(Note - I've not changed any of the content here, although I did have to alter the formatting a bit to overcome the internet gremlins that seem to invade every time a document goes from one format to another)
Larry,
I don't know why you had problems finding my email address - www.ncgov.com is the state government portal that includes a state employee directory that provides both email addresses and telephone numbers for most state employees and I am in that directory. You could have also found my phone number on the Judicial Department website and called and I would have given you the email address.
Anyway, it is Gregg.C.Stahl@aoc.nccourts.org Feel free to post it.
Here is a summary (some is updated due to research since 2007) of why I recommended in 2007 to the Drug Treatment Court Advisory Committee that SCRAM not be used by Drug Treatment Courts. The advisory committee is made up of judges, DOC officials, treatment providers and others with knowledge about drug and alcohol abuse among offenders. They made the decision, not me. The representative from the Mecklenburg courts present at the meeting never spoke.
This is also the information I gave to Ames Alexander, the Charlotte Observer reporter who wrote the story - some during our multiple telephone discussions and others in email.
This is a complex issue and the 60 day limit needs to be separated from the Drug Treatment Court issue. Following is a description of both.
The 60 day limit is specific by law to DWI offenders and allows the judge to use CAM for up to 60 days or a cost to not exceed $1,000 to mitigate the active prison sentence for an offender.
So in the case of the offender in Gaston County, SCRAM was used instead of sending him to prison. He also received a shortened active probation sentence so when the fatal crash occurred he was not under an active supervision despite the fact he had pled guilty to 2 DWIs (one level 1 and one level 2), had a previous DWI conviction, had waited 16 months from the date of the last offense to plead guilty and was less than a year from that court sentencing date. So, using SCRAM allowed a repeat DWI offender to get a lesser sentence then he would have otherwise. There is no evidence that the offender was in treatment at the same time he wore the bracelet for the 60 days (even took SCRAM 60 days from his conviction date to hook him up) and I speculate that the offender had already been through treatment in the 16 months prior to his going to court.
Drug Treatment Courts (DTC) target offenders are those who are convicted and sentenced to an intermediate or community punishment under Structured Sentencing - which does not include DWI as DWI is still an old law offense. Thus, the vast majority of offenders in Drug Treatment Court are there for addictions to drugs other than alcohol and thus continuous monitoring for alcohol use is not necessary. Also, only 32% of those in DTC ever graduate. The other 68% fail to complete the program but only 4% of those failures are logged as being for positive drug tests. I think this means the programs routinely overlook positive tests as relapse is often a part of drug and alcohol treatment.
Only Mecklenburg has large numbers of DWI in their two county funded DWI courts. Mecklenburg ran a pilot program using SCRAM paid for from a local ABC grant. In order to have a purpose for the monitoring (punishment or treatment aid) the DWI court staff was asked to develop a program design and decided to use the devices to monitor offenders who were not complying with the rules of the program and in which there were indications from treatment or probation that they were drinking. The monitoring was to be used as an increased punishment with adult probation participating in the pilot through an agreement for them to install the bracelets. However, for whatever reason the court did not follow it own program design but instead opted to put the device on everyone for 30 days who came into the court. The pilot ended when the grant money that paid for both the equipment and the daily monitoring ran out. The AOC negotiated a $5 per day monitoring rate in lieu of the normal $12 daily rate. Monies to continue the program were never allocated or appropriated and an independent process evaluation noted that courts didn't follow their program design and the local court staff did not agree on the benefits of the monitoring.
Finally, here's the summary of why I don't think SCRAM should be a client pay based punishment or used in Drug Treatment Courts:
• Continuous monitoring for alcohol does not stop someone from driving - cannot be marketed as a "life saving device"
• Continuous monitoring is not real time reporting
• Those on probation for alcohol related offenses are already routinely tested for alcohol use
• The theory behind continuous monitoring is one of general deterrence - risk of getting caught deters individual from participating in restricted activity - however, that is particularly difficult for addicts
• Other more reliable methods are available that physically prevent use and abuse (Anitbuse, Soboxone and Vivitrol) - which is specific deterrence
• Since CAM is alcohol specific, offender could switch to another drug that would go undetected unless ordered for other drug testing
• Continuous monitoring without treatment is a punishment - restriction of liberty - that usually mitigates a statutory jail or prison sentence and more often than not in non DWI cases the judgment doesn't include condition to not drink (DWI statute prohibits drinking) and thus drinking violations are unenforceable
• Monitoring for alcohol and drug use is the responsibility of adult probation officers when the individual is on probation and the method of doing so should be left to their discretion.
• Continuous monitoring with treatment isn't necessary - treatment professionals haven't endorsed the use and treatment professionals employ other methods of detecting use and understand relapse is often part of the treatment regime
• Judges shouldn't be ordering specific treatment regimes but leave that up to treatment professionals
• Client pay to vendor models are not used in criminal cases for any other punishment and is especially problematic in the case of offender indigence - either offender gets harsher punishment (active sentence) or is denied potential benefits of monitoring - problems with non payment claims - problems with payment to vendor in lieu of payment for other costs associated with case like attorney fees, court fees and supervision fees - if adopted CAM should be a state administered contract
• Case for use argues cost of $12 per day is cheaper than jail or prison - indicating a mitigation of sentence only afforded to those with means leading to unequal justice - and isn't an accurate argument in that real immediate cost savings for community punishment in lieu of jail time is only the cost of food and any medical costs as all other costs associated with the operation of a jail or prison are fixed
• Monitoring information requires $30 per month telephone line in addition to daily cost - land lines not in use by many
• Monitoring information often reviewed by individuals not fully trained to distinguish drinking episodes from false positives (sales staff and probation officers)
• Most studies citing success of the SCRAM device were paid for by parent company for SCRAM
• National Center for State Courts study (paid for by parent company) horrendously flawed and was based upon unverified data - conclusion not based upon actual case study
• Only study not paid for parent company (2007) found device fraught with false negatives problems (only detected known drinking incidents 57% of the time) and found decreased accuracy over time thus negating the benefits of longer use
• Reliance on device may lead to traditional forms of monitoring to be abandoned
• Endorsement by National Association of Drug Court Professionals - parent company of SCRAM is a $25,000 corporate sponsor of the association - NCMADD has also endorsed the product and the NC SCRAM vendor is a corporate sponsor
• North Carolina Association of County Commissioners was approached by local SCRAM vendor with an offer for a paid endorsement
• Durham district court judge banned SCRAM sales staff from courtroom after hearing salesman offering lower sentences to anyone with a DWI - was especially problematic for Hispanic defendants who thought salesman was an attorney
• Drug Courts do not take DWI offenders as part of their target population - most of those who indicated they used alcohol as drug of choice are more than likely in the Mecklenburg DWI courts which are not state funded
• Mecklenburg DTCs ran a grant funded pilot program using SCRAM and failed to follow their own protocol and thus the evaluation of the effectiveness as a sanction couldn't be determined - DTC staff in Mecklenburg could not agree on the usefulness of the device
• Other low tech and higher tech alternatives available which are cheaper - urinalysis is $5 per test and state paid - GPS alcohol/drug monitoring device now on market is $8 per day - Interlock is $2.50 per day
Obviously, not all of this was included in Ames' story - but he did get it all.
I hope you can conclude that this issue is well beyond personalities and a "bureaucrat run amok". As a state employee I feel it is my job to ensure that court programs and policy look at both the intended and unintended consequences before adoption. The purpose of and need for CAM needs to be decided and if it is to be a punishment then adult probation should oversee it and monies should be appropriated by the General Assembly for the Department of Correction to purchase the equipment and services. This is how the electronic monitoring, drug testing and GPS monitoring programs were implemented.
I did read several of your earlier blogs and enjoyed them all – all but this one.
Take care,
Gregg Stahl
Senior Deputy Director
Administrative Office of the Courts
919 890-1392
No comments:
Post a Comment