supporting the drug court process: what you need to know

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Bureau of Justice Assistance

MONOGRAPH

Supporting the Drug CourtProcess:What You Need ToKnow for Effective Decisionmakingand Program Evaluation

F E B R U A R Y 2 0 0 3

SEARCH, The NationalConsortium for JusticeInformation and Statistics

This document was prepared by SEARCH,The National Consortium for Justice Informationand Statistics, under the Drug Court Training and Technical Assistance Program, under grantnumber 98–MU–VX–K017, awarded by the Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department ofJustice. The opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in thisdocument are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official positionor policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

U.S. Department of JusticeOffice of Justice Programs

810 Seventh Street NW.Washington, DC 20531

John AshcroftAttorney General

Deborah J. DanielsAssistant Attorney General

Richard R. NedelkoffDirector, Bureau of Justice Assistance

Office of Justice ProgramsHome Page

www.ojp.usdoj.gov

Bureau of Justice AssistanceHome Page

www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA

The Bureau of Justice Assistance is a component of the Office of Justice Programs, which alsoincludes the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the National Institute of Justice, the Office of JuvenileJustice and Delinquency Prevention, and the Office for Victims of Crime.

NCJ 197259

i

Notice

n November 2002, theBureau of JusticeAssistance (BJA)assumed responsibility

for administering the Drug Court GrantProgram and the Drug Court Training andTechnical Assistance Program. For furtherinformation, please contact BJA.

Bureau of Justice Assistance810 Seventh Street NW.Washington, DC 20531Telephone: (202) 616–5001Fax: (202) 514–6452E-mail: [email protected]

I

ii

Acknowledgments

his report was pre-pared by SEARCH,The National Consor-tium for Justice Infor-

mation and Statistics, Gerald E. Wethington,Chairman, and Gary R. Cooper, ExecutiveDirector. The project director was Francis L.Bremson, Courts Program Director. Thereport was written by Owen M. Greenspan,Criminal Justice Information Services Spe-cialist. Twyla R. Cunningham, Manager, andJuliet S. Farmer, Writer/Researcher, Corpo-rate Communications, edited the report. TheFederal project monitor was Jill Beres, PolicySpecialist, Drug Courts Program Office(DCPO), U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ).

The author expresses sincere appreciationto the following persons, who volunteeredtheir valuable time and expertise to thedevelopment and review of this document:

■ Karen Booth, The Justice ManagementInstitute

■ Ed Brekke, Administrator, Los Angeles (CA) Civil and Criminal Courts Operations*

■ Victoria S. Cashman, President, Cashman & Associates*

■ Jennifer Columbel, Deputy Director,DCPO, DOJ

■ Caroline Cooper, Drug Court Clearing-house, The American University*

■ Bob Gibson, Consultant, Preston Corporation*

■ Harvey Goldstein, Director, IntensiveSupervision, New Jersey AdministrativeOffice of the Courts

■ The Honorable Frank Hoover, Judge,Bakersfield (CA) Municipal Court

■ Linda Hughes, San Diego County (CA)Public Defender’s Office*

■ Jane Kennedy, Executive Director,TASC of King County, WA*

■ Lisa Lightman, Management Analyst,New Mexico Administrative Office ofthe Courts

■ Dr. T.K. Logan, Center on Drug and Alcohol Research, University ofKentucky*

■ The Honorable Stephen Marcus, Judge,Los Angeles (CA) Drug Court*

■ Robert Mimura, Executive Director, LosAngeles (CA) Criminal Justice Coordi-nation Committee

■ Hank Pirowski, COURTS ProgramCoordinator, Buffalo (NY) Drug Court*

T

iii

■ Kate Reeves, Judicial Display ProjectManager, New Mexico AdministrativeOffice of the Courts

■ Ralph Rogers, Assistant Director, Criminal Administration, Orange County (CA) Superior Court*

■ Dawn Marie Rubio, Court Services,National Center for State Courts

■ The Honorable Robert Russell, Judge,Buffalo (NY) Drug Court

■ Yvonne Segars, First Assistant DeputyPublic Defender, New Jersey Officeof the Public Defender, Essex AdultOffice*

■ Kathleen Snavely, Director of Research,National Drug Court Institute*

■ Joe Stelma, Senior Deputy CourtAdministrator, Jacksonville (FL) Drug Court

A special note of thanks to Larry Webster,Justice Information Systems Specialist,SEARCH, whose contributions addressedthe selection, acquisition, and operation ofcomputer systems.

* Reviewed draft document and participated in afocus group meeting on April 11, 2000, held inSacramento, CA.

iv

Foreword

he drug court is infor-mation driven. Thisreport was written tohelp those who are

planning, implementing, or operating adultdrug courts to understand the criticalimportance of the availability of a widerange of timely, accurate, and completeinformation. The extent to which thisinformation is appropriately available andhow it is used are major determinants ofeffective decisionmaking and evaluation.

Most drug courts require a computer foreffective entry, storage, retrieval, sharing,and analysis of information because of thesheer volume of pertinent drug court data,its ongoing accumulations, and the lengthof time it remains integral to the drugcourt process. Supporting the Drug CourtProcess provides advice on the selectionand acquisition of computer systems fordrug courts, as well as an overview of ongo-ing and pertinent issues associated withthese systems. Drug courts preparing to

acquire a management information system(MIS) and jurisdictions that have alreadyimplemented an MIS will find that Sup-porting the Drug Court Process offers abasis for assessing the strengths and weak-nesses of a planned or existing informationsystem.

Supporting the Drug Court Process pre-sents a functional overview of the drug courtand the nature of the questions and answersthat together form the foundation for sounddecisionmaking for the court’s key activities.This report is not intended to be a standardfor the court’s MIS. Rather, it will be mostuseful when selectively viewed to fit the cir-cumstances and needs of the individualcourt. Although there is no intent to focuson the informational needs of juvenile andfamily drug courts, those who are con-cerned with their operation will find astarting point here for thinking about therequirements of an MIS suitable for thosecourt environments.

T

v

Contents

I. Introduction ........................................................................................................................1

Importance of Management Information Systems ........................................................3Purpose of This Document ............................................................................................7Organization of This Document ....................................................................................8

II. Characteristics of an Effective Drug Court Management Information System ............11

System Design ............................................................................................................12Frequently Asked Questions ......................................................................................14

Drug Court MIS Requirements Checklist ......................................................................16

III. Preadmission ..................................................................................................................19

Screening Eligibility With the MIS ..............................................................................19Residency Screening ..................................................................................................21Criminal Justice Screening ........................................................................................21Alcohol or Other Drug Dependency Screening ..........................................................22Mental Health Disorders ..............................................................................................22Medical Conditions......................................................................................................23Motivation....................................................................................................................23Admission Decision and Client Outcome Record ......................................................23

Personal Descriptive Information Checklist ..................................................................24Financial Information Checklist ....................................................................................27Insurance Information Checklist ..................................................................................29Contact Information Checklist ......................................................................................29Residency Screening Checklist ......................................................................................29Criminal Justice Screening Checklist ............................................................................29Alcohol or Other Drug Dependency Screening Checklist ..............................................31Admission Decision Checklist ........................................................................................32Client Outcome Checklist ..............................................................................................32

vi

IV. Operational Drug Court ................................................................................................33

Assessment ..................................................................................................................33Ongoing Case Management ........................................................................................34A Word About Computer Mapping ..............................................................................37Exit Interviews and Postprogram Activities ................................................................37

Screening and Assessment Instrument Checklist ........................................................38Background Information Checklist................................................................................39Infractions, Sanctions, Incentives, and Rewards Checklist ........................................39Appointments and Outcomes Checklist ........................................................................42Program Monitoring Checklist ......................................................................................44

V. Evaluation ........................................................................................................................47

DCPO Implementation Grants ....................................................................................47Process or Operations Evaluation ..............................................................................48Outcome or Impact Evaluation ..................................................................................48Cost Analysis ..............................................................................................................49Drug Court Grantee Data Collection Survey ..............................................................49

Appendixes ..............................................................................................................................

1. Sample Consent Form for Disclosure of Confidential Substance Abuse Information, Sample Qualified Service Organization Agreement, and Sample Intergovernmental Agreement and Memorandum of Understanding Between Drug Court Team Partners ............................................................................................................51

2. Drug Courts Program Office Implementation Grant Management Information System, Process Evaluation, and Outcome Evaluation Requirements ....................................................................59

3. Drug Court Grantee Reporting Requirements and Data Collection Survey................................................................................................63

Notes ....................................................................................................................................69

Bibliography..........................................................................................................................73

Published Materials......................................................................................................73Unpublished Materials ................................................................................................75Electronic and Online Sources....................................................................................75

operations to how a program is monitoredand evaluated. Monitoring the drug courtprogram is an ongoing activity of the drugcourt team, which looks at the program asa whole rather than at the progress of indi-vidual participants. Monitoring is but oneof several types of program evaluationsdependent on easily retrievable informa-tion presented in a format that facilitatesits use for measuring program performanceand impact.

The National Association of Drug CourtProfessionals, with the support of the DrugCourts Program Office (DCPO), Office ofJustice Programs (OJP), U.S. Departmentof Justice (DOJ), developed key compo-nents of adult drug courts and performancebenchmarks for sound practices, effectiveprogram designs, and comprehensive oper-ations of these courts.1 Fundamental tomany performance benchmarks are themanner in which drug court team membersinterrelate and the existence of proceduresthat enable the team to communicate andshare information, including the following:2

rug courts are a revo-lutionary problem-solving approachwithin the justice

system that can potentially change the livesof substance-abusing offenders and reducetheir criminal activity, while producing sig-nificant benefit to the community. The over-arching strategy of drug courts is to bringtogether intensive judicial supervision withsubstance abuse treatment—and frequentlyhealth services—in an environment of mul-tidisciplinary teamwork. The drug courtprocess functions through the timely avail-ability of a wide range of reliable informa-tion to support high-quality decisionmaking.As a practical matter, the volume of infor-mation that needs to be recorded, processed,accessed, shared, and analyzed—often in atime-critical context—is a strong argumentfor developing a management informationsystem (MIS).

The importance of data collection, accessto data, and the ways in which data areused extends beyond the drug court’s daily

1

I.

Introduction

D

Supporting the Drug Court Process

2

■ Court and treatment providers commu-nicate regularly, including frequentexchanges of timely and accurate infor-mation, about the participant’s overallprogram performance.

■ Prosecutors and defense counsel helpdesign screening, eligibility, and case-processing policies and procedures toguarantee that due process rights andpublic safety needs are served.

■ The court is immediately notifiedwhen a participant has tested positive,has failed to submit to alcohol or drug(AOD) testing, has submitted someoneelse’s sample, or has adulterated asample.

■ Treatment providers, the judge, andother program staff communicate fre-quently and regularly to ensure timelyreporting of participant progress andnoncompliance and to enable the courtto respond immediately.

■ Management, monitoring, and evalua-tion processes begin with initial plan-ning. As part of the comprehensiveplanning process, drug court leadersand senior managers establish specificand measurable goals that define theparameters of data collection and infor-mation management.

■ Monitoring and management data are assembled in useful formats forregular review by program leaders and managers.

■ Representatives from the court, com-munity organizations, law enforcement,corrections, prosecution, defense coun-sel, supervisory agencies, treatmentand rehabilitation providers, educators,health and social services agencies, andthe faith community meet regularly toprovide guidance and direction to thedrug court program.

There is often a significant gap betweenrecognizing that collecting, transmitting,and sharing information is essential toeffective decisionmaking and recognizingthat implementing systems, practices, andprocedures ensures an optimal knowledgeenvironment within the drug court. Practi-tioners, public health officials, researchers,court managers, and MIS experts havenoted that “most jurisdictions simply donot have the capacity to maintain, in anautomated format, the kind of detailedclient information needed to support drugcourt management.”3 However, this ischanging. Drug courts now use MISs thatstrengthen many of the day-to-day activi-ties of the drug court and its team mem-bers. Some of these systems are in thepublic domain, others are commercialproducts, while still others are developedin-house using commonly available data-base software. Whatever its derivation, adrug court MIS generally needs some cus-tomization when implemented in a newjurisdiction.

Several State court administrative officesare developing statewide drug court infor-mation systems.4 State court administratorsare also increasingly requiring drug courtsto routinely report certain data to a centralentity, such as the Office of Court Adminis-tration (OCA) or State Office of Alcoholand Substance Abuse. Further, there isa growing awareness that evaluation isessential and goes hand in hand with datacollection and MIS design.5 State courtadministrators realize the utility and valueof well-designed evaluations.6 In some juris-dictions, evaluation results are the com-pelling argument that garners the supportof political decisionmakers and other keystakeholders, which ensures continuedfinancial and policy backing for the drugcourt program.

Introduction

3

Importance of ManagementInformation SystemsThe range of information required for adrug court to be consistently effective inaccomplishing its goals far exceeds that ofthe typical criminal court. Existing infor-mation system models, to the extent thatthey are useful to the judiciary and courtadministration, are of less value to thedrug court. In most jurisdictions, it is notpractical for drug courts to replicate theexisting MIS used by criminal courts. Inrare instances, however, the best approachmight be to expand and modify the crimi-nal court MIS to establish the softwarefunctionality necessary to support the drugcourt. Yet this approach raises real con-cerns about the far more stringent confi-dentiality safeguards that must attendcertain drug court information, safeguardswhich are not necessarily found in thetypical criminal court calendaring andcase management system.

At every step of the drug court process—from initial screening, assessment, treat-ment, and supervision through graduation—decisions are made. The soundness of thesedecisions depends on the judge and othermembers of the drug court team havingtimely and appropriate access to accurateand complete information. With the evolu-tion of the drug court movement andadvancements in information technologyover the past 10 years, there is now a recog-nition that in most instances, an MIS is aninvaluable aid to the drug court, the collec-tive drug court team, and each of the team’smember entities within the judicial, legal,and treatment communities.

Drug court practices are a major departurefrom those of the traditional criminalcourt. Drug courts operate in a milieuwhere customary adversarial roles are less evident to the observer and, mostimportantly, to the program participant.

“Staffings” bring together the members ofthe drug court team—typically the judge,treatment manager or counselor, programcoordinator, prosecutor, probation repre-sentative, and public defender—to reviewparticipant status information and progressand to discuss the imposition of actions orrequirements affecting program partici-pants. Having resolved potentially divisiveissues outside the courtroom, the drugcourt team presents a cohesive and unifiedfront to the program participant.

Before a drug court can make use of theinformation that is so critical to its dailyoperations, court officials must be cognizantof relevant laws, regulations, practices, andpolicies. Drug courts must comply with Fed-eral and State confidentiality laws. Federallaws and regulations protect informationabout persons receiving alcohol and drugabuse prevention and treatment servicesthat are directly or indirectly assisted byany department or agency of the UnitedStates.7 Hence, Federal grant dollars provid-ed to the State or local government thatfunds the courts are sufficient to bring the drug court within the scope of Federalregulations.

Confidentiality requirements encourageparticipation in treatment programs. It isnoteworthy that the Federal regulationspredate the drug court movement, leavingpractitioners to reconcile statutes that, attimes, may seem at odds with intensivejudicial supervision and certainly the tradi-tional justice system. A treatment provideror program is defined as an individual orentity that provides diagnosis of chemicaldependency, referral to treatment, andrehabilitative services. Consequently,most—if not all—drug courts are consid-ered treatment programs and are subject to Federal confidentiality regulations.8


4

Before a treatment provider can discloseinformation to members of the drug courtteam or others regarding an individual’sparticipation in a treatment program, theparticipant must sign a written consentform that, at a minimum, meets therequirements set forth by Federal regula-tions.9 The consent includes the purposeof disclosure, how much and what kind ofinformation may be disclosed, and theduration or conditions, if any, under whichthe given consent is subject to revocation.An MIS that reflects the specifics of theconsent form, combined with a memoran-dum of understanding (MOU) between drugcourt team partners that addresses howinformation is accessed and handled, offersstrong safeguards for ensuring the confi-dentiality of treatment-related information.Appendix 1 includes a sample consent formfor disclosure of confidential substanceabuse information, a sample qualified serv-ice organization agreement, and a sampleintergovernmental agreement and MOU.10

Many States have also enacted confiden-tiality laws or implemented policies andpractices intended to limit disclosure of in-formation relating to treatment. When aState law is more restrictive (that is, it barsdisclosure of information that would be per-mitted under Federal regulations), the drugcourt program’s handling of treatment infor-mation must be so structured as to ensurecompliance with both Federal and Statelaw. The most effective means of ensuringcompliance with statutory confidentialitysafeguards is an MIS programmed to limitor exclude access to information in a waythat is consistent with all relevant statutes.

Conditions that limit information disclo-sure as described in the consent form mayvary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Drugcourts in neighboring communities may

also differ. For example, the drug courtteam in one jurisdiction might include asone team member a liaison officer from alocal law enforcement agency who needsaccess to certain confidential information.Similarly, practices and policies varywidely and may be changed by adminis-trative fiat without affected entities andindividuals being consulted. Staff changesnecessitate training, and new hires requireimmediate training, if the opportunity forinappropriate disclosure is to be mini-mized. All of these factors pose a risk thatconfidentiality statutes will unintentional-ly be violated through misinformation orignorance.

Perhaps the best way to minimize this risk,and the attendant possible detrimentaleffect on drug court participation, is todesign a drug court MIS that limits the avail-ability of personal information to authorizedpersons for purposes as addressed in theconsent form and where appropriate asdescribed in the MOU. Although the MOUis signed by the court and executives of theagencies and departments that constitutethe drug court team, staff should not beexpected to sign it, as this document mayencompass policy shifts within agenciesthat only apply to the drug court program.The MIS applies the access rules and canbe updated easily to reflect changes in law,policy, or procedure without the need toreeducate all those who would otherwisehave to alter their methods of operation.

Typically, the drug court process beginsshortly after arrest, when an individualundergoes initial screening for program eli-gibility. Often this involves a standardizedquestionnaire that is used to determinethe type and severity of dependency andsuitability for the drug court program.

Introduction

5

Questions could include the following:Is the nature of the problem within thescope of the target population that thecourt intends to serve? Are there treat-ment resources obtainable that are ableto address the problem(s)? The MIS couldinclude the screening instrument. Howev-er, even if the questionnaire, responses,and interviewer observations are notentered in the MIS, the conclusions drawnmay still be recorded. Inclusion of thisinformation does not ensure that an appar-ently eligible individual will be offeredadmission to the drug court program, orthat the individual will accept such anoffer if it is made. Dependency screening is but one facet of determining programeligibility.

In addition to AOD screening, the secondelement at this stage is justice systemscreening. Here, the prospective partici-pant’s criminal history and current chargesare viewed against predetermined eligibili-ty criteria. For example, many drug courtprograms target populations that excludeindividuals with criminal convictions forviolent offenses or limit enrollment to indi-viduals whose current charges are strictlydrug related. In some jurisdictions, theauthority of the court is limited to han-dling only persons accused of misde-meanors. Some drug court informationsystems record both an offense history and current charges. In addition, the sys-tem may note pending cases; this canbe another factor in determining programeligibility. If an individual has multiplepending cases, it must be decided how thecases will be handled if the individual isenrolled in the drug court program.

The assessment phase of the process iden-tifies both specific psychosocial problemsand treatment services. An assessmentinstrument is often employed, which the

MIS may or may not include. The MIS mayalso be employed to match a diagnosiswith available and appropriate treatmentresources.

Following admission to the drug court pro-gram, the participant can expect frequent,regular, and random drug testing. Positiveand negative results, as well as missedappointments and apparent efforts to “beatthe test,” are recorded in the MIS. A posi-tive drug test result is just one of manydevelopments that may be the basis forsanctions. The MIS records any imposedsanction so that there is a clearly docu-mented history of negative events andresponses. Similarly, a participant’s positiveactions and noteworthy progress are alsorecorded. Some systems also record rewardsgiven in recognition of achievements.

The staffing conference that precedes thecalling of the day’s drug court calendaroften relies on the MIS for status informa-tion on all persons scheduled to appearbefore the court. Some systems, in additionto providing various preformatted informa-tion fields, allow the judge, and perhapsother team members, to enter notes intothe system. These may serve as remindersof things to be discussed at a later datewith other team members, a program par-ticipant, a participant’s relative, or some-one with whom the participant has a closerelationship.

The MIS is of fundamental importance tothe day-to-day decisionmaking of the court;however, its significance does not endthere. The drug court monitors its activi-ties by collecting day-to-day statisticaldata. This administrative management toolis also associated with the process evalua-tion conducted by many drug courts.Regardless of whether a drug court per-forms process evaluations routinely or


6

infrequently, the objectives are the same. Aprocess evaluation could ask the followingquestions:

■ Is the drug court operating in a mannerthat remains true to its original plan?

■ Is it serving the intended target population?

■ Is it reaching/maintaining its capacity?

■ Are eligibility determinations beingmade in a consistent, unbiased fashion?

■ Is the interrelationship between thejudicial, legal, and treatment communi-ties operating as envisioned?

■ Where are terminations occurring?

■ Has the substance of choice changedwithin the community being served?

MIS documentation helps to answerthese questions and to weigh the needfor changes to original plans based onthe findings of the process evaluation.

Many operational information systems lacka design focus and, consequently, criticalinformation for determining the drugcourt’s impact and effectiveness on individ-ual participants, the local justice system,and the community. A U.S. GeneralAccounting Office report noted that manyquestions about the effectiveness of drugcourt programs could not be answeredbecause critical data were unavailable.11

What is needed, but often lacking, is acomprehensive MIS that provides the foun-dation for program monitoring and theclosely associated task of evaluationresearch.

In recent years, university-based researchersand professional evaluators have increasing-ly become involved with drug courts earlierin the process, sometimes even becomingmembers of the planning team. Others are

working with individual drug courts orState court administrative offices to designstatewide information systems. These effortslead to implementation of information sys-tems that support both the court’s day-to-day operational needs and various short-and long-term forms of evaluation. Twoprominent examples of these dual-purposesystems are the Self-Evaluation Manualand Case Management System for AdultDrug Courts developed by the JusticeResearch Center12 and the system beingdeveloped by the University of Kentucky’sCenter on Drug and Alcohol Research undercontract with the Commonwealth of Ken-tucky’s Administrative Office of the Courts(AOC). The former is intended to supportsmaller drug courts that do not exchangeinformation electronically. The Kentuckyinitiative will enable uniformity of informa-tion collection across the State and report-ing of information to the AOC.

In many communities, various stakehold-ers—beyond those who are directlyinvolved as team members—have a keeninterest in the drug court. Certainly, elect-ed and appointed officials who control thebudgetary purse strings need to be keptinformed, as do political and legislativeleaders who steer public policy. The con-stituency that has the largest stake in, andis most intensely affected by, the success ofa drug court program is the communitythat it serves. What information is availableto inform stakeholders? The evaluationplan is the key. Whether looking at individ-ual participant results or broad-based pro-gram impacts, the MIS is of criticalimportance. It provides the drug courtteam and program evaluator baseline dataand other information essential for deter-mining program effectiveness.

Although release of participant informa-tion must be strictly controlled,13 such

Introduction

7

restrictions do not extend to reporting onthe drug court’s effectiveness in serving the community. Federal laws and regula-tions—and, in many instances, Statestatutes and policies—protect informationabout persons receiving alcohol and drugabuse prevention and treatment services.14

However, Federal regulations allow for thedisclosure of patient-identifying informa-tion to researchers, auditors, and evalua-tors without patient consent when certainsafeguards are met.15 Hence, collection ofsensitive information is clearly permissi-ble, although use of the information issubject to restrictions.

Clearly, the MIS provides essential docu-mentation of the drug court process. Thisinformation is a critical resource for guid-ing virtually every key decision associatedwith the drug court and for determiningthe drug court’s impact on individuals, thejustice system, and the community.

Purpose of This DocumentSupporting the Drug Court Processintends to assist both existing adult drugcourts and those that are in the early plan-ning or implementation stages. Althoughthe report does not focus on the informa-tional needs of juvenile and family drugcourts, those who are concerned withtheir operation will find a starting pointhere for thinking about the requirementsof an MIS suitable for those court environ-ments. Operational drug courts may useSupporting the Drug Court Process as abasis for appraising the quality and com-pleteness of their current or envisionedMIS. Is information available in a timelymanner? Is it made known to the appropri-ate drug court team members? Is compre-hensive information gathered? In additionto the information that is collected, is thereother information that would strengthen

operations, program monitoring, or evalua-tion? It is hoped that Supporting the DrugCourt Process will help drug courts identifyneeds, strengths, and weaknesses withregard to the way information is currentlybeing handled.

Jurisdictions looking to serve their commu-nities through a judicially supervised alco-hol or drug treatment program will findSupporting the Drug Court Process usefulin determining the requirements of an MISappropriate to their size, scope, resources,and unique needs. Checklists provided inthis report identify data associated withthe stages and major functions of the drugcourt process. Checklists also point outattributes and features of effective drugcourt information systems. Some jurisdic-tions may opt to use Supporting the DrugCourt Process as the basis for going intothe marketplace with a request for proposalfor an MIS or a request for information togain additional insights from vendors aboutimplementation.

Supporting the Drug Court Process doesnot set a standard for adult drug courtmanagement information systems. Drugcourt operations and emphases vary fromjurisdiction to jurisdiction and State toState. Courts that meet daily and courtsthat are in session for only a few hourseach week have different requirementsregarding information timeliness. Mostcourts focus primarily on drug abusers,but some target alcohol abusers. Support-ing the Drug Court Process is most helpfulwhen shaped to fit the circumstances andneeds of the individual court. In addition,although it is not designed to address allthe needs of juvenile and family drugcourts, this report provides a useful start-ing point for identifying MIS requirementssuitable for those courts.


8

Organization of This DocumentSupporting the Drug Court Process isorganized into five chapters, a bibliogra-phy, and appendixes:

■ I: Introduction. Relates selected keycomponents of drug courts to the con-text of Supporting the Drug CourtProcess. Discusses the importance ofan MIS to the day-to-day operationsand evaluation functions of a drugcourt. Addresses confidentiality statutesand regulations that influence the MIS.Describes this report’s utility to courtsthat are planning for an MIS, as well asthose that already have an operationalMIS.

■ II: Characteristics of an Effective DrugCourt Management Information Sys-tem. Provides structural principles for building an MIS or weighing thestrengths and weaknesses of an exist-ing MIS. Includes a section with fre-quently asked questions about drugcourt information technology.

■ III: Preadmission. Discusses the collec-tion and use of information needed tomake program eligibility determina-tions, including the functional activitiesof criminal justice screening, alcohol orother drug dependency screening, andscreening for mental health disorders,medical conditions, and the candidate’smotivation for contemplating enroll-ment in the program.

■ IV: Operational Drug Court. Describesthe role of assessment, its documenta-tion in the MIS, and its relationship todevelopment of a treatment plan. Dis-cusses several facets of ongoing casemanagement, including infractions,sanctions, and rewards; appointmentsand outcomes; and program monitoring.

■ V: Evaluation. Describes three kinds of evaluations—process evaluation,

impact evaluation, and cost analysis—commonly used to assess the effective-ness of drug courts in meeting programgoals, affecting the lives of participants,and benefiting both the justice systemand the community. Explores the roleof the evaluator in shaping the MIS toensure that it collects information thatfacilitates evaluation activities.

■ Appendix 1. Provides a sample consentform for disclosure of confidential sub-stance abuse information; a samplequalified service organization agree-ment, as listed in the DCPO Fiscal Year2002 Program Application Kit; and asample intergovernmental agreementand MOU.16

■ Appendix 2. Provides a copy of theMIS, process evaluation, and outcomeevaluation requirements, as listed inthe DCPO Fiscal Year 2002 ProgramApplication Kit.17

■ Appendix 3. Provides a copy of theinstructions and semiannual surveypreviously required of DCPO grantees,as listed in the DCPO Fiscal Year 2002Program Application Kit.18 This surveyinstrument expired on March 15,2002; therefore, grant recipients are nolonger required to submit this data col-lection survey to DCPO. It is includedhere as an example of a minimum dataset that may be useful to drug courtprograms.

■ Notes.

■ Bibliography. Presents a list of refer-ence materials consulted in developingthis report. The reference documentsand other materials identified in thebibliography address all aspects ofdrug court processes and informationsystems.

Introduction

9

Chapters II, III, and IV include checkliststhat represent data appropriate for collec-tion and inclusion in an adult drug courtMIS. For the most part, these checklistsprovide suggested, rather than required,information and are not meant to beexhaustive. The exception is information

required to be periodically submitted byDCPO and grantees and other informationthat may be required of drug courts byState court administrators, local legisla-tures, or other elected or appointed offi-cials as a condition of funding.

his chapter describesthe planning andimplementation char-acteristics of an ideal

drug court MIS, which should be weighedin designing a system or in looking at thestrengths and weaknesses of an existingsystem. The focus here is on structuralprinciples upon which to build an MIS.More specific issues, such as functionalrequirements and the information appro-priate for collection, are addressed in laterchapters.

The most important reason to establish anMIS is the contribution it makes to decision-making and administration of the drugcourt’s day-to-day activities. The essenceof a high-quality MIS is the ability to collectcomprehensive and accurate informationabout program candidates and participants.Another critical element is the ability toenter and transmit information in a timelymanner so that it is available to those whohave an operational interest and those who are responsible for reacting to it. In

T11

II.

Characteristics of an EffectiveDrug Court ManagementInformation System

planning a system, it is helpful to continual-ly ask the following: Who needs to knoweach piece of information? How quickly do they need it?

Assembly of information about prospectiveprogram participants begins at the earlieststages of a court case. Although screeningand assessment eliminate prospective par-ticipants who fail to meet eligibility criteriaor who bump up against program capacityconstraints, it is important to chronicledata on these individuals for evaluationpurposes. Information collected andretained early in the justice process maybenefit the treatment case manager. Evenafter graduation, initial information maystill be of value. For example, the identityand telephone numbers of relatives, col-lected through pretrial services bond rec-ommendation interviews, are recorded inthe system. This information can provehelpful later on to a researcher investigat-ing issues such as postgraduation relapserates, recidivism, or lifestyle changes.


12

System DesignThe design of the MIS should facilitaterapid decisionmaking at all stages of theprocess. Users should understand thefeatures and functionality of the MIS andbe comfortable with the system. User-friendliness is enhanced by color codingthat enables quick visual differentiation ofstatus or other flagged key information.Data entry and retrieval screens are easy tonavigate with the aid of drop-down menus,online help, and other tools. Overall, theintuitive nature of the system minimizesthe amount of training necessary to devel-op sufficient mastery.

Often, information that is manuallyentered into a drug court MIS duplicatesdata collected in another system. Arrestcharges are typically recorded in a bookingsystem. Literal charge codes (i.e., numericstatutory citations) do not provide the factsand circumstances that lead to accusationsand formal charging—information that canbe essential for determining program eli-gibility. To inform pretrial release andbond-setting decisions, criminal historyinformation is accessed and retrieved fromthe State agency records repository proxi-mate to the defendant’s first court appear-ance. Pretrial services agencies collect dataabout residency, employment, education,and family relations. Other information,especially records relevant to assessmentof a prospective drug court participant,may reside in the databases of treatmentproviders or public health and social serv-ices agencies. As courts and agencies at alllevels of government move toward informa-tion sharing and integration of databases,they are gaining access to more informa-tion, faster and at less cost than previouslypossible.

An underlying strategy of the most effec-tive drug court MIS follows this trend byelectronically linking systems to leverage

the information available in each whileminimizing repetitive data entry and stor-age. A beneficial byproduct of lesseningthe amount of manual data entry is thereduction in faulty information that arisesfrom keying errors.

There is a cost for collecting and process-ing information. Given the volume andvariety of data necessary to support thedrug court, that cost is proportionatelyhigher for drug courts than other courts.One means of addressing cost issues isthrough a systems integration strategythat avoids institutionalizing staff expens-es. Instead, the strategy favors technologyexpenditures that, at a minimum, place apremium on sharing information electroni-cally within and outside of the drug courtteam.

The system’s design is dictated not by limi-tations of existing computer hardware orsoftware but rather by a thorough assess-ment of the information needs of the drugcourt, its team members, and other stake-holders. Similarly, the design is not limit-ed to automated forms and procedures.Acquiring an MIS provides an opportunityto reengineer the workflow, not merely toautomate it.

The MIS provides significant analyticaland management capabilities for all mem-bers of the drug court team. Although pro-grammed to produce management reports,it can also be easily programmed to pro-vide ad hoc reports to answer unforeseenquestions. The skill and knowledge neces-sary to use the ad hoc report feature canbe easily acquired if staff competenciesare sufficient to master the complexitiesof the software involved.

The MIS can expand to accommodatechanges in population size, number ofauthorized users, program capabilities,amount of accumulated data, or types of

Characteristics of an Effective Drug Court MIS

13

data collected. Flexibility to modify thesystem is the foundation for meetingunforeseen requirements that may arisefrom internal decisions or from reportingmandates imposed by external entitiessuch as central court administrative offices,legislatures, and county commissioners.The hardware and software componentsare widely available, and the system designallows for the easy addition or replacementof components from various manufacturersor developers. Such open systems typicallyoffer maintenance and expansion costadvantages over proprietary systems, inwhich all hardware and software are sup-plied by a single vendor or must conformto rigid standards set by the hardwaremanufacturer.

The system’s range of capabilities and itsacquisition and maintenance costs shouldbe appropriate to the size and scope of thedrug court. Systems intended to be reposi-tories for a large amount of data couldprove frustrating for staff if the data com-munications infrastructure or databaseaccess operates too slowly. Some jurisdic-tions may find it appropriate to weigh thecosts of a local system versus the costs of anetworked system shared by two or morejurisdictions or statewide. This is an issuenot only of economies of scale, but also ofthe staff and expertise required to operateand maintain the system.

When drug courts were just an experiment,systems based on stand-alone personalcomputers (PCs) were adequate. As thedrug court is institutionalized in the judi-cial branch, automated support also mustbe institutionalized. Many States havereacted by trying to expand their currentcase management systems (CMSs) toinclude drug court functions. In almostevery instance, court leaders and technolo-gists have been surprised by the magnitudeof the differences between CMSs and thedrug court MIS.

CMSs focus on managing case flow andclerical operations, with minimal judicialsupport. The drug court MIS, however,focuses on judicial decisionmaking, withrecordkeeping functions as a side benefit.To support judicial decisionmaking, drugcourt systems require much more detailedinformation about the case than is typical-ly captured in a court’s CMS. In addition,a number of drug court functions requireautomation that the CMS would not ad-dress. Evaluation and statistical reportingin a court CMS is a byproduct of opera-tional work; in a drug court MIS, however,a tremendous amount of information iscaptured solely to support the evaluationfunction. In a sense, a drug court MIS isalso an integrated system, much like crimi-nal justice integrated systems, except thatcriminal justice integration is sequentialand drug court integration is concurrent.With criminal justice integration, data canbe dumped electronically from system tosystem as a series of onetime events. Inthe drug court, everyone actively exchang-es information on the participant’s statusweekly, rather than passing it along toanother agency when internal work is fin-ished. Data exchange is continuous throughthe life of the case. This requires muchmore sophisticated interfaces between theinvolved agencies.

As States move to address drug courtautomation at the institutional level, thestand-alone PC applications will, in mostcases, be replaced by new modules in thecourt CMS. This means that drug courtsmust standardize the way they conductbusiness and must conform to data defini-tions and formats that exist in the justicesystem. Although this will be inconvenientin the short term, it will ultimately beworthwhile. It also means that the Stateinfrastructure and support mechanisms willbe available to help drug courts addressMIS design issues and problems.


14

An internal network (i.e., intranet) builtwith Internet-based technology19 can con-nect drug court team members to the MIS,connect the drug court to other local datasystems such as the general criminal courtMIS, connect individual drug courts to acentralized State-level database such as anMIS operated by the OCA, or provide thedata communications network for informa-tion sharing between its contributors andthe MIS. The internal network requiresthat all devices be physically connectedwith equipment and lines under the con-trol of the sponsoring organization. Intranetscan include “firewalls” that allow staff toreach out to the Internet while barringothers from looking in, or, if necessary forsecurity reasons, the intranet need not beconnected to the Internet at all. The sizeand scope of drug courts, together withthe availability of an intranet, determinewhether a jurisdiction should considerthis sort of internal network, which canbe a very cost-effective means of movinginformation.

There is no practical limit to the size of anintranet. As with the Internet, the numberof servers and Web pages that can be addedto support additional information providers,systems users, courts, services, or informa-tion demands is not constrained by technol-ogy, although cost and maintenance issuesmay pose some practical limitations. All inall, if the organizations involved are con-nected to the city, county, court, or Statenetwork, an intranet strategy may be moreaffordable and easier for users to becomefamiliar with than alternatives because theyare already accustomed in most instances tousing the Internet. When the reduced learn-ing curve and ease-of-use aspect are fac-tored in, the intranet approach is veryattractive.

Even if a private network or intranet is not a viable mechanism for moving data,

Internet-based technology can still be usedto enter and access information. Browsers—software familiar to anyone who has usedthe World Wide Web—link persons andorganizations and allow them to exchangeinformation between different computeroperating systems over the Internet. “Virtu-al private network” protocols offer an alter-native to using the Internet by allowingdifferent systems to function as though theywere part of the same private network.

The checklist at the end of this chaptercan help drug courts determine what theyneed in an MIS and/or evaluate their exist-ing system.

Frequently Asked QuestionsHow do I get a drug court MIS?The first step is to assemble the stakeholdersof the drug court process (the managementteam) and reach consensus on direction forthe drug court and its MIS.

The second step is to develop a list of func-tional requirements for the desired system.What functions should the system perform?Functional requirements can be related tooperations (processing individual cases andparticipants), management (keeping caseprocessing effective, productive, and eco-nomical), and evaluation (determiningwhether a drug court is meeting its goalsand is helping program participants). Thislist of functions might include communicat-ing the results of drug tests to the drugcourt, capturing the results of the manyassessments and screenings that are per-formed, and sharing these results.

Once a list of functional requirements hasbeen prepared and approved, the next stepis to analyze what information is needed toperform those functions, when and whereit becomes available in the process, andhow it is to be captured and entered intothe system. This is an analysis of the


15

administrative processes that will supportthe drug court MIS and is added to thefunctional requirements document.

Once there is agreement as to what thedrug court MIS should do, it is a relativelysimple matter to evaluate available public-sector packages and commercial systemsthat have been designed to support thedrug court. Because none of these pack-ages will fit the requirements of the courtexactly, it is important to consider thetime and cost of modifying the software.The requirements document also can beused to extend the functionality of anexisting court CMS or to design a new drugcourt MIS to be created by court or govern-ment technologists or private contractors.

How much does a drug court MIS cost?A drug court can acquire a public-domainMIS at no cost and, if it has the necessarycomputer hardware and expertise, canexpect to pay nothing to customize thesoftware, except for staff time to get thesystem working. A drug court can alsospend hundreds of thousands of dollarscreating a state-of-the-art customized sys-tem. The amount of available resourcesis key in considering how much to spend.

What software packages are available inthe public sector?Three packages are available for evaluationat www.drugcourttech.org: the BrooklynTreatment Court System, the Buffalo DrugCourt System, and the South Florida HighIntensity Drug Trafficking Area System.These three packages and the Washington/Baltimore Automated Treatment and Track-ing System are featured in Public DomainDrug Court Software: Functions and Utili-ty, a companion piece to this report pro-duced by SEARCH and DCPO.20 Anothersoftware package, Case Management Sys-tem 2000, was developed by the JusticeResearch Center with funding from theState Justice Institute.21

What kind of support is required for adrug court MIS?A major weakness of most software devel-opment efforts in courts is lack of supportfor the user. Drug court administratorsmust ensure that software products areadequately tested, training programs arescheduled to prepare court staff to use newtools, documentation for systems is com-prehensive and accessible, and data qualityassurance processes are in place. In addi-tion, staff must ensure that users receivequick attention when components of thesystem fail.

Even the best information systems requirework to maintain them. System backupsmust be performed, database compactionutilities must be run, disks must be defrag-mented, and printer ink and toner car-tridges must be replaced. Drug courtleaders must consider who will performthese functions, how much of their time itwill require, and how to provide the train-ing they will need.

In addition, all software packages requireperiodic modification. Reporting require-ments may change, new laws may be imple-mented, or the drug court managementteam may want to try new approaches. Drug court administrators must select atechnology that is simple and inexpensiveto modify.

A drug court that is part of a larger systemof automation may depend on court re-sources to perform these functions. If drugcourt technology is isolated from the restof the judicial branch, staff and toolsshould be viewed as a part of the expenseof acquiring automation. In the real world,however, resources too often are limited,and system users must learn to deal withsome of these issues without the assistanceof technologists.


16

Drug Court MIS RequirementsChecklist❐ The range of capabilities and cost of

the MIS (both initial acquisition andongoing maintenance) are appropriateto the size and scope of the drug court.

❐ The design of the MIS facilitates rapidoperational decisionmaking at all stagesof the drug court process.

❐ Information is recorded in a timelyfashion and is available to users quicklyenough to meet operational needs.

❐ The MIS captures all necessary information:

■■ Program eligibility information—including residency data; criminaljustice, alcohol/drug dependency,and mental health disorder screen-ings; and medical conditions—andscreening information to determinethe individual’s motivation for participating in the program.

■■ Postadmission information, includ-ing assessment data and ongoingcase management information suchas infractions, sanctions, incentives,appointments, and outcomes.

❐ The MIS supports the informationaland decisionmaking needs of all mem-bers of the drug court team.

❐ The MIS collects information to sup-port program monitoring and processevaluation and to provide the founda-tion for long-term program outcomeevaluation.

❐ Users understand the system’s featuresand functionality.

❐ Users are comfortable with the system.

❐ The system employs color coding,drop-down menus, online help, and

other tools to aid data entry andretrieval of information.

❐ The system is designed to minimizedata entry. (The MIS shares informa-tion electronically with other systems.)

❐ The system is designed to provide sig-nificant analytical and managementcapabilities for all members of the drugcourt team.

❐ The system allows judges, prosecutors,public defenders, case specialists, andtreatment providers to enter notes.

■■ Notes are searchable by keywordand are protected from unautho-rized access and disclosure.

❐ The system produces preformattedmanagement reports on a daily, weekly,monthly, and cumulative basis and canalso create ad hoc reports using anydata that are in the database.

❐ Systems reports are accurate and timely.

❐ The MIS enables compliance with sta-tistical data gathering, evaluation, andother reporting requirements of Federalagencies that provide grant funds insupport of the drug court (e.g., Bureauof Justice Assistance and DCPO),courts administration, and State andlocal authorities.

❐ Sufficient technical support for hard-ware, software, and application pro-grams is available to maintain the MIS.

❐ Technical support and ongoing systemmaintenance are recognized as a dis-tinct budget requirement.

❐ Access to treatment information(including detailed screening andassessment instruments) held within


17

the MIS is restricted in a mannerconsistent with the consent formsigned by program participants.

❐ Access to treatment information(including detailed screening andassessment instruments) held withinthe MIS complies with Federal andState laws and regulations.

❐ Access to criminal history informationheld within the MIS is restricted in amanner consistent with the laws andregulations that govern disseminationof that information, based on itssource.22

❐ To facilitate the design and conduct ofprocess and impact evaluations, thesystem records limited identifying andstatistical data on persons screened andfound ineligible, persons declining anoffer of admission after being found eli-gible, and participants who do not suc-cessfully complete the program.

❐ An evaluator provides recommenda-tions on the MIS design and informa-tion to be collected and gives ongoingadvice to the drug court team.

❐ The drug court team employs the Inter-net, an intranet, or an internal datacommunications network to facilitatedata collection, access to information,and information sharing and exchange.

❐ The system relies on Internet-basedtechnology—or browsers—for enteringand accessing data.

❐ The system is designed with appropri-ate security safeguards (e.g., firewalls)to protect the confidentiality of infor-mation sent over the Internet.

ssessing whether acandidate is eligiblefor drug court typical-ly encompasses find-

ings in three types of screening: residency,criminal justice, and clinical. The clinicalscreening helps determine a candidate’salcohol or other drug dependency prob-lems for which treatment resources areavailable. The presence of other clinicalproblems, such as serious mental healthdisorders (including suicidal behavior) ormedical conditions (including infectiousdiseases) can also be determined.

Eligibility criteria are sometimes expandedto consider motivation if a candidate has ameaningful choice to make between partici-pation in the drug court program and analternative criminal justice process. Inmany jurisdictions, drug-dependent defend-ants with misdemeanor convictions face farless onerous penalties than having to gothrough a drug court program. In otherinstances, a criminal defendant may not getany benefit in terms of having a charge

19

III.

Preadmission

A dismissed or sentence reduced. He or shemay simply be ready—emotionally, psycho-logically, and physically—to sustain a cleanand sober lifestyle, even while continuingto serve a sentence of incarceration. Inthese circumstances, it is reasonable toconsider motivation when examining eligibility.

Established and documented eligibility cri-teria may be limited to the three most com-mon areas noted above. Jurisdictions varywidely in their treatment of residency rules,prior arrests, and the extent and nature ofsubstance abuse. The actual criteria appliedfilter out candidates who fall outside thedrug court’s defined target population.

Screening Eligibility With the MISInformation systems that collect programeligibility data typically do not produce aneligibility score or yes/no decision. Althoughan MIS could be designed with an eligibility-scoring algorithm tailored to each jurisdic-tion’s admission criteria, this approach is of


20

Some jurisdictions combine substanceabuse screening with an initial assessmentto aid in the development of a treatmentor case management plan tailored to indi-vidual needs. Here, recommendationsconcerning formulation and access to anappropriate treatment program may occureven before formal enrollment in a drugcourt program. More commonly, assess-ment takes place later in the drug courtprocess. Assessment is addressed in chap-ter IV of this report as a postadmissionfunction.

Personal Descriptive InformationAlthough background and demographicinformation recorded during initial pro-cessing and screening is not strictly part of the eligibility determination, it clearlymay influence who is admitted to a pro-gram. For instance, initial processing andscreening identify whether a prospectiveparticipant can read, write, speak, andunderstand English or whether an inter-preter is required. Courts and treatmentproviders without access to an interpretermay be severely hampered when conduct-ing status hearings and treatment. Back-ground and demographic information isalso essential for activities that happenmuch later in the drug court process (e.g., constructing process and outcomeevaluations).

A sample checklist for collecting a defend-ant’s personal descriptive information isprovided at the back of this chapter.

Financial InformationDetailed financial information is groupedwith other background information. Verifi-cation of these data determines eligibilityfor assignment of defense counsel and alsoestablishes the ability to pay fees and thecapacity to pay for treatment. In self-supporting programs, the inability to pay

uncertain value. On the plus side, an auto-mated decision strategy may be less laborintensive. In addition, having automateddata on eligibility decisions greatly facili-tates program process evaluation, whichshould be conducted periodically. However,several factors limit the utility of automatedsystems.

First, a key part of the screening processis often based on observations during aninterview. The trained interviewer, even atthis early stage, may start collecting infor-mation for designing a treatment program.These impressions do not easily lead to thekinds of definitive statements amenable toassignment of a predetermined weightedvalue.

Second, certain information requiresresearch beyond the initial source data.For example, the facts and circumstancessurrounding an arrest need to be reviewedif it is not evident from the charges on thecriminal history report whether the arrestinvolved violence and/or a weapon. There-fore, the original source data—a “rapsheet” from a local law enforcementdepartment or the State agency that servesas the criminal records repository, whichin many jurisdictions could be automati-cally transmitted to the MIS—may beinadequate for decisionmaking.

Third, approval of enrollment often is adrug court team decision. A byproduct ofthis decision is the team’s collective com-mitment to each program participant.

Finally, before attempting to automate the admittedly labor-intensive process ofdetermining eligibility, a drug court shouldcarefully analyze whether an automateddecision device truly reduces the time andeffort involved or merely presents a sum-mary of staff and drug court team activitiesthat will not diminish if the device isimplemented.

Preadmission

21

for treatment through personal resourcesor insurance is likely to exclude an individ-ual from the program.

A sample checklist for collecting a defend-ant’s financial information is provided atthe back of this chapter.

Insurance InformationInsurance information is gathered becausethe drug court program’s ability to collecttreatment costs may affect a candidate’seligibility. This is especially important ifthe treatment component of the programis self-supporting or if the program designincludes an assessment of fees payable bythe participant as partial recovery of courtcosts.

An insurance checklist is included at theback of this chapter.

Contact InformationContact information identifies the candi-date’s legal counsel, spouse, and other peo-ple likely to know his or her whereabouts.These contacts are also likely to be in fre-quent touch with the candidate and arepotential resources for monitoring andlocating the candidate, should that becomenecessary. In addition, contacts can helpprograms validate information collectedduring postgraduation interviews and forimpact evaluations.

A contact information checklist is includedat the back of this chapter.

Residency ScreeningProgram enrollment may be restricted toU.S. citizens and legal aliens residing orincarcerated in the geographic area servedby the court. Some courts admit residentsof nearby towns and cities or adjoiningcounties if not excluded by local fundingauthorities and if frequent travel to the

court and treatment facilities is manage-able. Because drug courts vary in their tar-get populations and eligibility criteria, theirresidency information needs also vary.Much of the residency information is alsouseful for program process and outcomeevaluations.

A residency checklist is available at theend of this chapter.

Criminal Justice ScreeningThree types of criminal justice screeningare essential for deciding whether a candi-date meets program eligibility criteria: (1)an assessment of current criminal charges,(2) a determination of the candidate’scriminal justice status (e.g., on parole, onprobation, the subject of a warrant), and(3) a review of the candidate’s criminal his-tory record. Unfortunately, relatively fewdrug courts have quick access to the mostcomprehensive set of criminal records (i.e.,one that includes national, State, and localentries linked together by the positiveidentification provided by fingerprintstaken at the time of arrest). Jurisdictionsthat have received or will seek funds fromDCPO cannot include violent offenders inthe program’s population,23 although violentoffenders may be placed in a separate drugcourt track not funded by DCPO.24

A drug court can access criminal justiceinformation through its MIS by interfacingit with other databases, such as the Statecentral criminal records repository, thecourt information system, or the local lawenforcement agency records managementor booking systems. This approach offerstimely access to the most up-to-dateinformation and is the least labor intensiveof any alternative method. Most often, how-ever, drug courts obtain criminal historyrecord information by independentlysearching one or more systems, extracting


22

the information, and entering it manually(if at all) into the MIS.

Keeping information on the criminal historyrecords and current charges of programenrollees, individuals found to be ineligible,and those who elect not to participate hasvalue beyond its use in determining admis-sion. Comparing program enrollees withthose deemed ineligible or those decliningto participate is a highly useful aspect ofprocess evaluation. Is the planned targetpopulation being admitted to the program?Are eligible defendants being excluded?Similarly, this information is important inunderstanding the nature of the populationserved and the ultimate impact the programhas on the recidivism of participants—eventhose who undergo intensive judicial super-vision and treatment but fail to graduatefrom the program. Consequently, it is usefulto collect information on criminal activity,both from documented sources and as self-reported by program candidates.

A sample checklist for screening the crimi-nal justice background of a defendant isprovided at the back of this chapter.

Alcohol or Other DrugDependency Screening“Screening”—a broad term that encom-passes a range of evaluative proceduresand techniques—is a preliminary assess-ment or evaluation that attempts touncover in an individual the presence ofcritical features of the target population.This step often consists of a drug test andan interview conducted by pretrial servic-es, probation, Treatment Alternatives forSafe Communities, or treatment personnelor by another entity specifically responsi-ble for overseeing the completion oradministration of a standardized evalua-tive instrument. Some jurisdictions blurthe distinction between screening and the

more detailed assessment by combiningboth functions. (See chapter IV for furtherdiscussion of assessment.)

Typically, screening and assessment useone or more standardized substance abusequestionnaires and additional instrumentsdesigned to reveal information about otherfactors. Depending on the skills required toobserve candidates and complete the ques-tionnaires, trained professionals may beneeded to administer the questionnaires.Screening and assessment are two partsof an ongoing process that identifies suitabil-ity for treatment, defines a treatment strate-gy, and tracks progress. The extent to whicha drug court MIS provides automated sup-port for administering a clinical instrumentdepends on several considerations. Isautomation beneficial to the system’s pri-mary user—the treatment community? Isthe system sufficiently secure to ensure thatunauthorized persons cannot access highlyconfidential information? Can the systemmaintain appropriate security while allowingmore than one treatment provider to accessand “own” a record on a common client?

A sample checklist for screening the alco-hol or other drug dependency of a defend-ant is provided at the back of this chapter.

Mental Health DisordersMental health screening serves several pur-poses. Identifying a candidate’s mentalhealth disorder enables the drug court tojudge the appropriateness of availabletreatment services. Mental health screen-ing may also reveal symptoms or a prelimi-nary mental health diagnosis that suggeststhe likelihood that a candidate would havesevere difficulty functioning effectively inthe drug court program. It may also reveala significant risk of suicide. Jurisdictionsthat can access mental health databases

Preadmission

23

need to be aware of relevant confidentialitystatutes and regulations before introducingthis information into the drug court MIS.Drug court enrollees typically undergo anindepth mental health assessment as partof the development of a treatment plan.

Medical ConditionsThe rates of Human ImmunodeficiencyVirus/Autoimmune Deficiency Syndrome(HIV/AIDS), sexually transmitted diseases,and other infectious diseases are far greateramong substance abusers than in the gen-eral population. Certain conditions maybe readily observable during the screeninginterview, indicating a need for medicalattention. Individuals are unlikely to self-report infectious diseases at this early junc-ture but may reveal symptoms in theirresponses to a screening instrument. Infor-mation on infectious disease is frequentlysubject to confidentiality laws above andbeyond those that regulate disclosure oftreatment information and criminal historyrecords. The Personal Descriptive Informa-tion Checklist on the next page suggestsmedical data that should be sought fromevery candidate to record it in the MIS andto address the candidate’s medical needs.

MotivationResearch data have suggested that coercedtreatment can be as effective as voluntarytreatment, if not more so.25 Readiness fortreatment “can be prompted in two ways:by circumstances or extrinsic pressuressuch as loss (of job, family support, money,etc.) or fear (of incarceration, violence,health risks including overdose, or even sui-cide). . . . Readiness can be measured bothby subjective impression and objectivequantification.”26 Although motivation canbe difficult to measure, comparing out-comes with degree of motivation can beworthwhile. Screening instruments areavailable that address motivation, and theycan be incorporated into the drug courtMIS.

Admission Decision and ClientOutcome RecordFor program monitoring and evaluationpurposes, the MIS should record severalpieces of information associated with theadmission decision, whether the candidatesubsequently enters the program, andclient outcomes.

See the admission decision and clientoutcome checklists following this chapter.


24

Personal Descriptive InformationChecklist❐ Name of program candidate or

participant (name used at booking).

❐ Digital photograph.

❐ Resides within the area served by thedrug court.

❐ Does not reside within the area servedby the drug court.

❐ Residence:

■■ Owned by candidate.

■■ Rented by candidate.

■■ Relative’s home.

■■ Friend’s home.

■■ Homeless.

■■ Unknown.

❐ Address.

❐ Telephone number:

■■ Residence.

■■ Cell phone.

■■ Pager.

■■ Phone number of contact likely toknow whereabouts of candidate.

❐ Birth information:

■■ Date of birth.

■■ Place of birth.

❐ Documentation presented for verifica-tion of name and date of birth:

■■ Birth certificate.

■■ Driver’s license.

■■ Military identification.

■■ Other _____.

❐ Gender/Sexual orientation:

■■ Male.

■■ Female.

■■ Heterosexual.

■■ Homosexual.

❐ Ethnicity/Race:

■■ African-American.

■■ Hispanic/Latino.

■■ Asian/Pacific Islander.

■■ Native American.

■■ Alaska Native.

■■ Caucasian.

■■ Other_________.

❐ Country of citizenship/Alien status:

■■ United States.

■■ Other__________.

■■ Resident alien.

■■ Visa status:

● Expiration date of current immigration status.

● Immigration and NaturalizationService number.

❐ Identifying numbers used by the courtor the treatment provider:

■■ Arrest number.

■■ Booking number.

■■ Court case numbers.

■■ MIS-generated identification number.

■■ Driver’s license number.

■■ Social Security number.

■■ Medicaid number.

■■ Other_________.

Preadmission

25

❐ Family information:

■■ Marital status.

■■ Significant other:

● Is pregnant?

– Expected date of delivery.

● Is a drug user?

– Primary drug of choice.

– Other drugs used.

– Frequency of use.

– Method partner uses in taking drugs.

– Average cost of daily use.

– How is habit supported?

■■ Number of children residing withcandidate/participant:

● Name of each child.

● Age of each child.

● Date of birth of each child.

● Gender of each child.

● Who has legal custody of eachchild in the residence?

● Who will care for each child if the program participant isincarcerated?

■■ Number of children bornto/fathered by the candidate/partici-pant for whom he or she has con-tinuing financial responsibilities:

● Name of each child.

● Age of each child.

● Date of birth of each child.

● Gender of each child.

● Who has legal custody for eachchild born to/fathered by thecandidate?

■■ Currently pregnant:

● Expected delivery date.

● Date of last childbirth.

● Number of abortions.

● Number of drug-free babies.

● Number of miscarriages.

● Number of babies who are notdrug free.

■■ Other dependents residing inhousehold:

● Age.

● Relationship.

❐ Currently attending school:

■■ Name of school.

■■ Type of school.

■■ Address.

■■ Hours of attendance.

■■ How long in attendance.

❐ Education/Achievement/Status:

■■ Completed elementary school (6th grade).

■■ Completed middle school (8th grade).

■■ Completed high school (12th grade).

■■ Completed the general equivalencydiploma (GED) program.

■■ Completed vocational training.

■■ Completed some college.

■■ Completed college.


26

■■ Pursuing GED.

■■ Enrolled in high school.

■■ Enrolled in vocational school.

■■ Enrolled in college.

❐ English proficiency/Interpreter requirement:

■■ Able to read, write, speak, and comprehend English.

■■ English is a secondary language.

■■ An interpreter is required who isproficient in __________ (e.g., signing, Spanish).

❐ Employment status:

■■ Currently employed.

■■ Nature of employment_________:

● Employment start date.

● Type of certificate/licenserequired to perform job function:

– Licensing agency.

● Special skills required?

– Needs to develop special skillsto be qualified for position.

■■ Company name.

■■ Employer’s address.

■■ Employer’s telephone number.

■■ Worksite address.

■■ Worksite telephone number.

■■ Full time or part time.

■■ Date last worked.

■■ Unemployed:

● Last date of employment.

● How long?

● Last occupation.

● Months employed in past 12 months.

● Other previous occupations.

❐ Military experience:

■■ Branch.

■■ Start date.

■■ Currently in military service.

■■ End date.

■■ How long?

■■ Highest grade/rank.

■■ Nature of discharge (e.g., N/A, hon-orable, dishonorable, unknown).

■■ Grade/Rank at time of discharge.

■■ Location at time of discharge.

■■ Military honors.

■■ Assignments.

❐ Drug of choice:

■■ Frequency of use.

■■ Means (e.g., injection, oral, snort).

■■ Length of use.

❐ Secondary drug of choice:

■■ Frequency of use.

■■ Means (e.g., injection, oral, snort).

■■ Length of use.

❐ Tuberculosis status:

■■ Positive.

■■ Negative.

■■ Unknown.

❐ Health issues currently under treatment:

■■ Description of health issues.

■■ Prescribed medications.

Preadmission

27

■■ Prescribing physician.

■■ Date a physician was last seen.

■■ Physician’s telephone number.

❐ Health issues recently treated:

■■ Description of health issues.

■■ Prescribed medications.

■■ Prescribing physician.

■■ Date a physician was last seen.

■■ Physician’s telephone number.

❐ Current health issues not being treated.

❐ Physical impairments:

■■ Expected date of recovery (if temporary).

■■ Special requirements (special needsthat must be addressed to facilitatethe treatment process).

■■ Type of disability (e.g., paraplegic,blind, deaf, attention deficit disorder).

Financial Information ChecklistPersonal financial information❐ Social Security number.

❐ No source of income.

❐ Weekly or monthly earnings.

❐ Commissions.

❐ Bonuses/Tips.

❐ Other income.

❐ Support payments.

❐ Unemployed.

❐ Federal, State, or county assistance:

■■ Food stamps.

■■ Temporary Assistance to NeedyFamilies (previously Aid to FamiliesWith Dependent Children).

■■ Supplemental Security Income.

■■ Social Security.

■■ Unemployment insurance.

■■ Worker’s compensation.

■■ Veteran’s disability.

■■ Other ______.

❐ Total weekly or monthly income.

❐ Value of liquid assets:

■■ Cash on hand.

■■ Checking account.

● Name of bank.

■■ Savings account.

● Name of bank.

■■ Stocks/Bonds.

■■ Cash value of life insurance policy.

❐ Owns home:

■■ Purchase price.

■■ Current value.

■■ Date of purchase.

❐ Owns automobile:

■■ Year.

■■ Make.

■■ Model.

■■ Loan balance.

■■ Value.

❐ Other property or assets.

■■ Value of other property or assets.

❐ Total value of assets.


28

Spouse’s personal financial information❐ Social Security number.

❐ Mailing address.

❐ Employer.

❐ Position.

❐ Employer’s address.

❐ Employer’s telephone number.

❐ Employment start date.

❐ Full time or part time.

❐ Weekly or monthly earnings.

❐ Commissions.

❐ Bonuses/Tips.

❐ Other income.

❐ Support payments.

❐ Unemployed.

❐ Federal, State, or county assistance:

■■ Food stamps.

■■ Temporary Assistance to NeedyFamilies (previously Aid to FamiliesWith Dependent Children).

■■ Supplemental Security Income.

■■ Social Security.

■■ Unemployment insurance.

■■ Worker’s compensation.

■■ Veteran’s disability.

■■ Other ______.

❐ Total weekly or monthly income.

❐ Value of liquid assets.

Expenses and financial liability information❐ Monthly expenses:

■■ Mortgage/Rent.

■■ Food.

■■ Power.

■■ Water/Sewer.

■■ Telephone (basic).

■■ Electricity.

■■ Heating.

■■ Clothing.

■■ Education/Tuition.

■■ Transportation.

■■ Total.

❐ Monthly liabilities:

■■ Home mortgage.

■■ Other mortgage.

■■ Auto loan.

■■ Auto insurance.

■■ Personal loan.

■■ Other loans.

■■ Credit card payments.

■■ Health insurance payments.

■■ Total.

❐ Other liabilities:

■■ Court-ordered payments:

● Child support.

● Divorce settlement.

● Restitution.

● Fines.

● Other _____.

■■ Medical bills.

■■ Other debts.

■■ Total.

Preadmission

29

Insurance Information Checklist❐ No insurance available.

❐ Private insurance information:

■■ Name of carrier.

■■ Policy number.

■■ Telephone number.

■■ State insurance?

■■ Federal insurance?

❐ VA benefits available.

❐ Medicaid recipient.

❐ Other insurance information.

Contact Information Checklist❐ Private counsel:

■■ Name.

■■ Address.


❐ Public defender:

■■ Name.

■■ Address.


❐ Employer:

■■ Name of employer/supervisor.

■■ Address.


■■ Notes.

❐ Client lives with:

■■ Name.

■■ Relationship.

■■ Is a substance abuser?

■■ Notes.

❐ Family and references (up to three):

■■ Name.

■■ Relationship.

■■ Frequency of contact.

■■ Length of relationship.

■■ Address:

● Home.

● Work.

● Other.

■■ Telephone.

■■ Notes.

Residency Screening Checklist❐ Geographic information:

■■ Resides within the target areaserved by the drug court.

■■ Length of residence in the town,city, or county, as appropriate.

■■ Presently incarcerated?

■■ ZIP Code.

■■ Census tract.

■■ Other geographic search parameter__________.

■■ Immigration status:

● Expiration date of current immigration status.

❐ Length of time at current residence.

Criminal Justice ScreeningChecklist❐ The MIS records current charge

information.

❐ The MIS records criminal justice statusinformation (e.g., parole, probation,warrants).


30

❐ The MIS records the court(s), docketnumbers, and charges for other pendingcases. This includes contact informa-tion for court staff with whom courtappearances and other activities mightneed to be coordinated.

❐ The MIS retains the State IdentificationNumber (a unique fingerprint-basedidentification number assigned bythe State criminal records repositoryagency that can be used to retrievecriminal records information from the State repository and the nationalcriminal records system administeredby the FBI).

■■ The MIS retains another local iden-tification number that can be usedto link with Federal and State crimi-nal records identification numbers.

❐ The MIS is programmed to screen crim-inal history records for eligibility con-sistent with criteria established by thejurisdiction and, if appropriate, thatconforms to Federal guidelines.

❐ The MIS categorizes criminal historyinformation by arrests and convictionswithin the past year and since age 18by number of:

■■ Violent offenses.

■■ Nondrug crime felonies.

■■ Nondrug crime misdemeanors.

■■ Drug crime felonies.

■■ Drug crime misdemeanors.

■■ Traffic and other offenses.

❐ There is provision for recording self-reported crimes committed within thepast year and since age 18 by estimatednumber of:

■■ Violent offenses.

■■ Drug crime felonies.

■■ Other felonies.

■■ Other crimes.

❐ The MIS retains criminal history infor-mation on all persons screened for eli-gibility, including reason(s) for beingdisqualified or declining to participate.

❐ Incorporation of State and nationalcriminal history information:

■■ The MIS automatically receives andretains the criminal history recordfor each prospective participantfrom the State criminal recordsrepository agency. This transmis-sion includes State-based informa-tion and all associated informationavailable from the FBI-administeredInterstate Identification Index with-in the National Crime InformationCenter.

■■ The MIS electronically receivesonly State-based criminal historyinformation from the State repository.

■■ The court, or an agency member ofthe drug court team, retrieves Stateand national criminal history infor-mation via computer and manuallyenters the record into the MIS.

■■ The court, or an agency member ofthe drug court team, receives Stateand national criminal history infor-mation from another department(e.g., the booking agency) and man-ually enters the record into theMIS.

❐ Eligibility determinations and partici-pant criminal profiles are based on:

■■ A statewide, court-based informa-tion system.

Preadmission

31

■■ County- or municipal-level bookingrecords that are entered into theMIS.

■■ Local court records.

Alcohol or Other DrugDependency Screening Checklist❐ The MIS records results of drug tests

administered as part of the screeningprocess.

❐ The MIS records responses fromscreening instruments/interviews:

■■ Drugs of primary, secondary, third,and fourth choice are identified andrecorded:

● Alcohol.

● Marijuana.

● Inhalants.

● Hallucinogens.

● Pills (downers).

● Pills (uppers).

● Amphetamines.

● Phencyclidine (PCP).

● Opiates.

● Cocaine.

● Crack.

● Heroin.

● Speed.

● Cocaine/Heroin.

● Illegal methadone.

● Legal methadone.

● Prescription drugs.

● Other__________.

■■ Frequency of use over the past 30 days:

● Daily.

● Three to five times per week.

● Twice weekly.

● Weekly.

● Other__________.

■■ Frequency of use over the past year:

● Daily.

● Three to five times per week.

● Twice weekly.

● Weekly.

● Other_________.

■■ Number of years since first use.

■■ Date of last use.

■■ Longest period of time that primarydrug of choice was not used.

■■ Most recent length of sobriety.

■■ Average amount of money spentdaily on alcohol and/or drugs.

❐ The MIS allows for the recording ofinterviewer observations.

❐ Prior treatment:

■■ Name of agency or provider.

■■ Address of agency or provider.

■■ Contact name.

■■ For what drug/substance?

■■ Telephone number of agency orprovider.

■■ Approximate start date.

■■ Approximate end date.


32

■■ Reason for ending rehabilitation.

■■ Details of the candidate’s perform-ance pertaining to his or her priorrehabilitation.

Admission Decision Checklist❐ Admitted to drug court.

❐ Date found eligible.

❐ Date offered enrollment.

❐ Not admitted to program due to:

■■ Current violent offense.

■■ Prior violent offense.

■■ Prior criminal history.

■■ Not an alcohol or drug abuser.

■■ Contagious health risk or othermedical condition.

■■ Not suitable.

■■ Declined admission.

Client Outcome Checklist❐ The MIS records the date of program

enrollment.

❐ The MIS records the date the clientexited the program:

■■ Voluntary separation:

● Reason ___________.

■■ Discharge:

● Reason ___________.

■■ Graduation.

■■ Death.

rug courts continuous-ly collect and analyzeextensive informationthroughout the course

of the program. This broad mix of informa-tion supports treatment decisions, ongoingcase management, and judicial supervision.In addition, appointments and their out-comes are carefully tracked. Detailed clinicalcase management information is not usuallyrecorded in the drug court MIS. However,the system should document counselingappointments, treatment-imposed sanctions,and other information that needs to be coor-dinated with the court or that may affecthow the court supervises the client.

AssessmentA formal assessment usually takes placesoon after a participant is screened andadmitted to the drug court program. It isthe first stage of a process that continueswhile an individual remains under the drugcourt’s supervision. The assessment is adetailed exploration of areas addressed in

D33

IV.

Operational Drug Court

the screening process (such as family andsocial relationships, employment and edu-cation history, and status information) andnew areas. Assessment is the basis fordeveloping a treatment plan, including thetiming and provision of specific services.27

Treatment frequently includes at least someof the following services: individual andgroup counseling, behavioral therapies, peercounseling, culturally and gender-competentproviders, job skills training, psychotherapy,and drug testing.

The MIS should include at least one compre-hensive standardized assessment instrumentthat is appropriate for the target populationand available treatment resources. Addition-al assessment instruments may be includedto refine the decisionmaking process. Manyevaluative tools can be acquired withoutcost because they are in the public domain.However, there may be costs associated withbringing in a trainer. The cost of administer-ing an instrument and scoring the resultsvaries considerably. The lengthier and morecomplex the instrument (particularly those


34

that call for qualitative judgments on thepart of the interviewer), the more expensiveit is to administer and score. In someinstances, costs decline when scoring isautomated.

The MIS should identify any instrument(s)used in either pre- or postadmission pro-cessing, even those that are not automat-ed as part of the MIS. This information isuseful for studies of the effectiveness ofscreening and evaluation tools undertakento assist local drug court decisionmakingand for cross-jurisdictional research withinStates and throughout the Nation. If entireassessment or screening documents are notrecorded in the MIS, consideration shouldbe given to selectively including informa-tion relevant to various evaluation tasks.For example, participants with coexistingdisorders are an exceptionally challengingpopulation.28 Fluctuations over time in the number of program participants withcoexisting mental disorders and substanceabuse problems may help to explain changesin program retention and graduation rates.

Assessment determines a candidate’ssuitability for substance abuse treatmentand placement in a specific treatmentmodality/setting. A comprehensive assess-ment evaluation includes informationregarding current and past use/abuse ofdrugs; justice system involvement; med-ical, familial, social, educational, military,employment, and treatment histories; andrisk for infectious diseases (e.g., sexuallytransmitted diseases, tuberculosis,HIV/AIDS, hepatitis).29

Many assessment instruments, typicallyscored questionnaires, are available in thepublic domain and from the private sec-tor.30 Some instruments require consider-able skill on the part of the interviewer;some do not. Others are self-administeredquestionnaires. The selection of assessmenttools is largely based on budget (cost of

acquisition plus cost of administration andscoring), target population, and the rangeof available treatment services. The objec-tive is to optimize the match between needand treatment resources. Typically, thequestionnaire and its scoring methodologycan be stored, accessed, and completed aspart of the MIS database. Full access toassessment information is often restrictedto treatment case managers and other diag-nostic or clinical personnel.

Supporting the Drug Court Process treatsassessment as a postadmission process.However, as previously noted, some drugcourt programs have blurred the distinc-tion between screening and assessment bycombining these activities. (See chapter IIIfor a detailed discussion of screening.)

The following section identifies some of themany screening and assessment instru-ments available to drug courts. It also listsbackground information items the MISshould record if they are not included inthe instruments chosen.

A sample checklist for screening andassessment instruments is provided at theback of this chapter.

Background InformationThe MIS should capture the backgroundinformation given in the checklist at theend of this chapter, if it is not recorded asa byproduct of screening and assessment.

Ongoing Case ManagementThe drug court team reviews each programparticipant’s status information continuous-ly. The judge and the drug court teamrequire a wide-ranging set of information toeffectively conduct the “staffings”31 and sta-tus hearings that are fundamental to thedrug court process. Given the frequency ofthese hearings, which are often held week-ly, it is essential that information be collect-


35

ed, disseminated, and weighed in a timelyfashion. Some events, such as a positivedrug test, an arrest, or a failure to appearfor a scheduled hearing, may call for teammembers to take immediate action, ratherthan waiting until the next scheduled statushearing.

Infractions, Sanctions, Incentives,and RewardsAccountability is a central theme of drugcourt judicial supervision. Strategies forinducing program compliance include care-fully tracking and weighing the severity ofinfractions, imposing sanctions commensu-rate with inappropriate or unacceptablebehavior, and providing incentives thatreward overall progress and specific accom-plishments. A chronicle of why, how, andwhen sanctions and incentives are appliedis part of the overall treatment record andis also a foundation for understanding theeffectiveness of various alternatives. Bycomprehensively recording infractions andthe resultant sanctions, the drug court candetermine what works while also ensuringthat sanctions are applied in a bias-freemanner.

Recording all punishments facilitates over-all case management and imposition ofincremental sanctions; this comprehensiveapproach, however, does not fully apply tothe recording of incentives. Typically, thecourt will verbally commend small accom-plishments. Announcement of a majorachievement is often accompanied byapplause and a handshake. These commonpractices, serving as positive reinforce-ment, need not be recorded in the MIS.

Some drug courts have opted to employ ateam-approved schedule of sanctions thatsets out point values for various infractionsand defines corresponding penalties. Often,

participants who remain sanction-free fora specified period advance to another pro-gram phase. Conversely, participants aredemoted if they accumulate a predeter-mined number of points. Many drug courtsthat use a schedule of sanctions tell partici-pants about the schedule when they enterthe program.

The Infractions, Sanctions, Incentives, and Rewards checklist at the back of thischapter suggests MIS data items relating toinfractions, sanctions, incentives, andrewards. Included are illustrative infrac-tions and sanctions of varying severity.Consequently, the section provides both aframework for including an existing sanc-tions schedule in an MIS design and a start-ing point for implementing a sanctionsschedule to assist in case management. Asample list of incentives and rewards isprovided both as a design tool for drugcourt planners and as an assessment toolfor operational drug courts that want toevaluate the ways in which they are pro-viding encouragement and recognizingaccomplishments.

Appointments and OutcomesDrug court clients lead complex lives. Theymust appear for frequent status hearingsand drug tests, meet a schedule of fee pay-ments, and keep myriad other appoint-ments that are set by the court, casemanagers, program coordinators, probationofficers, and treatment counselors. Thedrug court team’s scheduling requirementsencompass not only clients’ appointmentsbut also certain events planned by drugcourt team members without the client’sprior knowledge, such as random drugtests, field-administered drug tests, andplanned visits to verify employment,attendance at school, or compliance withcurfew restrictions.


36

rules, and imposition of a sanction mayensue. Therefore, it is important that theMIS record the disposition of all scheduledevents. For example, it should provide anat-a-glance compilation of data on drugtests, including the date of each urine test,whether the test was positive or negative,and, when appropriate, the level of the sub-stance determined to be present.

A sample checklist for appointments andoutcomes is provided at the back of thischapter.

Program MonitoringEffective management requires continualand aggressive collection and assessment ofprogramwide statistical data about day-to-day operations. The intention here is tobuild a process for continually improvingthe program and to provide a mechanismfor alerting the drug court team to changesthat are occurring broadly within the pro-gram. Unlike other drug court activitiesdiscussed thus far, program monitoringfocuses on aggregate data rather than infor-mation about individual candidates andparticipants. A solid monitoring apparatusenables program administrators to describein quantitative terms what is going on inthe program, assess operations, reviewoperating data within the context of pro-gram goals, identify shortcomings or poten-tial problems, and implement changeswhile ensuring that resources are adequateand appropriately used across the breadthof the program. The generation of monitor-ing reports must be routine and frequentenough that their extensive status informa-tion is both reasonably current and trulyreflective of operations.

The Program Monitoring Checklist at theback of this chapter includes questions andanswers illustrative of program status andachievement information. Topics will vary

In addition to client-specific appointments,the drug court administers other schedulesrelated to the management and operationof the drug court program. In this categoryfall the court’s calendar, NA and/or AAmeetings, and group sessions that may pre-cede or follow the status hearing calendar,staffings, and other activities. The MIS canhelp drug courts effectively manage thesescheduling tasks.

The drug court may opt to accommodateanother set of commitments in the MISdesign: client obligations external to thedirect supervision of the court. For exam-ple, the client may have a hearing sched-uled on an unrelated case in another courtor jurisdiction that could interfere with adrug court obligation, or the client mayrequest that a certain time be left open forpersonal reasons (e.g., to attend a child’sschool event).

The value of adding an appointment andoutcome component to the MIS dependson the extent to which the drug courtteam uses the system to plan schedulesand coordinate appointments. Schedulingconflicts are minimized when all teammembers can access and immediatelyupdate client appointments and their owndiaries. Jurisdictions that opt to imple-ment a comprehensive appointment andoutcome system enhance operational effi-ciency. Such a system also enables teammembers to provide clients with a periodi-cally updated calendar of appointmentsand outstanding obligations (e.g., commu-nity service hours owed, fee payments inarrears, date and amount of next sched-uled fee payment).

Schedule commitments in a drug courtprogram are many and varied. Frequently,they correspond to activities that are at theheart of judicial supervision and treatment.Failure to keep an appointment is oftenconsidered an infraction of the program


37

from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and thosesuggested here should be modified to fiteach drug court’s goals, objectives, andconcerns.

A Word About ComputerMappingGovernment agencies at every level areincreasingly using mapping technology toenhance service delivery. It is inevitablethat drug courts will adopt this technologyas an adjunct to or a module within theMIS. For many drug court clients, the costor inconvenience of transportation to thecourt, treatment sessions, AA and NAmeetings, and other appointments some-times leads to sanctions or, worse yet, com-pels a client to drop out of the program.Mapping can help to minimize travel issuesfor drug court clients.

Mapping also provides an easy way toidentify the neighborhoods where clientsreside, work, go to school, or socialize.This sort of information often contradictsexpectations and assumptions about whereservices and supervision are most needed.By recognizing clusters on a virtual pinmap, probation officers can perform moreefficiently, and law enforcement liaisons

can be more effective as the eyes and earsof the court. Other, more creative usesof this technology will become evident asdrug courts begin to move in this direction.

Exit Interviews and Postprogram ActivitiesThe MIS should record reasons and impres-sions gleaned from exit interviews conduct-ed with both dropouts and graduates toinform drug court team members’ percep-tion of the program and to influence futuredecisions. The MIS should also documentseveral postprogram activities. Many juris-dictions have founded alumni groups thatprovide continued support to program grad-uates. Participation in such groups and fre-quency of attendance should be recorded.The MIS database is often a source of refer-rals for various services offered to activeclients. Similar information may be ofvalue when alumni seek aftercare. The out-come or impact evaluation, discussedin the next chapter, strongly benefits whenpostprogram tracking information—such asrecidivism, continued education, job history,and other data about graduates—is cap-tured in the MIS.


38

Screening and AssessmentInstrument Checklist❐ The MIS includes at least one screening

instrument that attempts to identifycandidates who meet the substanceabuse criteria defined for the program’starget population.

❐ The MIS includes at least one compre-hensive standardized assessment instru-ment that is appropriate for the targetpopulation and available treatmentresources.

Comprehensive assessment instruments❐ Addiction Severity Index (public

domain).

❐ Other__________.

Alcohol screening questionnaires❐ CAGE (four questions, public domain).

❐ Short Michigan Alcohol Screening Test(public domain).

❐ Michigan Alcohol Screening Test.

❐ Manson Evaluation.

❐ Alcohol Dependence Scale.

❐ Other__________.

Substance abuse screening❐ Substance Abuse Screening Instrument

(public domain).

❐ Offender Profile Index (public domain).

❐ Drug Abuse Screening Test.

❐ Chemical Dependency Assessment Profile.

❐ The Structured Clinical Interview forDiagnosis.

❐ Quantitative Cocaine Inventory.

❐ TCU (Texas Christian University) DrugDependence Screen (public domain).

❐ Simple Screening Instrument (publicdomain).

❐ Other__________.

Medical/Physical health (status and problems)❐ General Health Rating Index.

❐ Other__________.

Psychological/Psychiatric problems (mental health status, diagnosis)❐ Symptom Check List (SCL–90–R).

❐ Maudsley Neuroticism Scale.

❐ Beck Depression Inventory.

❐ Brief Symptom Inventory.

❐ IPAT (Institute for Personality and Ability Testing) Depression Scale.

❐ Structured Clinical Interview (SCID)for DSM–III–R (Diagnostic and Statisti-cal Manual of Mental Health DisordersIII–R).

❐ The Mini-SCID.

❐ Referral Decision Scale.

❐ Other__________.

Motivation❐ Circumstances, Motivation, Readiness

and Suitability Scale.

❐ Stages of Change Readiness and Treatment Eagerness Scale.

❐ University of Rhode Island ChangeAssessment Scale.

Academic skills❐ The Wide Range Achievement Test.

❐ Other__________.

Employment❐ Index of Job Satisfaction.

❐ Other__________.


39

Social/Lifestyle❐ Social Life Feelings Scale.

❐ Social Intelligence Test.

❐ Other__________.

Family and marital relationships❐ Family Environment Scale.

❐ Family Assessment Measure.

❐ Self-Report Family Inventory of theFamily Satisfaction Scale.

❐ Family Crisis-Oriented Personal Evaluation Scales.

❐ The ENRICH Inventory.

❐ Dynamic Adjustment Scale.

❐ Other__________.

Background Information Checklist❐ History of physical/sexual/mental

abuse.

■■ Age of client when abuse began.

■■ Is client still around abuser?

■■ Date of last abuse.

■■ Frequency of abuse.

■■ Relationship of client to the personwho is/was the abuser.

■■ Approximate date of first abuse.

■■ Is abuse still occurring?

■■ Type of abuse client received/isreceiving.

■■ Notes.

❐ History of suicide attempts:

■■ Approximate date of last suicideattempt.

■■ Reason why the client attempted tocommit suicide.

■■ Approximate number of total suicide attempts.

❐ In-program pregnancy and child delivery:

■■ Number of previous pregnancies.

■■ Number of previous childbirths.

■■ Infant’s date of birth.

■■ Infant’s birth weight.

■■ Infant’s toxicology screen at birth.

■■ Where and with whom the infantwill live.

Infractions, Sanctions, Incentives,and Rewards Checklist❐ The MIS records the dates of all

infractions.

❐ The MIS automatically calculates thenumber of days/weeks/months elapsedbetween program enrollment and eachinfraction.

❐ The MIS automatically calculates thenumber of days/weeks/months elapsedbetween infraction occurrences.

❐ The MIS records dates when incentivesor rewards are given.

❐ The MIS automatically calculates thenumber of days/weeks/months elapsedbetween program enrollment and eachincentive or reward.

❐ The MIS automatically calculates thenumber of days/weeks/months elapsedbetween each incentive or reward.

❐ The MIS records all levels of infrac-tions. Sample infractions follow:

■■ Missed Alcoholics Anonymous (AA)meeting(s) during report period.

■■ Missed Narcotics Anonymous (NA)meeting(s) during report period.


40

■■ Arrived late for scheduled drug test.

■■ Arrived late for treatment session.

■■ Did not complete homework.

■■ Did not provide a sponsor letter.

■■ Failed to appear for work and didnot have an excuse.

■■ Unemployed.

■■ Failed to seek employment asdirected by the court.

■■ Failed to enroll in an education orjob training program as directed bythe court.

■■ Failed to pay scheduled fees.

■■ Partially paid fees without authori-zation of the court.

■■ Missed probation office visit.

■■ Violated home detention.

■■ Violated electronic monitoring.

■■ Missed status hearing—notified case manager/court coordinatorbeforehand (first occurrence).

■■ Fulfilled partial community servicerequirement within allowed time(first community service sanction).

■■ Discourteous to court or other drug court team member (firstoccurrence).

■■ Wore inappropriate attire to statushearing (first occurrence).

■■ Forged AA or NA meeting attend-ance slip.

■■ Admitted use prior to failing drugtest.

■■ Admitted use prior to failing alcoholtest.

■■ Missed treatment session withoutprior excuse.

■■ Missed scheduled drug test.

■■ Violated curfew.

■■ Fired from job.

■■ Left employment without a replacement job.

■■ Observed in a known drug-trafficking area.

■■ Observed in a premises that servesalcohol; presence was not job relat-ed and was without prior approval.

■■ Positive drug test (without prioradmission; first occurrence).

■■ Positive alcohol test (without prioradmission; first occurrence).

■■ Delayed taking drug test.

■■ Absent from program for less than 5 days and voluntarily returned.

■■ Admitted use prior to second faileddrug test.

■■ Admitted use prior to second failedalcohol test.

■■ Missed status hearing—notified casemanager/court coordinator before-hand (second occurrence).

■■ Failed to perform any communityservice within allowed time (firstcommunity service sanction).

■■ Fulfilled partial community servicerequirement within allowed time(second or subsequent communityservice sanction).

■■ Discourteous to court or other drug court team member (second or subsequent occurrence).


41

■■ Wore inappropriate attire to statushearing (second or subsequentoccurrence).

■■ Attempted to falsify drug test sample.

■■ Substituted or tampered with urinesample.

■■ Missed scheduled drug test (secondor subsequent occurrence).

■■ Positive drug test (without prioradmission; second occurrence).

■■ Positive alcohol test (without prioradmission; second occurrence).

■■ Admitted use prior to third or subsequent failed drug test.

■■ Admitted use prior to third or subsequent failed alcohol test.

■■ Absent from program for more than5 days.

■■ Failed to complete inpatient orhalfway house program.

■■ Arrested (nonviolent misdemeanoror lesser offense).

■■ Arrested (nonviolent felony).

■■ Arrested for a violent offense.

❐ The MIS records all judicially imposedsanctions. Sample sanctions follow:

■■ Verbal reprimand.

■■ Written report (e.g., explain whyaction or behavior was inappropriateor irresponsible).

■■ Loss of a privilege.

■■ Community service (8 or fewerhours).

■■ Increase in NA meetings.

■■ Increase in AA meetings.

■■ Increase in outpatient individualand/or group sessions.

■■ Increase in drug testing.

■■ Placement in jury box for durationof day’s calendar.

■■ Placement in holding cell for dura-tion of day’s calendar.

■■ Electronic monitoring.

■■ Home detention.

■■ Jail (less than 24 hours).

■■ Extension of time before client can advance to another phase orgraduate.

■■ Community service (up to 24hours).

■■ Increase in NA/AA meetings andsubmission of a written report fol-lowing each meeting.

■■ Increase in status hearings.

■■ Jail (up to 10 days).

■■ Community service (up to 60 hours).

■■ Phase demotion.

■■ Jail (up to 30 days).

■■ Inpatient placement.

■■ Participant required to enter guiltyplea (in pre-plea courts, acceptanceof plea may be held in abeyance orparticipant may be allowed to with-draw plea).

■■ Discharged from program.

❐ The MIS has a provision for notingpunitive action taken by outpatienttreatment providers.


42

❐ The MIS has a provision for notingpunitive action taken by residentialtreatment providers.

❐ The MIS has a provision for notingpunitive action taken by probation staff supervising client.

❐ The MIS has a provision for notingpunitive action taken by case managersupervising client.

❐ The MIS selectively records incentivesor rewards given to program partici-pants. Sample incentives and rewardsfollow:

■■ Less restrictive curfew.

■■ Removal of curfew.

■■ Reduction in required AA meetings.

■■ Reduction in required NA meetings.

■■ Immediate release after status hear-ing (not required to sit throughwhole drug court calendar).

■■ Placement in a group whose statushearings are called early in theday’s calendar.

■■ Less frequent scheduled drug tests.

■■ Participant can serve as a programrepresentative speaker.

■■ Participant can participate in acourt-sponsored recreational event.

■■ Gift of tickets to a recreational,entertainment, or social event.

■■ Certificates for restaurants, for participant’s own use or for a family event.

■■ Certificates for clothing.

■■ Financial support for education, jobtraining, or other activity consistentwith objectives of the program butnot affordable for the client.

■■ Permission to temporarily leavejurisdiction for cause at the requestof the participant.

■■ Advancement in a multiphase program.

■■ Invitation to join alumni group.

■■ Graduation.

❐ The MIS documents when each require-ment for advancement to another phaseor level is met.

❐ The MIS records dates of advancementin multiphase programs.

❐ The MIS documents when each gradua-tion requirement is met.

❐ The MIS records the date the drugcourt team certifies that all graduationrequirements have been met, as well asthe reason for any decision to defergraduation.

❐ The MIS records the date of graduation.

Appointments and OutcomesChecklist❐ The MIS automatically generates the

case calendar for staffings.

❐ The MIS automatically generates thestatus hearing calendar.

❐ The MIS can be used to generate lists of scheduled attendees for groupactivities:

■■ Group meetings.

■■ Other _____.

❐ The MIS records drug test appoint-ments and dispositional information:

■■ Date and time of test/sample taken:

● Scheduled.

● Random.


43

● Confirmation.

■■ Location of test:

● Court.

● Treatment.

● Jail.

● Field.

■■ Missed appointment—not excused.

■■ Missed appointment—excused.

■■ Late for appointment—not excused.

■■ Late for appointment—excused.

■■ Refused to provide sample.

■■ Attempted to submit fraudulentsample or tamper with test process.

■■ Screening panel/drugs tested:

● Alcohol.

● Amphetamines (e.g., metham-phetamine, MDA, MDMA).

● Barbiturates.

● Benzodiazepine.

● Cocaine.

● Marijuana (THC).

● Methadone.

● Methaqualone.

● Opiates (e.g., heroin, morphine,codeine).

● PCP (e.g., phencyclidine, PCDE,PCM).

● Propoxyphene (e.g., Darvon).

■■ Date and time the test results weredetermined.

■■ Date and time the test results wereentered in the MIS.

■■ Test results:

● Positive:

– Level.

● Negative.

■■ Notes _____.

❐ The MIS records status hearingappointments and dispositions:

■■ Date and time scheduled.

■■ Failure to appear—excused.

■■ Failure to appear—not excused.

● Warrant issued.

❐ The MIS records fees assessed andpayable to the court:

■■ Frequency and amount of scheduledpayments.

■■ Payment dates and amounts.

■■ Current with payments, or amountin arrears?

■■ Total amount of payments to date.

■■ Court-ordered change in frequencyor amount of payments is logged.

❐ The MIS records fees payable to treat-ment providers:

■■ Frequency and amount of scheduledpayments.

■■ Current with payments, or amountin arrears?

❐ The MIS records schedule and disposi-tional information about other pendingnondrug court cases:

■■ Date, time, court of scheduledappearance.

■■ Judge.

■■ Purpose of appearance.

■■ Nature of charges or pending matter(e.g., civil action, family court).


44

■■ Disposition of appearance.

■■ Date and disposition of case information.

❐ The MIS records treatment appoint-ments and dispositions:

■■ Date and time scheduled.

■■ Failure to appear—excused.

■■ Failure to appear—not excused.

❐ The MIS records scheduled communityservice:

■■ Total number of hours required.

■■ Date by which community servicerequirement must be satisfied.

■■ Date, time, number of hours scheduled.

■■ Entity and location.

■■ Contact name and telephone number of person who can verify.

■■ Appointment kept.

■■ Number of hours completed.

■■ Cumulative number of communityservice hours completed.

■■ Failed to appear.

❐ The MIS records supervisory case management contacts (e.g., probationsupervision):

■■ Date, time, location of scheduledsupervision.

■■ Failed to appear—excused.

■■ Failed to appear—not excused.

■■ Could not be located.

❐ The MIS records drug court lawenforcement liaison contacts:

■■ Date, time, location of contact.

■■ Could not be located.

❐ The MIS records client’s personal com-mitments to avoid conflicts with sched-uled drug court events and to providean incentive for complying with drugcourt appointments.

Program Monitoring Checklist❐ The MIS provides aggregate data and

generates summary reports about program participants.

❐ The MIS provides aggregate data andgenerates summary reports about program performance.

❐ The MIS periodically generates reportsthat answer the following questions:

■■ What attributes of the drug courtparticipant population correspondto characteristics of the court’splanned target population?

■■ How many clients are enrolled?

■■ What is the average and mean duration of client enrollment in the program?

■■ How many males and females areenrolled?

■■ What is the ethnic breakdown ofthe client population?

● African-American.

● Hispanic/Latino.

● Asian/Pacific Islander.

● Native American.

● Alaska Native.

● Caucasian.

● Other_________.

■■ How many clients had felonycharges when referred to the drugcourt?


45

■■ How many clients had misdemeanorcharges when referred to the drugcourt?

■■ What is the criminal history profileof the client population (numberof clients categorized by numberof prior felony convictions, priorfelony arrests, prior misdemeanorconvictions, and prior misdemeanorarrests)?

■■ Is drug testing being performed asenvisioned in the plan for thecourt?

● Frequency of testing.

● Cumulative and average numberof tests of the client population.

● Types of tests conducted.

■■ To what extent is the combinationof judicial supervision and treat-ment successfully retaining partici-pants in the program?

● Percentage and number ofeligible clients enrolled in theprogram.

● Number of graduates.

● Number of clients voluntarilyseparated from the programsince its inception.

● Average duration of program par-ticipation before voluntary sepa-ration from the program.

● Number of voluntary programseparations by program phase.

● Number of clients involuntarilyseparated from the programsince its inception.

■■ Have active program participantsbeen arrested on new charges?

■■ What is the total number of arrestssince program inception?

● Number of drug offenses.

● Number of nondrug felonyarrests.

● Number of nondrug misde-meanor arrests.

● Number of domestic abusearrests.

■■ What is the total number of arrestsof the current program population?

● Number of drug offenses.

● Number of nondrug felonyarrests.

● Number of nondrug misde-meanor arrests.

● Number of domestic abusearrests.

■■ Is the drug court having a beneficialimpact on the life circumstances ofparticipants?

● Percentage of clients employed.

● Percentage of clients enrolled inschool.

● Percentage of clients enrolled injob training.

● Number of drug-free babies born to clients since programinception.

● Number of clients regaining custody of children since program inception.

47

V.

Evaluation

valuation is an essen-tial tool for developing,managing, modifying,sustaining, and justify-

ing a drug court program. An objective eval-uation that addresses stakeholder questionsand concerns will help secure funds, wincommunity support, and facilitate the pas-sage of legislation. Several types of evalua-tions are commonly employed to assess theoperational effectiveness and success of drugcourt programs. These include process andoutcome evaluations. Comprehensive quali-ty evaluations are frequently beyond theexpertise of the drug team. An outside evalu-ator familiar with the evaluation process,criminal justice, and treatment can be aninvaluable asset. Although the cost of evalu-ation depends on many factors and varieswidely, costs generally are minimized when

■ The evaluator is identified and consult-ed early enough to participate in theplanning of the drug court. The soonerthe evaluator is engaged, the more likely it is that key questions will

be identified and answers will beunderstood.

■ Data collection within the MIS not onlysupports day-to-day operations, butalso is designed with evaluation utilityin mind.

■ Data are collected in a format the eval-uator can use; the data do not haveto be converted to another format ormanually manipulated.

DCPO Implementation GrantsDCPO implementation grant recipients arerequired to conduct both a process evalua-tion and an outcome evaluation and to col-lect and maintain the key data necessaryto support both types of evaluations.32 Intheir applications, grant applicants mustinclude an MIS plan that, among otherthings, encompasses methods for collect-ing, storing, and maintaining adequate datato support the drug court’s operations andits process and outcome evaluations.33

E


48

Outcome or Impact EvaluationThe outcome or impact evaluation primari-ly assesses the effect of the drug court pro-gram on the lives of participants after theyleave the program, as compared with out-comes associated with more traditional jus-tice processing. (Lifestyle changes of activeclients may also be considered in an evalu-ation.) At the core of these evaluations arechanges in criminal involvement, recidi-vism, and substance abuse and progresstoward a positive lifestyle. This evaluationprocess allows drug courts to determineand report the extent to which graduates—and often offenders who are still active inthe program—have progressed toward pro-gram goals and objectives and also to judgethe effectiveness of various services for thepopulation served. This type of evaluationtakes a long-term view, as compared withthe relatively short-term view of a processevaluation or ongoing program monitoring.

Much of the information that is critical forconducting both process and impact evalu-ations is collected and routinely enteredinto the MIS as part of documenting tasksand decisions in the areas of program eligi-bility, screening, assessment, ongoing casemanagement, and, most importantly, pro-gram monitoring. In short, nothing may beout of bounds when trying to draw conclu-sions about how things are working andhow well they are working. Policymakers,legislators, funding sources, court adminis-trators, drug court team members, andcommunity advisory and other interestedpublic groups may all have questions aboutthe effectiveness of the drug court program.As these concerns are identified, it may be appropriate to lay the foundation for aresponse through the design or subsequentmodification of the MIS.

As with process evaluation, early identifica-tion and involvement of the evaluator areimportant for outcome evaluations. The

Process or OperationsEvaluationThe process or operations evaluation,which typically builds on program monitor-ing, carefully documents how the programis currently operating and contrasts thatwith how it was intended to operate. Thisassessment chronicles the history of pro-gram development and changes over timeand identifies the specific elements of theprogram, including participant characteris-tics, program services, and the extent towhich services are matched with and usedby participants. Questions answered by theprocess evaluation include

■ Is the drug court program meeting itsplanned operational and administrativegoals?

■ Is the program serving the intended target population?

■ Do screening and assessment proce-dures yield the optimal number of can-didates without introducing unfair orinappropriate exclusions?

■ Is the provision of services consistentwith the needs of program participants?

A process evaluation may be broader inscope and answer many other questions.For example, one of the underlying goalsestablished early in the planning processmight be that creating a drug court willbenefit calendars in other court areas andfacilitate better use of courtroom space. Aprimary objective of the process evaluationis to look at whether the drug court pro-gram is meeting its goals—the very goalsthat determine the framework for theprocess evaluation. Program records, asrecorded in the MIS, play an important rolein the process evaluation. However, theevaluation may include other components,such as direct observation of program serv-ices, surveys, and interviews of stakehold-ers, clients, and staff.

Evaluation

49

The drug court MIS, because it documentsan array of activities, is especially useful inidentifying program elements amenable tocost analysis and determining whether theircosts are above those usually experiencedwhen defendants are processed without adrug court option. In this way, analysts canidentify costs that are unique to the drugcourt program and that, when addedtogether, constitute the program’s totalprice. The MIS provides documentation ofarrests, improved job skills, employment,enhanced education, and improved healthand family circumstances. From this infor-mation, analysts can extrapolate diversesources of fiscal savings or revenue genera-tion. For example, reduced use of healthcare services, increased legal earnings andtax revenues, decreased need for publicsupport, and reduced use of child welfareand foster care services all imply quantifi-able fiscal benefits for the community.

Drug Court Grantee DataCollection SurveyPrior to March 15, 2002, all recipients ofgrants awarded by DCPO were required tosubmit the grantee data collection surveyon a semiannual basis “to ensure thatgrantees are collecting critical informationabout their drug court programs for evalua-tion purposes and to assist in the nationalevaluation of drug courts.”34 The surveyinstrument expired in March 2002; there-fore, grantees no longer need to submit thisdata collection survey to DCPO. The latestsurvey is presented in appendix 3 as anexample of a minimum data set that maybe useful to drug court programs.

evaluator can help to ensure that the MISis optimized for the planned evaluation andcan also focus on the source of informationthat will be needed. For instance, there arevarious definitions of recidivism and multi-ple sources of data relevant to recidivism.If the research design intends to use FBIreports to track participants’ arrest activi-ties during and after program enrollment,the MIS database should include eachoffender’s FBI identification number. If thisresearch is to be limited to or supplement-ed by information from the agency thathouses the State’s criminal records reposi-tory, the fingerprint-based State identifica-tion number should be included in thedatabase.

Cost AnalysisPerhaps the most fundamental considera-tion in determining whether a drug courtprogram merits sustained or increasedfunding is an economic analysis that con-trasts costs and benefits. What is the mone-tary cost per program participant per year?How does this compare with the presumedcosts for probation or incarceration and thesocietal costs associated with crime, poorhealth, and other consequences of contin-ued drug use? Key to effective cost-benefitanalysis is a clear understanding of thequestion or questions to be answered. Forexample, the information needed to analyzea drug court program’s overall costs andbenefits for a local jurisdiction is quite dif-ferent from the information needed whenthe analysis is limited to the perspective ofthe judicial branch.

51

Appendix 1Sample Consent Form for Disclosure of

Confidential Substance Abuse Information*

Sample Qualified Service Organization Agreement*

Sample Intergovernmental Agreement and Memorandum of Understanding Between Drug Court Team Partners*

* Excerpted from DCPO’s Fiscal Year 2002 Program Application Kit.


52

SAMPLECONSENT FOR DISCLOSURE OF CONFIDENTIAL SUBSTANCE ABUSE INFORMATION: DRUG COURT REFERRAL

I, defendant’s name, hereby consent to communication between treatment program’s name and Judge name of presid-ing judge, name of prosecuting attorney or prosecutor’s office, name of defense attorney, the probation department ofjurisdiction, (and/or other referring agency), (other).

The purpose of and need for this disclosure is to inform the court and other above-named parties of my eligibilityand/or acceptability for substance abuse treatment services and my treatment attendance, prognosis, compliance,and progress in accordance with the drug court monitoring criteria.

Disclosure of this confidential information may be made only as necessary for and pertinent to hearings and/or reportsconcerning charges, docket number, indictment number.

I understand that this consent will remain in effect and cannot be revoked by me until there has been a formal andeffective termination of my involvement with the drug court for the case named above, such as the discontinuation ofall court (and/or, where relevant, probation) supervision upon my successful completion of the drug court requirementsor upon sentencing for violating the terms of my drug court involvement (and/or, where relevant, probation).

I understand that any disclosure made is bound by Part 2 of Title 42 of the Code of Federal Regulations, which governsthe confidentiality of substance abuse patient (or client) records, and that recipients of this information may redisclose itonly in connection with their official duties.

Date Signature of Defendant

Signature of parent, guardian, or representative (if required)

Appendix 1

53

QUALIFIED SERVICE ORGANIZATION AGREEMENT

Between

PIONEER CLAIM MANAGEMENT and OSBORNE TREATMENT SERVICES, INC.

PIONEER CLAIM MANAGEMENT (PIONEER) and OSBORNE TREATMENT SERVICES, INC. (OSBORNE) hereby enter intoa Qualified Service Organization Agreement whereby PIONEER agrees to provide liability insurance representation,including contracting for legal services, to OSBORNE in the matter of Luis Martinez vs. 809 Realty Corp. and OsborneTreatment Services, Inc. Furthermore, PIONEER

1) acknowledges that in receiving, storing, processing, or otherwise dealing with any information from OSBORNE aboutany client of OSBORNE, past or present, PIONEER and all of its agents and assigns are fully bound by the provisionsof the Federal laws and regulations governing the confidentiality of Drug and Alcohol Abuse Patient Records (42United States Code Section 290dd-2 and 42 Code of Federal Regulations Part 2); and

2) undertakes to resist, in judicial proceedings if necessary, any efforts to obtain access to information pertaining toany OSBORNE client otherwise than as expressly provided for in the Federal confidentiality regulations (42 CFRPart 2).

Executed this day of _____________________, 1998

Signature of PIONEER Officer Signature of OSBORNE Officer

Print Name of Signing Officer Print Name of Signing Officer

Title of Signing Officer Title of Signing OfficerPIONEER CLAIM MANAGEMENT OSBORNE TREATMENT SERVICES, INC.195 Lake Louise Marie Road 809 Westchester AvenueRock Hill, NY 12775 Bronx, NY 10455


54

PARISH OF RAPIDES, STATE OF LOUISIANAINTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT

This Intergovernmental Agreement is entered into between the following parties:

(1) The RAPIDES PARISH POLICE JURY, a constitutional political subdivision of the State of Louisiana, domiciled inAlexandria, Rapides Parish, Louisiana (hereinafter referred to as “PARISH”), acting through Donald Wilmore, duly electedPresident of the Rapides Parish Police Jury; and

(2) The NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, a constitutional political subdivision of the State of Louisiana, domiciled in theParish of Rapides (hereinafter referred to as “DISTRICT COURT”), acting by and through B. Dexter Ryland, Chief DistrictJudge; and

(3) The NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT ATTORNEY, a constitutional political subdivision of the State of Louisiana, domiciled inthe Parish of Rapides (hereinafter referred to as “DISTRICT ATTORNEY”) acting by and through the duly elected NinthJudicial District Attorney, Charles F. Wagner.

RECITALS

WHEREAS, all of the above parties are concerned about the frequency of illegal drug use and the related criminal activity which is occurring in our local community;

WHEREAS, all of the above parties have declared that pro-active intervention is an appropriate recognized meansof curtailing the problem of drug abuse in our community;

WHEREAS, a Drug Treatment Court (hereinafter referred to as the “DRUG COURT”) has been established by the DISTRICT COURT to address the problem;

WHEREAS, the POLICE JURY has requested and received $379,228.00 for the operation of the DRUG COURT pursuantto Grant number 98–DC–VX–0113 from the U.S. Department of Justice;

WHEREAS, the DISTRICT ATTORNEY and the DISTRICT COURT have agreed to participate in the operation of the DRUGCOURT and to provide in-kind services for the above named grant, along with in-kind services from the Rapides ParishClerk of Court, Rapides Parish Public Defender’s Office and the Department of Public Safety and Corrections, Division ofProbation and Parole and the State of Louisiana, Department of Health and Hospitals, Office for Addictive Disorders, forthe above named grant;

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that all parties named above, in conformity with La. R. S. 33:1321, et seq., herebyenter into the following intergovernmental agreement:

I.

The DISTRICT COURT agrees to operate and supervise DRUG COURT pursuant to written rules and regulations promul-gated by the DISTRICT COURT.

II.

With the exception of those personnel provided by the DISTRICT COURT, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, Clerk of Court, PublicDefender’s Office, Department of Public Safety and Corrections, Division of Probation and Parole and the State ofLouisiana, Department of Health and Hospitals, Office for Addictive Disorders, all other employees hired to provideservices under this agreement and pursuant to grant funds shall be employees of the PARISH.

Appendix 1

55

III.

The PARISH agrees to act as fiscal agent for the DISTRICT COURT’s DRUG COURT for all monies received from the U.S.Department of Justice Grant # 98–DC–VX–0113 and to manage, operate and expend said funds according to the rulesand regulations of the U.S. Department of Justice Grant # 98–DC–VX–0113, including but not limited to all necessaryreports, documents, and records of any kind so required thereby. The DRUG COURT, prior to seeking reimbursementfrom the PARISH for funds the PARISH acts as fiscal agent, shall certify that all of its operational expenditures are incompliance with the rules and regulations of the above named grant.

IV.

The parties agree that each DRUG COURT participant in Phase I, II, and III (and Phase IV misdemeanor cases only) shallbe assessed $30.00 per month for probation supervision/drug screening fees that will be collected by the DRUG COURTadministrator who will tender these funds to the PARISH who will then deposit them in a separate account. Expendi-tures from this account shall only be legitimate expenditures for the use and benefit of the DRUG COURT, including butnot limited to office expenses, educational and training materials, training expenses, drug testing expenses, counselorcertification, etc. In seeking payment, the DISTRICT COURT shall certify in writing that the requested expense is a legiti-mate expense for the use and/or benefit of the DRUG COURT.

V.

Should the DISTRICT COURT decide to terminate the DRUG COURT, any funds remaining on deposit in the probationsupervision/drug screening fund shall be continued to be maintained in this separate account and used solely forthe psychiatric/psychological/family counseling diagnosis or testing of substance abuse or mental illness/disordersrequested by any civil, criminal, or juvenile division of the Ninth Judicial District Court. The District Court sitting enblanc, shall decide the policy and procedures on how these funds will be administered and expended.

THUS DONE AND SIGNED on this _________ day of _________________, 1999, in Alexandria, Rapides Parish,Louisiana, before the undersigned witnesses after due reading of the whole.

WITNESSES: RAPIDES PARISH POLICE JURY

_________________________ BY:_________________________DONALD WILMORE

_________________________ President, Rapides ParishPolice Jury


56

_________________________NOTARY PUBLIC

WITNESSES: STATE OF LOUISIANA

_________________________ BY:_________________________CHARLES F. WAGNER

_________________________ District Attorney, RapidesParish

_________________________NOTARY PUBLIC

WITNESSES: NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

_________________________ BY:_________________________B. DEXTER RYLAND

_________________________ Chief District Judge, NinthDistrict Court

_________________________NOTARY PUBLIC

PARISH OF RAPIDES STATE OF LOUISIANA

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

DRUG COURT DIVISION

This Memorandum of Understanding is entered into between the State of Louisiana, through Charles F. Wagner, DistrictAttorney (DA); the Rapides Parish Public Defender’s Office (PD), through Kenneth Rodenbeck, Director, and the NinthJudicial District Court, through B. Dexter Ryland, Chief Judge, who agree that the following procedures will apply to allcases allotted to Division “X”, the Drug Court division of the Ninth Judicial District Court:

(1) Except as provided in paragraph (4) below, the DA shall provide to the PD at arraignment a copy of the defendant’s(a) bill of information/indictment, (b) complete case file submitted to the DA [excluding any attorney work product orprivileged information, especially that privileged by La. C.E. article 514], (c) “report of arrest and prosecution (RAP)sheet,” (d) original completed pretrial memorandum as required by Rule XXIV of the Ninth Judicial District Court, andin appropriate cases (e) the Notice of Intent to Introduce Scientific Evidence as provided by La. R. S. 15:499.1, withattached lab report.

(2) Upon receipt of the above, the arraigning PD shall sign a joint stipulation on a form approved by the Court whichstates that this information will satisfy the defendant’s Motion for Discovery and Inspection under C.Cr.P. articles716–723, the Motion for Bill of Particulars under La. C.Cr.P. article 484–485 and the Motion for Preliminary Examinationas provided by Louisiana Constitution Article I, Section 14 and La. C.Cr.P. articles 291–298. However, the PD reservesthe right to file motions for the Court to determine the sufficiency of the State’s response and any other motions provid-ed by law.

(3) After the State of Louisiana has complied with the above discovery requirements at arraignment, the followingdelays will apply:

(a) The PD shall file all pretrial motions within the delays provided by La. C.Cr.P. article 521;

(b) The State of Louisiana shall file all pretrial motions within fifteen days after the expiration of delays in paragraph3(a) above;

(c) All pretrial motions shall be set for hearing on the motion date [Monday] for Division “X” cases closest to thedefendant’s trial date;

(d) The pretrial conference shall be set on the Division “X” pretrial date [Wednesday] closest to the defendant’s trialdate. Unless excused by the Court, the defendant shall be present at the pretrial conference and after the pretri-al, the public defender shall discuss with the defendant the matters discussed at the pretrial conference, thesentence the defendant will receive upon a plea of guilty to the charge, and determine if the defendant desires

Appendix 1

57

to enter a plea of guilty or proceed to trial. The Public Defender’s appearance before the Court will not beexcused until he informs the Court of the defendant’s choice. If the defendant desires to enter a plea of guilty,he may do so on the date of the pretrial conference or on the appropriate plea date discussed in (e) below;

(e) The plea date for the defendant shall be set on the Division “X” plea date [Friday] closest to the defendant’strial date. The PD shall notify the Court of the defendant’s desire to enter a plea of guilty prior to the plea date.The defendant is only required to be present if (s)he desires to enter a plea of guilty to the pretrial sentencewhich will expire if the defendant does not plead guilty on his/her plea date.

(f) Calendar permitting, the State of Louisiana will set all jury trials at least two months after arraignment.

(4) The DA and PD agree that “open file” discovery as outlined above is the preferred method of discovery in Division“X” cases and that the DA will comply with the procedure in all cases except in limited situations where trial strategywould dictate otherwise. In those cases, the DA shall provide to the PD at arraignment a written notice of: (a) the DA’srefusal to enter into informal discovery as outlined above and (b) a request for the defendant to file formal discoverymotions as provided by law.

(5) The Court shall adopt a Division “X” calendar in compliance with this Memorandum of Understanding and distributeit to the State of Louisiana, the Clerk of Court, and all members of the PD.

(6) The District Attorney recognizes the importance of those who are convicted, on bond or being detained withoutbond, being candid with Drug Court personnel regarding their alcohol/drug usage as well as their participation/treatment in other programs. Therefore, the District Attorney agrees to the following policy concerning statements byany person being screened for Drug Court eligibility or any person who has entered a plea of guilty to a criminalcharge and is being treated in the Drug Court treatment program:

(a) Any information obtained by a Drug Court counselor during the screening process shall be confidential, shallnot be revealed to any person or as evidence in a pending case against the client being screened; however, thescreening counselor shall inform the Court, the defense attorney, and the District Attorney of the results of theirexamination as to whether the defendant has a substance abuse addiction and any treatment recommendation(s);

(b) Admissions of alcohol/drug usage or a positive screen for alcohol or drug usage will not be used by the DA tofile new charges of possession of a controlled dangerous substance but can be used by the Court in imposingsanctions or revoking the defendant’s probation.

(7) This Memorandum of Understanding shall be effective on October 1, 1999, and filed with the Clerk of Court, main-tained with all other Drug Court documents and available for inspection during regular business hours.

(8) Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of this policy by any member of the District Attorney’s Office or theRapides Parish Public Defense Office may subject the attorney to the penalties as provided by La. C.Cr.P. article 16, etseq or La. C.Cr.P. article 729.5.

Alexandria, Louisiana, this_________day of__________________, 1999.

STATE OF LOUISIANA RAPIDES PARISHPUBLIC DEFENDER

BY:_________________________ BY:_________________________CHARLES F. WAGNER KENNETH RODENBECKDistrict Attorney Director

NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

BY:_________________________B. DEXTER RYLANDChief District Judge

59

Appendix 2Drug Courts Program

Office Implementation Grant Management Information System,

Process Evaluation, andOutcome Evaluation Requirements*

* Excerpted from DCPO’s Fiscal Year 2002 Program Application Kit.


60

Evaluation and ManagementInformation System Plan (8–12 pages)Grant recipients are required to conductboth a process and an outcome evaluation,and to collect and maintain the key datanecessary to support both types of evalua-tions. Grant recipients are required to sub-mit a final evaluation and/or MIS plan priorto accessing funding for these activities. Seepage 60 [of DCPO’s Fiscal Year 2002 Pro-gram Application Kit] regarding HumanSubject Testing and Information Technologyrequirements.

Applicants must identify the independentevaluator who will assist the drug court inconducting the process and outcome evalu-ations. If the evaluator has not been identi-fied, describe the steps the drug court willtake to solicit and select the evaluator, andhow the drug court will work with the eval-uator to design the data collection process,collect and maintain the data, analyze thedata, and prepare evaluation reports. Fol-lowing is some specific guidance regardinginformation which must be included in thissection of your application.

MIS Plan1. Describe the methods planned for collect-ing, storing, and maintaining adequate datato support the drug court’s operations as wellas the process and outcome evaluations.

2. Describe the nature of the planned MIS,including staffing, hardware and software,standardized data collection forms, sched-ules of data entry, routine reports, qualityassurance procedures, and statistical analy-sis capabilities.

3. Discuss how data related to court opera-tions, individual participant characteristicsand behaviors, and treatment services will

be collected, maintained, and integratedinto existing automated systems.

4. Discuss plans for data sharing agree-ments with treatment service providers andother agencies. Please note that all appli-cants are expected to adhere to applicablelocal, State, and Federal confidentialityguidelines and requirements regardingtreatment program records.

Process EvaluationThe data collection plan must enable thedrug court to summarize its basic opera-tions and services delivery, client character-istics, and treatment outcomes.

1. Describe how the evaluation will include both qualitative and quantitativeinformation.

2. Describe the minimum data set that willbe used (see appendix D for suggestions [inDCPO’s Fiscal Year 2002 Program Applica-tion Kit]) and how it will allow the drugcourt to describe the target population, thescreening and assessment process, intakeflow, sanctions and incentives, drug testresults, in-program rearrests, number of sta-tus hearings, failure and completion rates,services delivered, and referrals made.

3. Provide information on how the MIS willbe flexible enough to allow the evaluator toanalyze the following by participant char-acteristics and other factors: program serv-ices received, drug test results, in-programrearrests, length of time in the program,sanctions and rewards, number of courthearings, and completion rates.

4. Describe the specific data elements tobe collected and analyzed for the processevaluation, and how these data will be usedfor program operation and management.The Drug Court Grantee Data CollectionSurvey (see appendix 3) can be used asa starting point to identify these data ele-ments. Appendix D (Process Evaluations

Appendix 2

61

and MIS)(see DCPO’s Fiscal Year 2002Program Application Kit), also containsuseful information to guide the develop-ment of a proposed data collection plan.

5. Describe how the process evaluation willassist the drug court in assessing the effec-tiveness of its operations and ability to meetits goals and objectives, and how the find-ings could be used to change and improvethe court’s operations.

The process plan should incorporate meas-urable program goals and objectives. Ex-amples include number and type of targetpopulation screened and admitted, programcompletion rates, average time in program(or 1-year retention rates, cohort-based),percentage of drug tests that are negative,percentage of participants rearrested dur-ing program participation, amount andtype of services received, and percentageof participants employed after 1 year.

Outcome EvaluationA feasible plan for collecting and analyzingthe impact of the drug court on 1-year post-program recidivism outcomes is required.

1. Describe the plan for collecting data onrearrests, reconviction, and/or reincarcera-tion for a period of 1 year following drugcourt completion (or dropout). Applicantsare encouraged to consider the collectionof recidivism data for longer than a 1-yearpostprogram period. In addition, theidentification of sources of data for other postprogram outcomes (such as drug use,

employment and earnings, health care,drug treatment participation, etc.) isstrongly encouraged (but not required)and should be described if available.

2. Describe the sources of data on rearrestsand other outcome measures, and how thesemeasures will be defined. It is recommendedthat individual rather than aggregate out-come data be collected and maintained. TheDrug Court Grantee Data Collection Survey(see appendix 3) can be used as a startingpoint to identify these data elements.

3. Identify and justify a comparison groupfor measuring the relative change in post-program recidivism outcome measures.The comparison group should be as similaras possible to the drug court participants.

4. Describe the procedures for collectingcomparison group data on court process-ing, individual characteristics, rearrests,and other outcome measures if available.

5. Describe the specific data elements tobe collected and analyzed for the outcomeevaluation, and how these data will be usedfor program operation and management.

6. Describe how the outcome evaluationwill assist the drug court in assessing theeffectiveness of its operations, and howthe findings could be used to change andimprove the court’s operations.

7. Describe the products expected fromthe evaluation.

63

Appendix 3Drug Court Grantee

Reporting Requirements and Data Collection Survey*

* Excerpted from DCPO’s Fiscal Year 2002 Program Application Kit. The survey instrument expired in March 2002; therefore,grantees no longer need to submit this data collection survey to DCPO. The latest survey is presented here as an example ofa minimum data set that may be useful to drug court programs.


64

Drug Court Grantee ReportingRequirements All recipients of Drug Courts Program Officegrants are required to submit the followingreports:

Financial Status Reports (SF 269A) Financial status reports (SF 269A) are duequarterly on the 45th day following the endof each calendar quarter. A report must besubmitted every quarter the award isactive, even if there has been no financialactivity during the reporting period. Thefinal report is due 120 days after the enddate of the award. The Office of the Comp-troller will provide a copy of this form inthe initial award package. Future awardsand fund drawdowns will be withheld iffinancial status reports are delinquent.

Categorical Assistance Progress ReportsRecipients of funding are required to submitan initial and then semiannual progressreport. The progress reports describe activi-ties during the reporting period and the sta-tus or accomplishment of objectives as setforth in the approved application for fund-ing. Progress reports must be submittedwithin 30 days after the end of the reportingperiods, which are January 1 through June30 and July 1 through December 31 for thelife of the award. A final report, which pro-vides a summary of progress toward achiev-ing the goals and objectives of the award,significant results, and any products devel-oped under the award, is due 120 days afterthe end date of the award. The Office of theComptroller will provide a copy of this formin the initial award package.

Drug Court Grantee Data Collection SurveyTo ensure that grant recipients are collect-ing critical information about their drugcourt programs for evaluation purposes andto assist in the national evaluation of drugcourts, grant recipients that receive funds toimplement or enhance a drug court arerequired to submit the Drug Court GranteeData Collection Survey on a semiannualbasis. The survey periods run January 1through June 30 and July 1 through Decem-ber 31. The surveys are due 60 days afterthe end of the report period; that is, no laterthan August 31 and February 28, respective-ly. These data will capture baseline informa-tion on both drug courts and defendants.NOTE: This is no longer a requirement forDCPO; however, the form is attached forreference by jurisdictions interested inusing it as a starting point to identify dataelements.

Single Audit ReportRecipients who expend $300,000 or moreof Federal funds during their fiscal year arerequired to submit an organizationwidefinancial and compliance audit report. Theaudit must be performed in accordancewith the U.S. General Accounting OfficeGovernment Auditing Standards. The auditreport currently is due to the Federal AuditClearinghouse no later than 9 months afterthe end of the recipient’s fiscal year.

Appendix 3

65


66

Appendix 3

67


68

Notes

69

1. Drug Courts Program Office, DefiningDrug Courts: The Key Components. (Seebibliography for full citations of mostreports listed in footnotes.)

2. Ibid., quoting directly from pp. 10, 11,22, 24, 30, and 37.

3. Barry Mahoney, Drug Court Monitoring,Evaluation, and Management InformationSystems, p. 12. This DCPO report docu-ments the outcomes of focus group meet-ings on drug court MIS issues held inMarch 1997 in New York, NY, and Septem-ber 1997 in Washington, DC, which wereconvened by The Justice ManagementInstitute in cooperation with DCPO.

4. A May 2001 report by the Office of Jus-tice Programs’ Drug Court Clearinghouseand Technical Assistance Project at TheAmerican University, titled BackgroundInformation on State Court AdministrativeOffice Activities in Support of Local DrugCourt Programs, noted that at least 10States are developing State-level drug courtinformation systems and at least 5 Statesare developing information systems forlocal drug court programs.

5. For example, California’s Drug CourtPartnership Act of 1998 (CAL HEALTH &SAFETY CODES § 11970) and the Compre-hensive Drug Court Implementation Act of 1999 (CAL HEALTH & SAFETY CODES §§

11970.1–11970.4) require the State Judi-cial Council to develop an evaluationdesign and provide the statutory authorityfor a reporting requirement in furtheranceof the evaluation design. California’s muchpublicized proposition 36, more properlyknown as the Substance Abuse and CrimePrevention Act of 2000, requires an annualstudy “of the implementation process, areview of lower incarceration costs, reduc-tions in crime, reduced prison and jail con-struction, reduced welfare costs, theadequacy of funds appropriated, and anyother impacts of issues the department can identify” (CAL HEALTH & SAFETY CODES §11999.9). Funding is also provided for along-term study to evaluate the effective-ness and financial impact of drug courts(CAL HEALTH & SAFETY CODES § 11999.10).

6. The report cited in supra note 4 revealsthat in 17 States, the OCA has oversight ofdrug court evaluation activities, and in 7States, the OCA has direct responsibilityfor the conduct of drug court evaluations.

7. 42 U.S.C. § 290dd-2, and 42 C.F.R. pt. 2.

8. 42 U.S.C. § 290dd-2 applies to any drugcourt that “holds itself out as providing,and provides, alcohol or drug abuse diagno-sis, treatment or referral for treatment.”

9. 42 C.F.R. § 2.31(a) specifies nine ele-ments that must be included in a written


70

consent (all of which are applicable tocriminal drug courts):

(1) The specific name or general designa-tion of the program or person permitted tomake the disclosure.

(2) The name or title of the individual orthe name of the organization to which dis-closure is to be made.

(3) The name of the patient.

(4) The purpose of the disclosure.

(5) How much and what kind of informa-tion is to be disclosed.

(6) The signature of the patient or, whenrequired for a patient who is a minor, thesignature of a person authorized to giveconsent.

(7) The date on which the consent is signed.

(8) A statement that the consent is subjectto revocation at any time except to theextent that the program or person who isto make the disclosure has already acted inreliance on it. (Note: This element shouldnot be included in consent forms in crimi-nal drug courts, but it must be included injuvenile and family drug court waivers. See42 C.F.R. § 2.35.)

(9) The date, event, or condition uponwhich the consent will expire if notrevoked. This date or condition mustensure that the consent will last no longerthan reasonably necessary to serve the purpose for which it is given.

For more information on Federal consentrequirements, see Jeffrey Tauber et al.,Federal Confidentiality Laws and HowThey Affect Drug Court Practitioners, p. 9.See also Rebecca Holland, Practical Guidefor Applying Federal Confidentiality Lawsto Drug Court Operations.

10. The consent form and qualified serviceorganization agreement are from DCPO’s

Fiscal Year 2002 Program Application Kit,pp. 62–63. The sample intergovernmentalagreement and MOU are available throughthe Office of Justice Programs’ Drug CourtClearinghouse and Technical AssistanceProject at The American University Website at www.american.edu/spa/justice/publications/intgov_agr_jun.htm andwww.american.edu/academic.depts/spa/justice/publications/memo_under_jun.htm.

11. U.S. General Accounting Office, DrugCourts: Overview of Growth, Characteris-tics, and Results.

12. The Justice Research Center developedA Self-Evaluation Manual and Case Man-agement System for Adult Drug Courtsunder Grant No. SJI–98–N–128 from theState Justice Institute. The manual accom-panies a CD containing the Case Manage-ment System 2000 software, which isavailable from the Justice Research Center,591 Lighthouse Avenue, Suite 24, PacificGrove, CA 93950.

13. Felix Lopez, Confidentiality of PatientRecords for Alcohol and Other Drug Treatment.

14. 42 U.S.C. §§ 290dd-3, ee-3, and 42C.F.R. pt. 2.

15. 42 C.F.R. §§ 2.52, 2.53.

16. See supra note 10.

17. Drug Courts Program Office, FiscalYear 2002 Program Application Kit, pp. 38–40.

18. Ibid., pp. 111–115.

19. For example, TCP/IP (TransmissionControl Protocol/Internet Protocol) com-munications protocols and browser userinterfaces.

20. Robert Gibson and Owen M. Greenspan,Public Domain Drug Court Software: Func-tions and Utility.

Notes

71


22. Information from the FBI-administeredInterstate Identification Index is subject tostrict controls of access and secondarydissemination—even between justice agen-cies. Each State has a designated official,typically within the State police, known asthe National Crime Information CenterControl Terminal Officer, who should beconsulted on issues involving access anddissemination of information from thenational system. Every State has an agencythat serves as a central repository for crim-inal records information and can assist inresolving questions associated with accessand dissemination of information from theState’s criminal records database. Both theInterstate Identification Index and Statecentral repository are based on fingerprint-based arrest information. Some jurisdic-tions will choose to rely on a statewidecourt-administered database. On the locallevel, police and court records may be theprimary source of criminal informationabout a program candidate or participant.

23. Page 107 of DCPO’s Fiscal Year 2002Program Application Kit describes theterm “violent offender” as a person whoeither (1) is charged with or convicted ofan offense, during the course of whichoffense or conduct (A) the person carried,possessed, or used a firearm or dangerousweapon, (B) there occurred the death of, or serious bodily injury to, any person,or (C) there occurred the use of forceagainst the person of another, withoutregard to whether any of the circumstancesdescribed in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C)is an element of the offense or conduct ofwhich or for which the person is chargedor convicted; or (2) has one or more priorconvictions of a felony crime of violenceinvolving the use or attempted use of forceagainst a person with the intent to causedeath or serious bodily harm.

24. Ibid., p. 109.

25. James A. Inciardi, Screening andAssessment for Alcohol and Other DrugAbuse Among Adults in the Criminal Jus-tice System, p. 19.

26. Ibid., p. 18.

27. For a more complete discussion ofthe assessment process and the varioustechniques and instruments that may beemployed, see Roger H. Peters and Eliza-beth Peyton, Guideline for Drug Courtson Screening and Assessment, and thefollowing reports published by the Centerfor Substance Abuse Treatment: James A.Inciardi, Screening and Assessment forAlcohol and Other Drug Abuse AmongAdults in the Criminal Justice System, andKen C. Winters and Jonathan M. Zenilman,Simple Screening Instruments for Out-reach for Alcohol and Other Drug Abuseand Infectious Diseases.

28. For a detailed discussion of the rela-tionship between psychiatric disorders andalcohol and other drug use problems, seeRichard K. Reis, Assessment and Treat-ment of Patients with Coexisting MentalIllness and Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse.


30. Ibid.

31. Staffings are drug court team meetingsat which individual participant progress isreviewed and possible sanctions, incen-tives, and rewards are discussed.

32. Drug Courts Program Office, FiscalYear 2002 Program Application Kit, p. 38.

33. See appendix 2 for additional informa-tion on application requirements relatingto evaluation.

34. Drug Courts Program Office, FiscalYear 2002 Program Application Kit, p. 111.

Bibliography

73

Published MaterialsSteven Belenko. “Research on Drug Courts:A Critical Review.” National Drug CourtInstitute Review, Volume I, Issue I. Alexan-dria, VA: National Drug Court Institute,Summer 1998.

Steven Belenko. Research on Drug Courts:A Critical Review, 2001 Update. New York,NY: National Center on Addiction and Sub-stance Abuse at Columbia University, June2001.

Drug Courts Program Office, Office of Jus-tice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice.Defining Drug Courts: The Key Compo-nents. Prepared in collaboration with theNational Association of Drug Court Profes-sionals, Drug Court Standards Committee.Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Jus-tice, January 1997.

Drug Courts Program Office, Office of Jus-tice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice.Fiscal Year 2002 Program Application Kit.SL 000495. Washington, DC: U.S. Depart-ment of Justice. (Note: Grant solicitationsand application kits are available each fiscalyear at the DCPO Web site at www.ojp.usdoj.gov/dcpo/applicationkits.htm.)

Robert Gibson and Owen M. Greenspan.Public Domain Drug Court Software:Functions and Utility. Sacramento, CA:

SEARCH, The National Consortium forJustice Information and Statistics, Wash-ington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice,Office of Justice Programs, Drug CourtsProgram Office, 2002.

Rebecca Holland. Practical Guide forApplying Federal Confidentiality Laws toDrug Court Operations. NCJ 176977.Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Jus-tice, Office of Justice Programs, DrugCourts Program Office, June 1999.

James A. Inciardi, Consensus Panel Chair.Screening and Assessment for Alcoholand Other Drug Abuse Among Adults inthe Criminal Justice System. TreatmentImprovement Protocol (TIP) Series, #7.DHHS Pub. No. (SMA) 94B2076. Rockville,MD: U.S. Department of Health and HumanServices, Center for Substance AbuseTreatment, 1994.

Susan M. Jennen. Privacy and PublicAccess to Electronic Court Information: AGuide to Policy Decisions for State Courts.Williamsburg, VA: National Center for StateCourts, 1995.

Robert A. Kirchner, Ph.D. A RealisticApproach to Drug Court Evaluation. Pre-sentation given at the National Associationof Drug Court Professionals’ Fifth AnnualTraining Conference, June 3–5, 1999, in


74

Miami, FL. Dr. Kirchner is Senior Advisorfor Evaluation, Bureau of Justice Assist-ance, U.S. Department of Justice.

Felix Lopez. Confidentiality of PatientRecords for Alcohol and Other DrugTreatment. Technical Assistance Publica-tion Series, #13. DHHS Pub. No. (SMA)95–3018. Rockville, MD: U.S. Departmentof Health and Human Services, Center forSubstance Abuse Treatment, 1994.

Barry Mahoney. Drug Court Monitoring,Evaluation, and Management InformationSystems. Prepared by The Justice Manage-ment Institute. Washington, DC: U.S.Department of Justice, Office of JusticePrograms, Drug Courts Program Office,May 1998.

National Institute of Justice, Office of Jus-tice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice.1999 Annual Report on Drug Use AmongAdult and Juvenile Arrestees. A report ofthe Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring Pro-gram. NCJ 181426. Washington, DC: U.S.Department of Justice, June 2000.

Roger H. Peters. Evaluating Drug CourtPrograms: An Overview of Issues andAlternative Strategies. Washington DC:The American University, School of PublicAffairs, Justice Programs Office, March1996.

Roger H. Peters and Elizabeth Peyton.Guideline for Drug Courts on Screeningand Assessment. Prepared for the JusticePrograms Office, School of Public Affairs,The American University, in associationwith the Drug Courts Program Office,Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Depart-ment of Justice. Washington, DC: U.S.Department of Justice, May 1998.

Richard K. Reis, Consensus Panel Chair.Assessment and Treatment of Patientswith Coexisting Mental Illness and Alcoholand Other Drug Abuse. TIP Series, #9.

DHHS Pub. No. (SMA) 95–3061. Rockville,MD: U.S. Department of Health and HumanServices, Center for Substance AbuseTreatment, 1994.

John Roman, Jennifer Woodard, Adele Har-rell, and Stacia Riggs. A Methodology forMeasuring Costs and Benefits of Court-Based Drug Intervention Programs UsingFindings from Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Evaluations. Washington,DC: The Urban Institute, December 1998.

Kevin M. Sherin and Barry Mahoney, Con-sensus Panel Cochairs. Treatment DrugCourts: Integrating Substance AbuseTreatment with Legal Case Processing.TIP Series, #23. DHHS Pub. No. (SMA) 96–3113. Rockville, MD: U.S. Departmentof Health and Human Services, Center forSubstance Abuse Treatment, 1996.

Jeffrey Tauber, Susan Weinstein, and DavidTaube. Federal Confidentiality Laws andHow They Affect Drug Court Practitioners.Alexandria, VA: National Drug Court Insti-tute, April 1999.

U.S. General Accounting Office. DrugCourts: Overview of Growth, Characteris-tics, and Results. GAO/GGD–07–106. Washington, DC: U.S. General AccountingOffice, July 1997.

Gerald L. Vigdal. Planning for Alcohol andOther Drug Abuse Treatment for Adults inthe Criminal Justice System. TIP Series,#17. DHHS Pub. No. (SMA) 95–3039.Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Healthand Human Services, Center for SubstanceAbuse Treatment, 1995.

Ken C. Winters and Jonathan M. Zenilman,Consensus Panel Cochairs. Simple Screen-ing Instruments for Outreach for Alcoholand Other Drug Abuse and InfectiousDiseases. TIP Series, #11. DHHS Pub. No.(SMA) 95–3058. Rockville, MD: U.S.Department of Health and Human Services,

Bibliography

75

Center for Substance Abuse Treatment,1994.

Unpublished MaterialsBrooklyn (NY) Treatment Court. “Treat-ment and Supervision Structure” (revisedJanuary 5, 1998).

Buffalo (NY) Drug Treatment Court. “Policyand Procedures Manual” (draft, 1998).

Buffalo (NY) Drug Treatment Court.“Process Evaluation” (interim report, February 1999).

Escambia County (FL) Family FocusedJuvenile Drug Court. “Program Description.”

Jacksonville (FL) Juvenile Drug Court.“Program Description.”

Justice Programs Office, School of PublicAffairs, The American University. “Guide-line for Compiling Information Relevant toDrug Court Program Management and Eval-uation.”

Los Angeles County (CA) Criminal JusticeCoordination Committee, Drug Court Over-sight Subcommittee. “Drug Court ProgramStandards & Practices” (version 4.1, Febru-ary 17, 1998).

Jan Roehl and Kristin Guertin. “A Self-Evaluation Manual and Case ManagementSystem for Adult Drug Courts.” JusticeResearch Center (March 2000).

San Bernardino County (CA) Drug Court.“Participant Handbook” (revised November4, 1997).

San Diego (CA) Municipal Court DrugCourt. “Program Data Sheet.”

Washington/Baltimore High Intensity DrugTrafficking Area HATTS. “HIDTA Automat-ed Treatment Tracking System TrainingGuide.”

Electronic and Online SourcesBuffalo/Jacksonville Drug Courts. “DrugCourt Data Management Information System–99.”

Center for Court Innovation. “BrooklynTreatment Court System.” 1999.www.drugcourttech.org.

Justice Research Center. “Case Manage-ment System 2000.”

Office of Justice Programs Drug CourtClearinghouse and Technical AssistanceProject at the Justice Programs Office,School of Public Affairs, The AmericanUniversity. “Parish of Rapides, State ofLouisiana, Intergovernmental Agreement”and “Memorandum of Understanding-Ninth Judicial District Court Drug CourtDivision: Parish of Rapides, Louisiana.”www.american.edu/spa/justice/publications.

“South Florida High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area: Treatment AutomatedReferral System (TARS) and JudicialAccess Management System (JAMS).”www.drugcourttech.org.

Bureau of Justice AssistanceInformation

For more indepth information about BJA, its programs, and its funding opportunities, requesters can callthe BJA Clearinghouse. The BJA Clearinghouse, a component of the National Criminal Justice ReferenceService (NCJRS), shares BJA program information with state and local agencies and community groupsacross the country. Information specialists are available to provide reference and referral services, publicationdistribution, participation and support for conferences, and other networking and outreach activities. Theclearinghouse can be reached by:

❒ MailP.O. Box 6000Rockville, MD 20849–6000

❒ Visit2277 Research BoulevardRockville, MD 20850

❒ Telephone1–800–688–4252Monday through Friday8:30 a.m. to 7 p.m.eastern time

❒ Fax301–519–5212

❒ BJA Home Pagewww.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA

❒ NCJRS Home Pagewww.ncjrs.org

❒ [email protected]

❒ JUSTINFO NewsletterE-mail to [email protected] the subject line blankIn the body of the message,type:subscribe justinfo [your name]

supporting the drug court process: what you need to know

Documents