RD368 - 2007 Annual Report on the Status and Effectiveness of Offender Drug Screening, Assessment and Treatment


Executive Summary:
During the 1998 and 1999 sessions, the General Assembly adopted legislation to require many offenders, both adult and juvenile, to undergo screening and assessment for substance abuse problems related to drugs or alcohol. The goal of this legislation was to reduce substance abuse and criminal behavior among offenders by enhancing the identification of substance-abusing offenders and their treatment needs. Cuts in funding since 2001, however, have curtailed the implementation of the Drug Screening, Assessment and Treatment (DSAT) initiative.

The framework of this broad initiative is outlined in §§ 16.1-273, 18.2-251.01, 19.2-299 and 19.2-299.2 of the Code of Virginia. These statutes target all felons convicted in circuit court as well as those convicted in general district court of a Class 1 misdemeanor drug offense receiving a sentence that includes probation supervision or participation in a local Alcohol Safety Action Program (ASAP). In addition, a judge, at his or her discretion, may order screening and assessment for any other Class 1 misdemeanant if the court has reason to believe the defendant has a substance abuse or dependency problem. Juvenile offenders adjudicated for a felony or any Class 1 or 2 misdemeanor drug offenses, as well as any juvenile for whom a social history is ordered fall under the screening and assessment requirements.

As originally designed under the DSAT initiative, specified offenders are to undergo a substance abuse screening. If the screening reveals key characteristics or behaviors likely related to drug use or alcohol abuse, the provisions call for a full assessment to be administered. The assessment is a thorough evaluation that provides a complete picture of the offender’s substance abuse pattern and history, social and psychological functioning and general treatment needs.

Within the Commonwealth, the agencies with primary responsibility for offender screening, assessment and treatment are the Department of Corrections (DOC), the Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ), local community-based probation and pretrial services agencies under the administration of the Department of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS) and the Department of Mental Health, Mental Retardation and Substance Abuse Services (DMHMRSAS). The latter agency accomplishes this objective via the regional Community Services Boards (CSBs). For adult felons, screening, assessment and treatment falls under the purview of DOC’s Probation and Parole offices. By statute, local offices of the Virginia Alcohol Safety Action Program (VASAP) may screen and assess adult misdemeanants, unless the offender is ordered to local community-based probation. Experience to date has shown that local ASAPs have received few screening orders or referrals for misdemeanant offenders sentenced in Virginia’s general district courts. In such cases, the local community-based probation agency is designated to perform the screening and assessment rather than the local ASAP. Local community-based probation agencies have handled the bulk of adult misdemeanants who have been screened and assessed. Screening, assessment and treatment of juvenile offenders is performed by Court Service Units (CSUs) serving the juvenile and domestic relations court system or by DJJ personnel.

In 1999, the General Assembly authorized a six-month period (July through December 1999) to pilot the implementation of the screening and assessment provisions. Nine DOC probation and parole districts, nine local ASAP agencies, nine local community-based probation agencies and seven DJJ CSUs participated in the pilot project. A variety of implementation models were piloted and the most effective methods were chosen for statewide implementation beginning January 1, 2000. Offenders who committed their crimes on or after January 1, 2000 were subject to screening and assessment provisions.

The Interagency Drug Offender Screening and Assessment Committee was created by the 1999 General Assembly to oversee the implementation and subsequent administration of this program. Chaired by the Secretary of Public Safety, the Interagency Committee is composed of representatives from DOC, DCJS, DJJ, the Commission on VASAP, DMHMRSAS and the Virginia Criminal Sentencing Commission. The Interagency Committee is charged with (i) assisting and monitoring agencies in implementing the drug screening, assessment and treatment provisions of §§ 16.1-273, 18.2-251.01, 19.2-299 and 19.2-299.2, (ii) ensuring quality and consistency in the screening and assessment process, (iii) promoting interagency coordination and cooperation in the identification and treatment of drug abusing or drug dependent offenders, (iv) implementing an evaluation process and conducting periodic program evaluations, and (v) making recommendations to the Governor and General Assembly regarding proposed expenditures from the Drug Offender Assessment Fund.

Before required budget cuts in beginning in 2001, the Interagency Committee provided assistance to and monitored the agencies involved with screening and assessment activities. The Interagency Committee collaborated with agencies to develop screening and assessment policies and procedures, as well as protocols related to confidentiality. The Interagency Committee approved the use of certain instruments for screening and assessing offenders for substance abuse problems. This was done to promote consistency in the screening and assessment process and to enhance the coordination among the various agencies involved in the identification and treatment of substance-abusing offenders. In 1999 and 2000, members of the Interagency Committee conducted numerous informational presentations for judges, prosecutors, public defenders and defense attorneys. The Interagency Committee organized and facilitated seminars to train more than 1,500 staff across agencies on the utilization of selected screening and assessment instruments.

To enhance interagency communication and cooperation, the Interagency Committee developed a protocol outlining specific procedures for the exchange of information among agencies and service providers. The protocol also included the creation of a one-page consent form which provides authorization for the exchange of information regarding an offender. The Interagency Committee guided the development and enhancement of interagency Memoranda of Agreement (MOA) and Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) to promote the referral of offenders for treatment and to improve the delivery of treatment services for offenders.

Per its legislative charge, the Interagency Committee implemented an evaluation process to examine DSAT activities across the Commonwealth. The Secretary of Public Safety’s Office directed the DCJS Criminal Justice Research Center to conduct the evaluation of this initiative. The Criminal Justice Research Center developed a two-phase evaluation plan. Phase One, an assessment of program implementation during the first 2½ years of operation, began in 2001. DCJS reviewed the development of state and local protocols guiding DSAT implementation, examined the utility of the screening and assessment tools, described variations in operations across state agencies and localities, assessed adherence to Code of Virginia directives and identified obstacles faced by agencies charged with screening, assessing and treating offenders. This evaluation of DSAT implementation was completed in 2002. The findings are presented in the report Implementation Evaluation of the Drug Offender, Screening, and Treatment Initiative (2002). Phase Two of the evaluation plan was designed to examine program outcomes and the success of DSAT in achieving its objectives.

During its 1998 and 1999 sessions, the General Assembly established specialized staff positions within DOC and DJJ to support screening and assessment activities in those agencies. The newly-created full-time positions, known as certified substance abuse counselors or CSACs, require specialized training and education in the field of substance abuse, and individuals in those positions receive certification from the state’s Board of Professional Counselors. These specialized CSAC personnel were to provide a level of quality assurance for the screening and assessment process. In addition, prior to 2002, both DOC and DJJ established regional supervisor positions charged with responsibility for overseeing the screening and assessment program in their respective regions. In 2002, reductions in funding forced DJJ to cut all of their CSAC positions. Due to the constraints on personnel, CSACs at DOC have had to assume a variety of offender supervision and caseload management duties.

The screening and assessment legislation also established the Drug Offender Assessment Fund, now the Drug Offender Assessment and Treatment Fund (§ 18.2-251.02). Offender fees are collected and deposited into the Fund. Offenders convicted of drug crimes are assessed $150 for felonies and $75 for misdemeanors. Prior to 2002, these funds were used, in part, to support the training of staff to administer the screening and assessment instruments. Previously, monies from the fund also paid for six CSAC positions within DOC. DJJ has used a portion of the Fund to purchase its screening and assessing tools to monitor offenders through drug testing and other operational services that support screening and assessment activities. In 2003, the General Assembly authorized DCJS to receive proceeds from this Fund to support screening and assessment efforts of community-based probation and local pretrial services programs. The following year, legislation provided that this Fund could be used by the Supreme Court of Virginia for the support of drug treatment court programs [vid. § 18.2-251.4, Code of Virginia] in the Commonwealth.

Many of the screening and assessment protocols described here were developed prior to the budget reductions experienced in 2002. In response to cuts in funding since 2002, particularly the elimination of Substance Abuse Reduction Effort (SABRE) funds, agencies involved in screening and assessment activities have examined protocols and developed alternative strategies to maximize the use of remaining resources. Despite the elimination of a substantial number of staff positions formerly devoted to this task, the agencies have continued their efforts to address offenders’ substance abuse needs by streamlining the process in some instances, utilizing other screening instruments and otherwise attempting to make this task more manageable for the fewer number of staff involved.

The activities of each participating agency during FY2007 are summarized throughout the remainder of this report.