sent offenders to the drug courts and 1,059 sent to mental health courts means over 10,000 people were kept out of prison. Since it costs, conservatively, $66 per day to incarcerate someone, the state is potentially saving $660,000 per day.
Counting in for the possibility that many of those sentences would have been for less than the entire two years, it is still fair to say that the courts have saved millions and millions of dollars.
In addition, research on six different programs shows that 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. (Sources: Aos et al. (2006); Barnoski & Aos (2003); Bhati et al. (2008); Carey et al. (2006); Finigan et al. (2007); & Loman (2004)).
Justice Mary Beth Kelly is the Supreme Court liaison to the problem-solving courts, and Jessica Parks, is the deputy director of Trial Court Services for the State Court Administrative Office, who manages the problem-solving courts team.
One of the problem-solving court graduates profiled in the report is Stacy Salon, who attended sobriety court in the Traverse City area. Salon became addicted to prescribed pain pills, became “emotionally numb” as her use increased to 30 pills a day, and forged prescriptions after her doctor cut her off. The strict conditions of her sobriety court participation forced her to face her problems and, with the help of Munson Medical Center’s treatment program, she stopped her dependency.
Now, she has undergone training to become a volunteer recovery coach at Munson’s Drug Alcohol Treatment Center.
Another is David Pianki, an opiate user who before being assigned to problem-solving court weighed 240 pounds and was deeply depressed. He decided he had nothing to lose by making the best of the Alcoholics Anonymous meetings the program required him to attend, and gradually he began running, lost weight, and went back to school.
He now looks forward to life, has money in the bank and a “beautiful girlfriend,” and is hoping to be a “great dad” to his baby daughter. “I can honestly say I would have none of these things in my life if it weren’t for the conditions set by the opiate court,” Pianki says. “Opiate court truly saved my life and allowed me to be a happy person, and I am very grateful.”
Shortly after the release of “Solving Problems Saving Lives,” the Michigan Supreme Court issued another report that talked about the success of Ignition Interlock programs.
As reported in the Grand Rapids Legal News for March 11, 2015, Ignition Interlock devices are a valuable tool in the arsenal of those attempting to keep people who drink from driving. The device forces a person to blow into it before turning the key in the ignition, and if alcohol is found on the person’s breath, the interlock prevents them from starting the car.
Michigan DWI/Sobriety Court Ignition Interlock Evaluation 2015 Report sought to determine “whether ignition interlock devices are an effective means to control drunk driving recidivism among chronic DWI offenders when incorporated into a DWI/Sobriety Court program.”
By the measures included in the report, the short answer is yes, they are effective. “Interlock Program Participants have the lowest recidivism rates for operating under the influence of alcohol one, two and three years after the initial conviction for a repeat DWI charge in comparison to the non-interlock offenders in DWI/Sobriety Court and Standard Probationers.” The same is true for “all criminal offenses.”
The Interlock Group of the DWI/Sobriety Court participants had an 8.3% recidivism rate for all criminal offenses after three years, while the Non-Interlock group had a 10.7% rate, and probationers as a whole were at 11.6%.
The report also found that “Alcohol and drug use among Interlock Program Participants is substantially lower in comparison to similar DWI/Sobriety Court offenders not under interlock supervision;” and “Ignition interlock clients were more likely to improve their levels of education between the start and the completion of their programs” and stick with the problem-solving court programs better.
Though it was the 61st District Court program that contributed data to the 2015 report, 62B District Court Judge William Kelly was invited to participate in the local version of a live-streamed press conference May 19. In Lansing, Chief Justice Young and judges from around the state, including Judge Susan Dobrich of Cass County who is the president of the Michigan Association of Treatment Court Professionals, and Judge Harvey Hoffman of Eaton County, one of the founding fathers of sobriety courts, summarized the good news. Judge Kelly, at the Kentwood Court, followed the livestream.
The 62B Court started an Office of Highway Safety Planning Regional DWI Court in March of this year, so Judge Kelly said that he does not have hard data on the Interlock Ignition success yet. “I’ve only got a couple of people on the Interlock, but I’ve read the report and it’s very promising,” he commented. “The people we see coming through this court are generally the repeat offenders and have pretty big problems, so it’s good to see the Interlock program is making positive changes.
“These courts are a different way of approaching things, and even though they’re more work, they appear to be more effective,” he added.
Gary Secor, 61st District Court Administrator, and other staff contributed to the report. The Sobriety Court there was originated by Judge Patrick Bowler, and its solid success has continued under Judge Jeanine LaVille.
The remaining problem-solving court in Kent County is at 62A District Court in Wyoming, where Judge Pablo Cortes has started a Veterans Treatment Court.
According to Court Administrator Christopher Kittman, the new court is “up and running.”
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
https://test.legalnews.com/Home/Subscription
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
