Supporting the Drug Court Process: What You Need to Know For

U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Assistance

Supporting the Drug Court Process:What You Need To Know for Effective Decisionmaking MONOGRAPHand Program Evaluation F EBRUARY 2003

SEARCH, The National Consortium for Justice Information and Statistics U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs 810 Seventh Street NW. Washington, DC 20531

John Ashcroft Attorney General

Deborah J. Daniels Assistant Attorney General

Richard R. Nedelkoff Director, Bureau of Justice Assistance

Office of Justice Programs Home Page www.ojp.usdoj.gov

Bureau of Justice Assistance Home Page www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA

NCJ 197259

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

The Bureau of Justice Assistance is a component of the Office of Justice Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the National Institute of Justice, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, and the Office for Victims of Crime. Notice

n November 2002, the Bureau of Justice Assistance I Bureau of Justice 810 Seventh Street NW. Assistance (BJA) Washington, DC 20531 assumed responsibility Telephone: (202) 616–5001 for administering the Drug Court Grant Fax: (202) 514–6452 Program and the Drug Court Training and E-mail: [email protected] Technical Assistance Program. For further information, please contact BJA.

i Acknowledgments

his report was pre- ■ Caroline Cooper, Drug Court Clearing- T pared by SEARCH, house, The American University* The National Consor- ■ Bob Gibson, Consultant, Preston tium for Justice Infor- Corporation* mation and Statistics, Gerald E. Wethington, Chairman, and Gary R. Cooper, Executive ■ Harvey Goldstein, Director, Intensive Director. The project director was Francis L. Supervision, New Jersey Administrative Bremson, Courts Program Director. The Office of the Courts report was written by Owen M. Greenspan, ■ The Honorable Frank Hoover, Judge, Criminal Justice Information Services Spe- ii Bakersfield (CA) Municipal Court cialist. Twyla R. Cunningham, Manager, and Juliet S. Farmer, Writer/Researcher, Corpo- ■ Linda Hughes, San Diego County (CA) rate Communications, edited the report. The Public Defender’s Office* Federal project monitor was Jill Beres, Policy ■ Jane Kennedy, Executive Director, Specialist, Drug Courts Program Office TASC of King County, WA* (DCPO), U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). ■ Lisa Lightman, Management Analyst, The author expresses sincere appreciation New Mexico Administrative Office of to the following persons, who volunteered the Courts their valuable time and expertise to the development and review of this document: ■ Dr. T.K. Logan, Center on Drug and Alcohol Research, University of ■ Karen Booth, The Justice Management Kentucky* Institute ■ The Honorable Stephen Marcus, Judge, ■ Ed Brekke, Administrator, Los Los Angeles (CA) Drug Court* Angeles (CA) Civil and Criminal Courts Operations* ■ Robert Mimura, Executive Director, Los Angeles (CA) Criminal Justice Coordi- ■ Victoria S. Cashman, President, nation Committee Cashman & Associates* ■ Hank Pirowski, COURTS Program ■ Jennifer Columbel, Deputy Director, Coordinator, Buffalo (NY) Drug Court* DCPO, DOJ ■ Kate Reeves, Judicial Display Project ■ Kathleen Snavely, Director of Research, Manager, New Mexico Administrative National Drug Court Institute* Office of the Courts ■ Joe Stelma, Senior Deputy Court ■ Ralph Rogers, Assistant Director, Administrator, Jacksonville (FL) Criminal Administration, Orange Drug Court County (CA) Superior Court* A special note of thanks to Larry Webster, ■ Dawn Marie Rubio, Court Services, Justice Information Systems Specialist, National Center for State Courts SEARCH, whose contributions addressed the selection, acquisition, and operation of ■ The Honorable Robert Russell, Judge, computer systems. Buffalo (NY) Drug Court

■ Yvonne Segars, First Assistant Deputy * Reviewed draft document and participated in a Public Defender, New Jersey Office focus group meeting on April 11, 2000, held in of the Public Defender, Essex Adult Sacramento, CA. Office*

iii Foreword

he drug court is infor- acquire a management information system T mation driven. This (MIS) and jurisdictions that have already report was written to implemented an MIS will find that Sup- help those who are porting the Drug Court Process offers a planning, implementing, or operating adult basis for assessing the strengths and weak- drug courts to understand the critical nesses of a planned or existing information importance of the availability of a wide system. range of timely, accurate, and complete Supporting the Drug Court Process pre- information. The extent to which this sents a functional overview of the drug court information is appropriately available and iv and the nature of the questions and answers how it is used are major determinants of that together form the foundation for sound effective decisionmaking and evaluation. decisionmaking for the court’s key activities. Most drug courts require a computer for This report is not intended to be a standard effective entry, storage, retrieval, sharing, for the court’s MIS. Rather, it will be most and analysis of information because of the useful when selectively viewed to fit the cir- sheer volume of pertinent drug court data, cumstances and needs of the individual its ongoing accumulations, and the length court. Although there is no intent to focus of time it remains integral to the drug on the informational needs of juvenile and court process. Supporting the Drug Court family drug courts, those who are con- Process provides advice on the selection cerned with their operation will find a and acquisition of computer systems for starting point here for thinking about the drug courts, as well as an overview of ongo- requirements of an MIS suitable for those ing and pertinent issues associated with court environments. these systems. Drug courts preparing to Contents

I. Introduction ...... 1 Importance of Management Information Systems ...... 3 Purpose of This Document ...... 7 Organization of This Document ...... 8

II. Characteristics of an Effective Drug Court Management Information System ...... 11 System Design ...... 12 Frequently Asked Questions ...... 14 Drug Court MIS Requirements Checklist ...... 16

III. Preadmission ...... 19 Screening Eligibility With the MIS ...... 19 Residency Screening ...... 21 v Criminal Justice Screening ...... 21 Alcohol or Other Drug Dependency Screening ...... 22 Mental Health Disorders...... 22 Medical Conditions...... 23 Motivation...... 23 Admission Decision and Client Outcome Record ...... 23 Personal Descriptive Information Checklist ...... 24 Financial Information Checklist ...... 27 Insurance Information Checklist ...... 29 Contact Information Checklist ...... 29 Residency Screening Checklist ...... 29 Criminal Justice Screening Checklist...... 29 Alcohol or Other Drug Dependency Screening Checklist ...... 31 Admission Decision Checklist ...... 32 Client Outcome Checklist ...... 32 IV. Operational Drug Court ...... 33 Assessment ...... 33 Ongoing Case Management ...... 34 A Word About Computer Mapping ...... 37 Exit Interviews and Postprogram Activities ...... 37 Screening and Assessment Instrument Checklist ...... 38 Background Information Checklist...... 39 Infractions, Sanctions, Incentives, and Rewards Checklist ...... 39 Appointments and Outcomes Checklist ...... 42 Program Monitoring Checklist ...... 44

V. Evaluation ...... 47 DCPO Implementation Grants ...... 47 Process or Operations Evaluation ...... 48 Outcome or Impact Evaluation ...... 48 Cost Analysis ...... 49 Drug 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 vi 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...... 73 Unpublished Materials ...... 75 Electronic and Online Sources...... 75 I. Introduction

rug courts are a revo- operations to how a program is monitored D lutionary problem- and evaluated. Monitoring the drug court solving approach program is an ongoing activity of the drug 1 within the justice court team, which looks at the program as system that can potentially change the lives a whole rather than at the progress of indi- of substance-abusing offenders and reduce vidual participants. Monitoring is but one their criminal activity, while producing sig- of several types of program evaluations nificant benefit to the community. The over- dependent on easily retrievable informa- arching strategy of drug courts is to bring tion presented in a format that facilitates together intensive judicial supervision with its use for measuring program performance substance abuse treatment—and frequently and impact. health services—in an environment of mul- The National Association of Drug Court tidisciplinary teamwork. The drug court Professionals, with the support of the Drug process functions through the timely avail- Courts Program Office (DCPO), Office of ability of a wide range of reliable informa- Justice Programs (OJP), U.S. Department tion to support high-quality decisionmaking. of Justice (DOJ), developed key compo- As a practical matter, the volume of infor- nents of adult drug courts and performance mation that needs to be recorded, processed, benchmarks for sound practices, effective accessed, shared, and analyzed—often in a program designs, and comprehensive oper- time-critical context—is a strong argument ations of these courts.1 Fundamental to for developing a management information many performance benchmarks are the system (MIS). manner in which drug court team members The importance of data collection, access interrelate and the existence of procedures to data, and the ways in which data are that enable the team to communicate and used extends beyond the drug court’s daily share information, including the following:2 Supporting the Drug Court Process

■ Court and treatment providers commu- There is often a significant gap between nicate regularly, including frequent recognizing that collecting, transmitting, exchanges of timely and accurate infor- and sharing information is essential to mation, about the participant’s overall effective decisionmaking and recognizing program performance. that implementing systems, practices, and procedures ensures an optimal knowledge ■ Prosecutors and defense counsel help environment within the drug court. Practi- design screening, eligibility, and case- tioners, public health officials, researchers, processing policies and procedures to court managers, and MIS experts have guarantee that due process rights and noted that “most jurisdictions simply do public safety needs are served. not have the capacity to maintain, in an ■ The court is immediately notified automated format, the kind of detailed when a participant has tested positive, client information needed to support drug has failed to submit to alcohol or drug court management.”3 However, this is (AOD) testing, has submitted someone changing. Drug courts now use MISs that else’s sample, or has adulterated a strengthen many of the day-to-day activi- sample. ties of the drug court and its team members. Some of these systems are in the ■ Treatment providers, the judge, and public domain, others are commercial other program staff communicate fre- products, while still others are developed quently and regularly to ensure timely in-house using commonly available data- reporting of participant progress and base software. Whatever its derivation, a noncompliance and to enable the court drug court MIS generally needs some cus- to respond immediately. 2 tomization when implemented in a new ■ Management, monitoring, and evalua- jurisdiction. tion processes begin with initial plan- Several State court administrative offices ning. As part of the comprehensive are developing statewide drug court infor- planning process, drug court leaders mation systems.4 State court administrators and senior managers establish specific are also increasingly requiring drug courts and measurable goals that define the to routinely report certain data to a central parameters of data collection and infor- entity, such as the Office of Court Adminis- mation management. tration (OCA) or State Office of Alcohol ■ Monitoring and management data and Substance Abuse. Further, there is are assembled in useful formats for a growing awareness that evaluation is regular review by program leaders essential and goes hand in hand with data and managers. collection and MIS design.5 State court administrators realize the utility and value ■ Representatives from the court, com- of well-designed evaluations.6 In some juris- munity organizations, law enforcement, dictions, evaluation results are the com- corrections, prosecution, defense coun- pelling argument that garners the support sel, supervisory agencies, treatment of political decisionmakers and other key and rehabilitation providers, educators, stakeholders, which ensures continued health and social services agencies, and financial and policy backing for the drug the faith community meet regularly to court program. provide guidance and direction to the drug court program. Introduction

Importance of Management “Staffings” bring together the members of Information Systems the drug court team—typically the judge, The range of information required for a treatment manager or counselor, program drug court to be consistently effective in coordinator, prosecutor, probation repre- accomplishing its goals far exceeds that of sentative, and public defender—to review the typical criminal court. Existing infor- participant status information and progress mation system models, to the extent that and to discuss the imposition of actions or they are useful to the judiciary and court requirements affecting program partici- administration, are of less value to the pants. Having resolved potentially divisive drug court. In most jurisdictions, it is not issues outside the courtroom, the drug practical for drug courts to replicate the court team presents a cohesive and unified existing MIS used by criminal courts. In front to the program participant. rare instances, however, the best approach Before a drug court can make use of the might be to expand and modify the crimi- information that is so critical to its daily nal court MIS to establish the software operations, court officials must be cognizant functionality necessary to support the drug of relevant laws, regulations, practices, and court. Yet this approach raises real con- policies. Drug courts must comply with Fed- cerns about the far more stringent confi- eral and State confidentiality laws. Federal dentiality safeguards that must attend laws and regulations protect information certain drug court information, safeguards about persons receiving alcohol and drug which are not necessarily found in the abuse prevention and treatment services typical criminal court calendaring and that are directly or indirectly assisted by case management system. any department or agency of the United 3 7 At every step of the drug court process— States. Hence, Federal grant dollars provid- from initial screening, assessment, treated to the State or local government that ment, and supervision through graduation— funds the courts are sufficient to bring decisions are made. The soundness of these the drug court within the scope of Federal decisions depends on the judge and other regulations. members of the drug court team having Confidentiality requirements encourage timely and appropriate access to accurate participation in treatment programs. It is and complete information. With the evolu- noteworthy that the Federal regulations tion of the drug court movement and predate the drug court movement, leaving advancements in information technology practitioners to reconcile statutes that, at over the past 10 years, there is now a recog- times, may seem at odds with intensive nition that in most instances, an MIS is an judicial supervision and certainly the tradi- invaluable aid to the drug court, the collec- tional justice system. A treatment provider tive drug court team, and each of the team’s or program is defined as an individual or member entities within the judicial, legal, entity that provides diagnosis of chemical and treatment communities. dependency, referral to treatment, and Drug court practices are a major departure rehabilitative services. Consequently, from those of the traditional criminal most—if not all—drug courts are consid- court. Drug courts operate in a milieu ered treatment programs and are subject 8 where customary adversarial roles are to Federal confidentiality regulations. less evident to the observer and, most importantly, to the program participant. Supporting the Drug Court Process

Before a treatment provider can disclose also differ. For example, the drug court information to members of the drug court team in one jurisdiction might include as team or others regarding an individual’s one team member a liaison officer from a participation in a treatment program, the local law enforcement agency who needs participant must sign a written consent access to certain confidential information. form that, at a minimum, meets the Similarly, practices and policies vary requirements set forth by Federal regula- widely and may be changed by adminis- tions.9 The consent includes the purpose trative fiat without affected entities and of disclosure, how much and what kind of individuals being consulted. Staff changes information may be disclosed, and the necessitate training, and new hires require duration or conditions, if any, under which immediate training, if the opportunity for the given consent is subject to revocation. inappropriate disclosure is to be mini- An MIS that reflects the specifics of the mized. All of these factors pose a risk that consent form, combined with a memoran- confidentiality statutes will unintentional- dum of understanding (MOU) between drug ly be violated through misinformation or court team partners that addresses how ignorance. information is accessed and handled, offers Perhaps the best way to minimize this risk, strong safeguards for ensuring the confi- and the attendant possible detrimental dentiality of treatment-related information. effect on drug court participation, is to Appendix 1 includes a sample consent form design a drug court MIS that limits the avail- for disclosure of confidential substance ability of personal information to authorized abuse information, a sample qualified serv- persons for purposes as addressed in the ice organization agreement, and a sample consent form and where appropriate as 4 intergovernmental agreement and MOU.10 described in the MOU. Although the MOU Many States have also enacted confiden- is signed by the court and executives of the tiality laws or implemented policies and agencies and departments that constitute practices intended to limit disclosure of in- the drug court team, staff should not be formation relating to treatment. When a expected to sign it, as this document may State law is more restrictive (that is, it bars encompass policy shifts within agencies disclosure of information that would be per- that only apply to the drug court program. mitted under Federal regulations), the drug The MIS applies the access rules and can court program’s handling of treatment infor- be updated easily to reflect changes in law, mation must be so structured as to ensure policy, or procedure without the need to compliance with both Federal and State reeducate all those who would otherwise law. The most effective means of ensuring have to alter their methods of operation. compliance with statutory confidentiality Typically, the drug court process begins safeguards is an MIS programmed to limit shortly after arrest, when an individual or exclude access to information in a way undergoes initial screening for program eli- that is consistent with all relevant statutes. gibility. Often this involves a standardized Conditions that limit information disclo- questionnaire that is used to determine sure as described in the consent form may the type and severity of dependency and vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Drug suitability for the drug court program. courts in neighboring communities may Introduction

Questions could include the following: MIS may or may not include. The MIS may Is the nature of the problem within the also be employed to match a diagnosis scope of the target population that the with available and appropriate treatment court intends to serve? Are there treat- resources. ment resources obtainable that are able Following admission to the drug court pro- to address the problem(s)? The MIS could gram, the participant can expect frequent, include the screening instrument. Howev- regular, and random drug testing. Positive er, even if the questionnaire, responses, and negative results, as well as missed and interviewer observations are not appointments and apparent efforts to “beat entered in the MIS, the conclusions drawn the test,” are recorded in the MIS. A posi- may still be recorded. Inclusion of this tive drug test result is just one of many information does not ensure that an appar- developments that may be the basis for ently eligible individual will be offered sanctions. The MIS records any imposed admission to the drug court program, or sanction so that there is a clearly docu- that the individual will accept such an mented history of negative events and offer if it is made. Dependency screening responses. Similarly, a participant’s positive is but one facet of determining program actions and noteworthy progress are also eligibility. recorded. Some systems also record rewards In addition to AOD screening, the second given in recognition of achievements. element at this stage is justice system The staffing conference that precedes the screening. Here, the prospective partici- calling of the day’s drug court calendar pant’s criminal history and current charges often relies on the MIS for status informa- are viewed against predetermined eligibili- tion on all persons scheduled to appear 5 ty criteria. For example, many drug court before the court. Some systems, in addition programs target populations that exclude to providing various preformatted informa- individuals with criminal convictions for tion fields, allow the judge, and perhaps violent offenses or limit enrollment to indi- other team members, to enter notes into viduals whose current charges are strictly the system. These may serve as reminders drug related. In some jurisdictions, the of things to be discussed at a later date authority of the court is limited to han- with other team members, a program par- dling only persons accused of misde- ticipant, a participant’s relative, or some- meanors. Some drug court information one with whom the participant has a close systems record both an offense history relationship. and current charges. In addition, the system may note pending cases; this can The MIS is of fundamental importance to be another factor in determining program the day-to-day decisionmaking of the court; eligibility. If an individual has multiple however, its significance does not end pending cases, it must be decided how the there. The drug court monitors its activi- cases will be handled if the individual is ties by collecting day-to-day statistical enrolled in the drug court program. data. This administrative management tool is also associated with the process evalua- The assessment phase of the process iden- tion conducted by many drug courts. tifies both specific psychosocial problems Regardless of whether a drug court per- and treatment services. An assessment forms process evaluations routinely or instrument is often employed, which the Supporting the Drug Court Process

infrequently, the objectives are the same. A working with individual drug courts or process evaluation could ask the following State court administrative offices to design questions: statewide information systems. These efforts lead to implementation of information sys- ■ Is the drug court operating in a manner tems that support both the court’s day-to- that remains true to its original plan? day operational needs and various short- ■ Is it serving the intended target and long-term forms of evaluation. Two population? prominent examples of these dual-purpose systems are the Self-Evaluation Manual ■ Is it reaching/maintaining its capacity? and Case Management System for Adult ■ Are eligibility determinations being Drug Courts developed by the Justice made in a consistent, unbiased fashion? Research Center12 and the system being developed by the University of Kentucky’s ■ Is the interrelationship between the Center on Drug and Alcohol Research under judicial, legal, and treatment communi- contract with the Commonwealth of Ken- ties operating as envisioned? tucky’s Administrative Office of the Courts ■ Where are terminations occurring? (AOC). The former is intended to support smaller drug courts that do not exchange ■ Has the substance of choice changed information electronically. The Kentucky within the community being served? initiative will enable uniformity of informa- MIS documentation helps to answer tion collection across the State and report- these questions and to weigh the need ing of information to the AOC. for changes to original plans based on In many communities, various stakehold- 6 the findings of the process evaluation. ers—beyond those who are directly Many operational information systems lack involved as team members—have a keen a design focus and, consequently, critical interest in the drug court. Certainly, elect- information for determining the drug ed and appointed officials who control the court’s impact and effectiveness on individ- budgetary purse strings need to be kept ual participants, the local justice system, informed, as do political and legislative and the community. A U.S. General leaders who steer public policy. The con- Accounting Office report noted that many stituency that has the largest stake in, and questions about the effectiveness of drug is most intensely affected by, the success of court programs could not be answered a drug court program is the community because critical data were unavailable.11 that it serves. What information is available What is needed, but often lacking, is a to inform stakeholders? The evaluation comprehensive MIS that provides the foun- plan is the key. Whether looking at individ- dation for program monitoring and the ual participant results or broad-based pro- closely associated task of evaluation gram impacts, the MIS is of critical research. importance. It provides the drug court team and program evaluator baseline data In recent years, university-based researchers and other information essential for deter- and professional evaluators have increasing- mining program effectiveness. ly become involved with drug courts earlier in the process, sometimes even becoming Although release of participant informa- members of the planning team. Others are tion must be strictly controlled,13 such Introduction restrictions do not extend to reporting on operations, program monitoring, or evalua- the drug court’s effectiveness in serving tion? It is hoped that Supporting the Drug the community. Federal laws and regula- Court Process will help drug courts identify tions—and, in many instances, State needs, strengths, and weaknesses with statutes and policies—protect information regard to the way information is currently about persons receiving alcohol and drug being handled. abuse prevention and treatment services.14 Jurisdictions looking to serve their commu- However, Federal regulations allow for the nities through a judicially supervised alco- disclosure of patient-identifying informa- hol or drug treatment program will find tion to researchers, auditors, and evalua- Supporting the Drug Court Process useful tors without patient consent when certain in determining the requirements of an MIS safeguards are met.15 Hence, collection of appropriate to their size, scope, resources, sensitive information is clearly permissi- and unique needs. Checklists provided in ble, although use of the information is this report identify data associated with subject to restrictions. the stages and major functions of the drug Clearly, the MIS provides essential docu- court process. Checklists also point out mentation of the drug court process. This attributes and features of effective drug information is a critical resource for guid- court information systems. Some jurisdic- ing virtually every key decision associated tions may opt to use Supporting the Drug with the drug court and for determining Court Process as the basis for going into the drug court’s impact on individuals, the the marketplace with a request for proposal justice system, and the community. for an MIS or a request for information to gain additional insights from vendors about 7 Purpose of This Document implementation. Supporting the Drug Court Process Supporting the Drug Court Process does intends to assist both existing adult drug not set a standard for adult drug court courts and those that are in the early plan- management information systems. Drug ning or implementation stages. Although court operations and emphases vary from the report does not focus on the informa- jurisdiction to jurisdiction and State to tional needs of juvenile and family drug State. Courts that meet daily and courts courts, those who are concerned with that are in session for only a few hours their operation will find a starting point each week have different requirements here for thinking about the requirements regarding information timeliness. Most of an MIS suitable for those court environ- courts focus primarily on drug abusers, ments. Operational drug courts may use but some target alcohol abusers. Support- Supporting the Drug Court Process as a ing the Drug Court Process is most helpful basis for appraising the quality and com- when shaped to fit the circumstances and pleteness of their current or envisioned needs of the individual court. In addition, MIS. Is information available in a timely although it is not designed to address all manner? Is it made known to the appropri- the needs of juvenile and family drug ate drug court team members? Is compre- courts, this report provides a useful start- hensive information gathered? In addition ing point for identifying MIS requirements to the information that is collected, is there suitable for those courts. other information that would strengthen Supporting the Drug Court Process

Organization of This Document impact evaluation, and cost analysis— Supporting the Drug Court Process is commonly used to assess the effective- organized into five chapters, a bibliogra- ness of drug courts in meeting program phy, and appendixes: goals, affecting the lives of participants, and benefiting both the justice system ■ I: Introduction. Relates selected key and the community. Explores the role components of drug courts to the con- of the evaluator in shaping the MIS to text of Supporting the Drug Court ensure that it collects information that Process. Discusses the importance of facilitates evaluation activities. an MIS to the day-to-day operations and evaluation functions of a drug ■ Appendix 1. Provides a sample consent court. Addresses confidentiality statutes form for disclosure of confidential sub- and regulations that influence the MIS. stance abuse information; a sample Describes this report’s utility to courts qualified service organization agree- that are planning for an MIS, as well as ment, as listed in the DCPO Fiscal Year those that already have an operational 2002 Program Application Kit; and a MIS. sample intergovernmental agreement and MOU.16 ■ II: Characteristics of an Effective Drug Court Management Information Sys- ■ Appendix 2. Provides a copy of the tem. Provides structural principles MIS, process evaluation, and outcome for building an MIS or weighing the evaluation requirements, as listed in strengths and weaknesses of an exist- the DCPO Fiscal Year 2002 Program 17 ing MIS. Includes a section with fre- Application Kit. 8 quently asked questions about drug ■ Appendix 3. Provides a copy of the court information technology. instructions and semiannual survey ■ III: Preadmission. Discusses the collec- previously required of DCPO grantees, tion and use of information needed to as listed in the DCPO Fiscal Year 2002 18 make program eligibility determina- Program Application Kit. This survey tions, including the functional activities instrument expired on March 15, of criminal justice screening, alcohol or 2002; therefore, grant recipients are no other drug dependency screening, and longer required to submit this data col- screening for mental health disorders, lection survey to DCPO. It is included medical conditions, and the candidate’s here as an example of a minimum data motivation for contemplating enroll- set that may be useful to drug court ment in the program. programs. ■ IV: Operational Drug Court. Describes ■ Notes. the role of assessment, its documenta- ■ Bibliography. Presents a list of refer- tion in the MIS, and its relationship to ence materials consulted in developing development of a treatment plan. Dis- this report. The reference documents cusses several facets of ongoing case and other materials identified in the management, including infractions, bibliography address all aspects of sanctions, and rewards; appointments drug court processes and information and outcomes; and program monitoring. systems. ■ V: Evaluation. Describes three kinds of evaluations—process evaluation, Introduction

Chapters II, III, and IV include checklists required to be periodically submitted by that represent data appropriate for collec- DCPO and grantees and other information tion and inclusion in an adult drug court that may be required of drug courts by MIS. For the most part, these checklists State court administrators, local legisla- provide suggested, rather than required, tures, or other elected or appointed offi- information and are not meant to be cials as a condition of funding. exhaustive. The exception is information

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

his chapter describes planning a system, it is helpful to continual- T the planning and ly ask the following: Who needs to know implementation char- each piece of information? How quickly 11 acteristics of an ideal do they need it? drug court MIS, which should be weighed Assembly of information about prospective in designing a system or in looking at the program participants begins at the earliest strengths and weaknesses of an existing stages of a court case. Although screening system. The focus here is on structural and assessment eliminate prospective par- principles upon which to build an MIS. ticipants who fail to meet eligibility criteria More specific issues, such as functional or who bump up against program capacity requirements and the information appro- constraints, it is important to chronicle priate for collection, are addressed in later data on these individuals for evaluation chapters. purposes. Information collected and The most important reason to establish an retained early in the justice process may MIS is the contribution it makes to decision- benefit the treatment case manager. Even making and administration of the drug after graduation, initial information may court’s day-to-day activities. The essence still be of value. For example, the identity of a high-quality MIS is the ability to collect and telephone numbers of relatives, col- comprehensive and accurate information lected through pretrial services bond rec- about program candidates and participants. ommendation interviews, are recorded in Another critical element is the ability to the system. This information can prove enter and transmit information in a timely helpful later on to a researcher investigat- manner so that it is available to those who ing issues such as postgraduation relapse have an operational interest and those rates, recidivism, or lifestyle changes. who are responsible for reacting to it. In Supporting the Drug Court Process

System Design the information available in each while The design of the MIS should facilitate minimizing repetitive data entry and stor- rapid decisionmaking at all stages of the age. A beneficial byproduct of lessening process. Users should understand the the amount of manual data entry is the features and functionality of the MIS and reduction in faulty information that arises be comfortable with the system. User- from keying errors. friendliness is enhanced by color coding There is a cost for collecting and process- that enables quick visual differentiation of ing information. Given the volume and status or other flagged key information. variety of data necessary to support the Data entry and retrieval screens are easy to drug court, that cost is proportionately navigate with the aid of drop-down menus, higher for drug courts than other courts. online help, and other tools. Overall, the One means of addressing cost issues is intuitive nature of the system minimizes through a systems integration strategy the amount of training necessary to devel- that avoids institutionalizing staff expens- op sufficient mastery. es. Instead, the strategy favors technology Often, information that is manually expenditures that, at a minimum, place a entered into a drug court MIS duplicates premium on sharing information electroni- data collected in another system. Arrest cally within and outside of the drug court charges are typically recorded in a booking team. system. Literal charge codes (i.e., numeric The system’s design is dictated not by limi- statutory citations) do not provide the facts tations of existing computer hardware or and circumstances that lead to accusations software but rather by a thorough assess- 12 and formal charging—information that can ment of the information needs of the drug be essential for determining program eli- court, its team members, and other stake- gibility. To inform pretrial release and holders. Similarly, the design is not limit- bond-setting decisions, criminal history ed to automated forms and procedures. information is accessed and retrieved from Acquiring an MIS provides an opportunity the State agency records repository proxi- to reengineer the workflow, not merely to mate to the defendant’s first court appear- automate it. ance. Pretrial services agencies collect data about residency, employment, education, The MIS provides significant analytical and family relations. Other information, and management capabilities for all mem- especially records relevant to assessment bers of the drug court team. Although pro- of a prospective drug court participant, grammed to produce management reports, may reside in the databases of treatment it can also be easily programmed to pro- providers or public health and social serv- vide ad hoc reports to answer unforeseen ices agencies. As courts and agencies at all questions. The skill and knowledge neces- levels of government move toward informa- sary to use the ad hoc report feature can tion sharing and integration of databases, be easily acquired if staff competencies they are gaining access to more informa- are sufficient to master the complexities tion, faster and at less cost than previously of the software involved. possible. The MIS can expand to accommodate An underlying strategy of the most effec- changes in population size, number of tive drug court MIS follows this trend by authorized users, program capabilities, electronically linking systems to leverage amount of accumulated data, or types of Characteristics of an Effective Drug Court MIS data collected. Flexibility to modify the CMSs focus on managing case flow and system is the foundation for meeting clerical operations, with minimal judicial unforeseen requirements that may arise support. The drug court MIS, however, from internal decisions or from reporting focuses on judicial decisionmaking, with mandates imposed by external entities recordkeeping functions as a side benefit. such as central court administrative offices, To support judicial decisionmaking, drug legislatures, and county commissioners. court systems require much more detailed The hardware and software components information about the case than is typical- are widely available, and the system design ly captured in a court’s CMS. In addition, allows for the easy addition or replacement a number of drug court functions require of components from various manufacturers automation that the CMS would not ad- or developers. Such open systems typically dress. Evaluation and statistical reporting offer maintenance and expansion cost in a court CMS is a byproduct of opera- advantages over proprietary systems, in tional work; in a drug court MIS, however, which all hardware and software are sup- a tremendous amount of information is plied by a single vendor or must conform captured solely to support the evaluation to rigid standards set by the hardware function. In a sense, a drug court MIS is manufacturer. also an integrated system, much like criminal justice integrated systems, except that The system’s range of capabilities and its criminal justice integration is sequential acquisition and maintenance costs should and drug court integration is concurrent. be appropriate to the size and scope of the With criminal justice integration, data can drug court. Systems intended to be reposi- be dumped electronically from system to tories for a large amount of data could system as a series of onetime events. In 13 prove frustrating for staff if the data com- the drug court, everyone actively exchang- munications infrastructure or database es information on the participant’s status access operates too slowly. Some jurisdic- weekly, rather than passing it along to tions may find it appropriate to weigh the another agency when internal work is fin- costs of a local system versus the costs of a ished. Data exchange is continuous through networked system shared by two or more the life of the case. This requires much jurisdictions or statewide. This is an issue more sophisticated interfaces between the not only of economies of scale, but also of involved agencies. the staff and expertise required to operate and maintain the system. As States move to address drug court automation at the institutional level, the When drug courts were just an experiment, stand-alone PC applications will, in most systems based on stand-alone personal cases, be replaced by new modules in the computers (PCs) were adequate. As the court CMS. This means that drug courts drug court is institutionalized in the judi- must standardize the way they conduct cial branch, automated support also must business and must conform to data defini- be institutionalized. Many States have tions and formats that exist in the justice reacted by trying to expand their current system. Although this will be inconvenient case management systems (CMSs) to in the short term, it will ultimately be include drug court functions. In almost worthwhile. It also means that the State every instance, court leaders and technolo- infrastructure and support mechanisms will gists have been surprised by the magnitude be available to help drug courts address of the differences between CMSs and the MIS design issues and problems. drug court MIS. Supporting the Drug Court Process

An internal network (i.e., intranet) built Internet-based technology can still be used with Internet-based technology19 can con- to enter and access information. Browsers— nect drug court team members to the MIS, software familiar to anyone who has used connect the drug court to other local data the World Wide Web—link persons and systems such as the general criminal court organizations and allow them to exchange MIS, connect individual drug courts to a information between different computer centralized State-level database such as an operating systems over the Internet. “Virtu- MIS operated by the OCA, or provide the al private network” protocols offer an alter- data communications network for informa- native to using the Internet by allowing tion sharing between its contributors and different systems to function as though they the MIS. The internal network requires were part of the same private network. that all devices be physically connected The checklist at the end of this chapter with equipment and lines under the con- can help drug courts determine what they trol of the sponsoring organization. Intranets need in an MIS and/or evaluate their exist- can include “firewalls” that allow staff to ing system. reach out to the Internet while barring others from looking in, or, if necessary for security reasons, the intranet need not be Frequently Asked Questions connected to the Internet at all. The size How do I get a drug court MIS? and scope of drug courts, together with The first step is to assemble the stakeholders the availability of an intranet, determine of the drug court process (the management whether a jurisdiction should consider team) and reach consensus on direction for this sort of internal network, which can the drug court and its MIS. 14 be a very cost-effective means of moving The second step is to develop a list of func- information. tional requirements for the desired system. There is no practical limit to the size of an What functions should the system perform? intranet. As with the Internet, the number Functional requirements can be related to of servers and Web pages that can be added operations (processing individual cases and to support additional information providers, participants), management (keeping case systems users, courts, services, or informa- processing effective, productive, and eco- tion demands is not constrained by technol- nomical), and evaluation (determining ogy, although cost and maintenance issues whether a drug court is meeting its goals may pose some practical limitations. All in and is helping program participants). This all, if the organizations involved are con- list of functions might include communicat- nected to the city, county, court, or State ing the results of drug tests to the drug network, an intranet strategy may be more court, capturing the results of the many affordable and easier for users to become assessments and screenings that are per- familiar with than alternatives because they formed, and sharing these results. are already accustomed in most instances to Once a list of functional requirements has using the Internet. When the reduced learn- been prepared and approved, the next step ing curve and ease-of-use aspect are fac- is to analyze what information is needed to tored in, the intranet approach is very perform those functions, when and where attractive. it becomes available in the process, and Even if a private network or intranet is how it is to be captured and entered into not a viable mechanism for moving data, the system. This is an analysis of the Characteristics of an Effective Drug Court MIS administrative processes that will support What kind of support is required for a the drug court MIS and is added to the drug court MIS? functional requirements document. A major weakness of most software development efforts in courts is lack of support Once there is agreement as to what the for the user. Drug court administrators drug court MIS should do, it is a relatively must ensure that software products are simple matter to evaluate available public- adequately tested, training programs are sector packages and commercial systems scheduled to prepare court staff to use new that have been designed to support the tools, documentation for systems is com- drug court. Because none of these pack- prehensive and accessible, and data quality ages will fit the requirements of the court assurance processes are in place. In addi- exactly, it is important to consider the tion, staff must ensure that users receive time and cost of modifying the software. quick attention when components of the The requirements document also can be system fail. used to extend the functionality of an existing court CMS or to design a new drug Even the best information systems require court MIS to be created by court or govern- work to maintain them. System backups ment technologists or private contractors. must be performed, database compaction utilities must be run, disks must be defrag- How much does a drug court MIS cost? mented, and printer ink and toner car- A drug court can acquire a public-domain tridges must be replaced. Drug court MIS at no cost and, if it has the necessary leaders must consider who will perform computer hardware and expertise, can these functions, how much of their time it expect to pay nothing to customize the will require, and how to provide the train- software, except for staff time to get the 15 ing they will need. system working. A drug court can also spend hundreds of thousands of dollars In addition, all software packages require creating a state-of-the-art customized sys- periodic modification. Reporting require- tem. The amount of available resources ments may change, new laws may be imple- is key in considering how much to spend. mented, or the drug court management team may want to try new approaches. What software packages are available in Drug court administrators must select a the public sector? technology that is simple and inexpensive Three packages are available for evaluation to modify. at www.drugcourttech.org: the Brooklyn Treatment Court System, the Buffalo Drug A drug court that is part of a larger system Court System, and the South Florida High of automation may depend on court re- Intensity Drug Trafficking Area System. sources to perform these functions. If drug These three packages and the Washington/ court technology is isolated from the rest Baltimore Automated Treatment and Track- of the judicial branch, staff and tools ing System are featured in Public Domain should be viewed as a part of the expense Drug Court Software: Functions and Utili- of acquiring automation. In the real world, ty, a companion piece to this report pro- however, resources too often are limited, duced by SEARCH and DCPO.20 Another and system users must learn to deal with software package, Case Management Sys- some of these issues without the assistance tem 2000, was developed by the Justice of technologists. Research Center with funding from the State Justice Institute.21 Supporting the Drug Court Process

Drug Court MIS Requirements other tools to aid data entry and Checklist retrieval of information. ❐ The range of capabilities and cost of ❐ The system is designed to minimize the MIS (both initial acquisition and data entry. (The MIS shares informa- ongoing maintenance) are appropriate tion electronically with other systems.) to the size and scope of the drug court. ❐ The system is designed to provide sig- ❐ The design of the MIS facilitates rapid nificant analytical and management operational decisionmaking at all stages capabilities for all members of the drug of the drug court process. court team. ❐ Information is recorded in a timely ❐ The system allows judges, prosecutors, fashion and is available to users quickly public defenders, case specialists, and enough to meet operational needs. treatment providers to enter notes. ❐ The MIS captures all necessary ■ Notes are searchable by keyword information: and are protected from unautho- ■ Program eligibility information— rized access and disclosure. including residency data; criminal ❐ The system produces preformatted justice, alcohol/drug dependency, management reports on a daily, weekly, and mental health disorder screen- monthly, and cumulative basis and can ings; and medical conditions—and also create ad hoc reports using any screening information to determine data that are in the database. the individual’s motivation 16 ❐ for participating in the program. Systems reports are accurate and timely. ■ Postadmission information, includ- ❐ ing assessment data and ongoing The MIS enables compliance with sta- case management information such tistical data gathering, evaluation, and as infractions, sanctions, incentives, other reporting requirements of Federal appointments, and outcomes. agencies that provide grant funds in support of the drug court (e.g., Bureau ❐ The MIS supports the informational of Justice Assistance and DCPO), and decisionmaking needs of all mem- courts administration, and State and bers of the drug court team. local authorities. ❐ The MIS collects information to sup- ❐ Sufficient technical support for hard- port program monitoring and process ware, software, and application pro- evaluation and to provide the founda- grams is available to maintain the MIS. tion for long-term program outcome ❐ evaluation. Technical support and ongoing system maintenance are recognized as a dis- ❐ Users understand the system’s features tinct budget requirement. and functionality. ❐ Access to treatment information ❐ Users are comfortable with the system. (including detailed screening and ❐ The system employs color coding, assessment instruments) held within drop-down menus, online help, and Characteristics of an Effective Drug Court MIS

the MIS is restricted in a manner ❐ An evaluator provides recommenda- consistent with the consent form tions on the MIS design and informa- signed by program participants. tion to be collected and gives ongoing advice to the drug court team. ❐ Access to treatment information (including detailed screening and ❐ The drug court team employs the Inter- assessment instruments) held within net, an intranet, or an internal data the MIS complies with Federal and communications network to facilitate State laws and regulations. data collection, access to information, and information sharing and exchange. ❐ Access to criminal history information held within the MIS is restricted in a ❐ The system relies on Internet-based manner consistent with the laws and technology—or browsers—for entering regulations that govern dissemination and accessing data. of that information, based on its ❐ The system is designed with appropri- source.22 ate security safeguards (e.g., firewalls) ❐ To facilitate the design and conduct of to protect the confidentiality of infor- process and impact evaluations, the mation sent over the Internet. system records limited identifying and statistical data on persons screened and found ineligible, persons declining an offer of admission after being found eligible, and participants who do not successfully complete the program. 17 III. Preadmission

ssessing whether a dismissed or sentence reduced. He or she A candidate is eligible may simply be ready—emotionally, psycho- for drug court typical- logically, and physically—to sustain a clean 19 ly encompasses find- and sober lifestyle, even while continuing ings in three types of screening: residency, to serve a sentence of incarceration. In criminal justice, and clinical. The clinical these circumstances, it is reasonable to screening helps determine a candidate’s consider motivation when examining alcohol or other drug dependency prob- eligibility. lems for which treatment resources are available. The presence of other clinical Established and documented eligibility cri- problems, such as serious mental health teria may be limited to the three most com- disorders (including suicidal behavior) or mon areas noted above. Jurisdictions vary medical conditions (including infectious widely in their treatment of residency rules, diseases) can also be determined. prior arrests, and the extent and nature of substance abuse. The actual criteria applied Eligibility criteria are sometimes expanded filter out candidates who fall outside the to consider motivation if a candidate has a drug court’s defined target population. meaningful choice to make between participation in the drug court program and an alternative criminal justice process. In Screening Eligibility many jurisdictions, drug-dependent defend- With the MIS ants with misdemeanor convictions face far Information systems that collect program less onerous penalties than having to go eligibility data typically do not produce an through a drug court program. In other eligibility score or yes/no decision. Although instances, a criminal defendant may not get an MIS could be designed with an eligibility- any benefit in terms of having a charge scoring algorithm tailored to each jurisdiction’s admission criteria, this approach is of Supporting the Drug Court Process

uncertain value. On the plus side, an auto- Some jurisdictions combine substance mated decision strategy may be less labor abuse screening with an initial assessment intensive. In addition, having automated to aid in the development of a treatment data on eligibility decisions greatly facili- or case management plan tailored to indi- tates program process evaluation, which vidual needs. Here, recommendations should be conducted periodically. However, concerning formulation and access to an several factors limit the utility of automated appropriate treatment program may occur systems. even before formal enrollment in a drug court program. More commonly, assess- First, a key part of the screening process ment takes place later in the drug court is often based on observations during an process. Assessment is addressed in chap- interview. The trained interviewer, even at ter IV of this report as a postadmission this early stage, may start collecting infor- function. mation for designing a treatment program. These impressions do not easily lead to the kinds of definitive statements amenable to Personal Descriptive Information assignment of a predetermined weighted Although background and demographic value. information recorded during initial processing and screening is not strictly part Second, certain information requires of the eligibility determination, it clearly research beyond the initial source data. may influence who is admitted to a pro- For example, the facts and circumstances gram. For instance, initial processing and surrounding an arrest need to be reviewed screening identify whether a prospective if it is not evident from the charges on the participant can read, write, speak, and 20 criminal history report whether the arrest understand English or whether an inter- involved violence and/or a weapon. There- preter is required. Courts and treatment fore, the original source data—a “rap providers without access to an interpreter sheet” from a local law enforcement may be severely hampered when conduct- department or the State agency that serves ing status hearings and treatment. Back- as the criminal records repository, which ground and demographic information is in many jurisdictions could be automati- also essential for activities that happen cally transmitted to the MIS—may be much later in the drug court process inadequate for decisionmaking. (e.g., constructing process and outcome Third, approval of enrollment often is a evaluations). drug court team decision. A byproduct of A sample checklist for collecting a defend- this decision is the team’s collective com- ant’s personal descriptive information is mitment to each program participant. provided at the back of this chapter. Finally, before attempting to automate the admittedly labor-intensive process of Financial Information determining eligibility, a drug court should Detailed financial information is grouped carefully analyze whether an automated with other background information. Verifi- decision device truly reduces the time and cation of these data determines eligibility effort involved or merely presents a sum- for assignment of defense counsel and also mary of staff and drug court team activities establishes the ability to pay fees and the that will not diminish if the device is capacity to pay for treatment. In self- implemented. supporting programs, the inability to pay Preadmission for treatment through personal resources court and treatment facilities is manage- or insurance is likely to exclude an individ- able. Because drug courts vary in their tar- ual from the program. get populations and eligibility criteria, their residency information needs also vary. A sample checklist for collecting a defend- Much of the residency information is also ant’s financial information is provided at useful for program process and outcome the back of this chapter. evaluations. A residency checklist is available at the Insurance Information end of this chapter. Insurance information is gathered because the drug court program’s ability to collect treatment costs may affect a candidate’s Criminal Justice Screening eligibility. This is especially important if Three types of criminal justice screening the treatment component of the program are essential for deciding whether a candi- is self-supporting or if the program design date meets program eligibility criteria: (1) includes an assessment of fees payable by an assessment of current criminal charges, the participant as partial recovery of court (2) a determination of the candidate’s costs. criminal justice status (e.g., on parole, on probation, the subject of a warrant), and An insurance checklist is included at the (3) a review of the candidate’s criminal his- back of this chapter. tory record. Unfortunately, relatively few drug courts have quick access to the most Contact Information comprehensive set of criminal records (i.e., Contact information identifies the candi- one that includes national, State, and local 21 date’s legal counsel, spouse, and other peo- entries linked together by the positive ple likely to know his or her whereabouts. identification provided by fingerprints These contacts are also likely to be in fre- taken at the time of arrest). Jurisdictions quent touch with the candidate and are that have received or will seek funds from potential resources for monitoring and DCPO cannot include violent offenders in locating the candidate, should that become the program’s population,23 although violent necessary. In addition, contacts can help offenders may be placed in a separate drug programs validate information collected court track not funded by DCPO.24 during postgraduation interviews and for A drug court can access criminal justice impact evaluations. information through its MIS by interfacing A contact information checklist is included it with other databases, such as the State at the back of this chapter. central criminal records repository, the court information system, or the local law Residency Screening enforcement agency records management or booking systems. This approach offers Program enrollment may be restricted to timely access to the most up-to-date U.S. citizens and legal aliens residing or information and is the least labor intensive incarcerated in the geographic area served of any alternative method. Most often, how- by the court. Some courts admit residents ever, drug courts obtain criminal history of nearby towns and cities or adjoining record information by independently counties if not excluded by local funding searching one or more systems, extracting authorities and if frequent travel to the Supporting the Drug Court Process

the information, and entering it manually more detailed assessment by combining (if at all) into the MIS. both functions. (See chapter IV for further discussion of assessment.) Keeping information on the criminal history records and current charges of program Typically, screening and assessment use enrollees, individuals found to be ineligible, one or more standardized substance abuse and those who elect not to participate has questionnaires and additional instruments value beyond its use in determining admis- designed to reveal information about other sion. Comparing program enrollees with factors. Depending on the skills required to those deemed ineligible or those declining observe candidates and complete the ques- to participate is a highly useful aspect of tionnaires, trained professionals may be process evaluation. Is the planned target needed to administer the questionnaires. population being admitted to the program? Screening and assessment are two parts Are eligible defendants being excluded? of an ongoing process that identifies suitabil- Similarly, this information is important in ity for treatment, defines a treatment strate- understanding the nature of the population gy, and tracks progress. The extent to which served and the ultimate impact the program a drug court MIS provides automated sup- has on the recidivism of participants—even port for administering a clinical instrument those who undergo intensive judicial super- depends on several considerations. Is vision and treatment but fail to graduate automation beneficial to the system’s pri- from the program. Consequently, it is useful mary user—the treatment community? Is to collect information on criminal activity, the system sufficiently secure to ensure that both from documented sources and as self- unauthorized persons cannot access highly 22 reported by program candidates. confidential information? Can the system maintain appropriate security while allowing A sample checklist for screening the crimi- more than one treatment provider to access nal justice background of a defendant is and “own” a record on a common client? provided at the back of this chapter. A sample checklist for screening the alco- Alcohol or Other Drug hol or other drug dependency of a defend- Dependency Screening ant is provided at the back of this chapter. “Screening”—a broad term that encompasses a range of evaluative procedures Mental Health Disorders and techniques—is a preliminary assess- Mental health screening serves several pur- ment or evaluation that attempts to poses. Identifying a candidate’s mental uncover in an individual the presence of health disorder enables the drug court to critical features of the target population. judge the appropriateness of available This step often consists of a drug test and treatment services. Mental health screen- an interview conducted by pretrial servic- ing may also reveal symptoms or a prelimi- es, probation, Treatment Alternatives for nary mental health diagnosis that suggests Safe Communities, or treatment personnel the likelihood that a candidate would have or by another entity specifically responsi- severe difficulty functioning effectively in ble for overseeing the completion or the drug court program. It may also reveal administration of a standardized evalua- a significant risk of suicide. Jurisdictions tive instrument. Some jurisdictions blur that can access mental health databases the distinction between screening and the Preadmission need to be aware of relevant confidentiality Motivation statutes and regulations before introducing Research data have suggested that coerced this information into the drug court MIS. treatment can be as effective as voluntary Drug court enrollees typically undergo an treatment, if not more so.25 Readiness for indepth mental health assessment as part treatment “can be prompted in two ways: of the development of a treatment plan. by circumstances or extrinsic pressures such as loss (of job, family support, money, Medical Conditions etc.) or fear (of incarceration, violence, The rates of Human Immunodeficiency health risks including overdose, or even sui- Virus/Autoimmune Deficiency Syndrome cide). . . . Readiness can be measured both (HIV/AIDS), sexually transmitted diseases, by subjective impression and objective 26 and other infectious diseases are far greater quantification.” Although motivation can among substance abusers than in the gen- be difficult to measure, comparing out- eral population. Certain conditions may comes with degree of motivation can be be readily observable during the screening worthwhile. Screening instruments are interview, indicating a need for medical available that address motivation, and they attention. Individuals are unlikely to self- can be incorporated into the drug court report infectious diseases at this early junc- MIS. ture but may reveal symptoms in their responses to a screening instrument. Infor- Admission Decision and Client mation on infectious disease is frequently Outcome Record subject to confidentiality laws above and For program monitoring and evaluation beyond those that regulate disclosure of purposes, the MIS should record several 23 treatment information and criminal history pieces of information associated with the records. The Personal Descriptive Informa- admission decision, whether the candidate tion Checklist on the next page suggests subsequently enters the program, and medical data that should be sought from client outcomes. every candidate to record it in the MIS and to address the candidate’s medical needs. See the admission decision and client outcome checklists following this chapter. Supporting the Drug Court Process

Personal Descriptive Information ■ Male. Checklist ■ Female. ❐ Name of program candidate or participant (name used at booking). ■ Heterosexual. ❐ Digital photograph. ■ Homosexual. ❐ Resides within the area served by the ❐ Ethnicity/Race: drug court. ■ African-American. ❐ Does not reside within the area served ■ Hispanic/Latino. by the drug court. ■ Asian/Pacific Islander. ❐ Residence: ■ Native American. ■ Owned by candidate. ■ Alaska Native. ■ Rented by candidate. ■ Caucasian. ■ Relative’s home. ■ Other______. ■ Friend’s home. ❐ Country of citizenship/Alien status: ■ Homeless. ■ United States. ■ Unknown. ■ Other______. ❐ Address. 24 ■ Resident alien. ❐ Telephone number: ■ Visa status: ■ Residence. ● Expiration date of current ■ Cell phone. immigration status. ■ Pager. ● Immigration and Naturalization ■ Phone number of contact likely to Service number. know whereabouts of candidate. ❐ Identifying numbers used by the court ❐ Birth information: or the treatment provider: ■ Date of birth. ■ Arrest number. ■ Place of birth. ■ Booking number. ❐ Documentation presented for verifica- ■ Court case numbers. tion of name and date of birth: ■ MIS-generated identification ■ Birth certificate. number. ■ Driver’s license. ■ Driver’s license number. ■ Military identification. ■ Social Security number. ■ Other _____. ■ Medicaid number. ❐ Gender/Sexual orientation: ■ Other______. Preadmission

❐ Family information: ● Who has legal custody for each child born to/fathered by the ■ Marital status. candidate? ■ Significant other: ■ Currently pregnant: ● Is pregnant? ● Expected delivery date. – Expected date of delivery. ● Date of last childbirth. ● Is a drug user? ● Number of abortions. – Primary drug of choice. ● Number of drug-free babies. – Other drugs used. ● Number of miscarriages. – Frequency of use. ● Number of babies who are not – Method partner uses in drug free. taking drugs. ■ Other dependents residing in –Average cost of daily use. household:

– How is habit supported? ● Age.

■ Number of children residing with ● Relationship. candidate/participant: ❐ Currently attending school: ● Name of each child. ■ Name of school. 25 ● Age of each child. ■ Type of school. ● Date of birth of each child. ■ Address. ● Gender of each child. ■ Hours of attendance. ● Who has legal custody of each ■ How long in attendance. child in the residence? ❐ Education/Achievement/Status: ● Who will care for each child if the program participant is ■ Completed elementary school incarcerated? (6th grade). ■ Number of children born ■ Completed middle school to/fathered by the candidate/partici- (8th grade). pant for whom he or she has con- ■ Completed high school tinuing financial responsibilities: (12th grade). ● Name of each child. ■ Completed the general equivalency ● Age of each child. diploma (GED) program.

● Date of birth of each child. ■ Completed vocational training.

● Gender of each child. ■ Completed some college. ■ Completed college. Supporting the Drug Court Process

■ Pursuing GED. ● Months employed in past 12 months. ■ Enrolled in high school. ● Other previous occupations. ■ Enrolled in vocational school. ❐ Military experience: ■ Enrolled in college. ■ Branch. ❐ English proficiency/Interpreter requirement: ■ Start date. ■ Able to read, write, speak, and ■ Currently in military service. comprehend English. ■ End date. ■ English is a secondary language. ■ How long? ■ An interpreter is required who is ■ Highest grade/rank. proficient in ______(e.g., signing, Spanish). ■ Nature of discharge (e.g., N/A, honorable, dishonorable, unknown). ❐ Employment status: ■ Grade/Rank at time of discharge. ■ Currently employed. ■ Location at time of discharge. ■ Nature of employment______: ■ Military honors. ● Employment start date. ■ Assignments. ● Type of certificate/license 26 required to perform job function: ❐ Drug of choice: – Licensing agency. ■ Frequency of use.

● Special skills required? ■ Means (e.g., injection, oral, snort). –Needs to develop special skills ■ Length of use. to be qualified for position. ❐ Secondary drug of choice: ■ Company name. ■ Frequency of use. ■ Employer’s address. ■ Means (e.g., injection, oral, snort). ■ Employer’s telephone number. ■ Length of use. ■ Worksite address. ❐ Tuberculosis status: ■ Worksite telephone number. ■ Positive. ■ Full time or part time. ■ Negative. ■ Date last worked. ■ Unknown. ■ Unemployed: ❐ Health issues currently under ● Last date of employment. treatment:

● How long? ■ Description of health issues.

● Last occupation. ■ Prescribed medications. Preadmission

■ Prescribing physician. ■ Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (previously Aid to Families ■ Date a physician was last seen. With Dependent Children). ■ Physician’s telephone number. ■ Supplemental Security Income. ❐ Health issues recently treated: ■ Social Security. ■ Description of health issues. ■ Unemployment insurance. ■ Prescribed medications. ■ Worker’s compensation. ■ Prescribing physician. ■ Veteran’s disability. ■ Date a physician was last seen. ■ Other ______. ■ Physician’s telephone number. ❐ Total weekly or monthly income. ❐ Current health issues not being treated. ❐ Value of liquid assets: ❐ Physical impairments: ■ Cash on hand. ■ Expected date of recovery (if ■ Checking account. temporary). ● Name of bank. ■ Special requirements (special needs that must be addressed to facilitate ■ Savings account. the treatment process). ● Name of bank. ■ Type of disability (e.g., paraplegic, 27 ■ Stocks/Bonds. blind, deaf, attention deficit disorder). ■ Cash value of life insurance policy. ❐ Owns home: Financial Information Checklist ■ Purchase price. Personal financial information ❐ Social Security number. ■ Current value. ❐ No source of income. ■ Date of purchase. ❐ Weekly or monthly earnings. ❐ Owns automobile: ❐ Commissions. ■ Year. ❐ Bonuses/Tips. ■ Make. ❐ Other income. ■ Model. ❐ Support payments. ■ Loan balance. ❐ Unemployed. ■ Value. ❐ Federal, State, or county assistance: ❐ Other property or assets. ■ Food stamps. ■ Value of other property or assets. ❐ Total value of assets. Supporting the Drug Court Process

Spouse’s personal financial information ■ Food. ❐ Social Security number. ■ Power. ❐ Mailing address. ■ Water/Sewer. ❐ Employer. ■ Telephone (basic). ❐ Position. ■ Electricity. ❐ Employer’s address. ■ Heating. ❐ Employer’s telephone number. ■ Clothing. ❐ Employment start date. ■ Education/Tuition. ❐ Full time or part time. ■ Transportation. ❐ Weekly or monthly earnings. ■ Total. ❐ Commissions. ❐ Monthly liabilities: ❐ Bonuses/Tips. ■ Home mortgage. ❐ Other income. ■ Other mortgage. ❐ Support payments. ■ Auto loan. ❐ Unemployed. ■ Auto insurance. ❐ Federal, State, or county assistance: 28 ■ Personal loan. ■ Food stamps. ■ Other loans. ■ Temporary Assistance to Needy ■ Credit card payments. Families (previously Aid to Families With Dependent Children). ■ Health insurance payments. ■ Supplemental Security Income. ■ Total. ■ Social Security. ❐ Other liabilities: ■ Unemployment insurance. ■ Court-ordered payments:

■ Worker’s compensation. ● Child support.

■ Veteran’s disability. ● Divorce settlement.

■ Other ______. ● Restitution.

❐ Total weekly or monthly income. ● Fines.

❐ Value of liquid assets. ● Other _____. Expenses and financial liability ■ Medical bills. information ■ Other debts. ❐ Monthly expenses: ■ Total. ■ Mortgage/Rent. Preadmission

Insurance Information Checklist ❐ Family and references (up to three): ❐ No insurance available. ■ Name. ❐ Private insurance information: ■ Relationship. ■ Name of carrier. ■ Frequency of contact. ■ Policy number. ■ Length of relationship. ■ Telephone number. ■ Address: ■ State insurance? ● Home. ■ Federal insurance? ● Work. ❐ VA benefits available. ● Other. ❐ Medicaid recipient. ■ Telephone. ❐ Other insurance information. ■ Notes.

Contact Information Checklist Residency Screening Checklist ❐ Private counsel: ❐ Geographic information: ■ Name. ■ Resides within the target area ■ Address. served by the drug court.

■ Telephone number. ■ Length of residence in the town, 29 city, or county, as appropriate. ❐ Public defender: ■ Presently incarcerated? ■ Name. ■ ZIP Code. ■ Address. ■ Census tract. ■ Telephone number. ■ Other geographic search ❐ Employer: parameter______. ■ Name of employer/supervisor. ■ Immigration status: ■ Address. ● Expiration date of current ■ Telephone number. immigration status. ■ Notes. ❐ Length of time at current residence. ❐ Client lives with: Criminal Justice Screening ■ Name. Checklist ■ Relationship. ❐ The MIS records current charge information. ■ Is a substance abuser? ❐ The MIS records criminal justice status ■ Notes. information (e.g., parole, probation, warrants). Supporting the Drug Court Process

❐ The MIS records the court(s), docket ■ Drug crime felonies. numbers, and charges for other pending ■ Other felonies. cases. This includes contact information for court staff with whom court ■ Other crimes. appearances and other activities might ❐ The MIS retains criminal history infor- need to be coordinated. mation on all persons screened for eli- ❐ The MIS retains the State Identification gibility, including reason(s) for being Number (a unique fingerprint-based disqualified or declining to participate. identification number assigned by ❐ Incorporation of State and national the State criminal records repository criminal history information: agency that can be used to retrieve criminal records information from ■ The MIS automatically receives and the State repository and the national retains the criminal history record criminal records system administered for each prospective participant by the FBI). from the State criminal records repository agency. This transmis- ■ The MIS retains another local iden- sion includes State-based informa- tification number that can be used tion and all associated information to link with Federal and State crimi- available from the FBI-administered nal records identification numbers. Interstate Identification Index with- ❐ The MIS is programmed to screen crim- in the National Crime Information inal history records for eligibility con- Center. sistent with criteria established by the 30 ■ The MIS electronically receives jurisdiction and, if appropriate, that only State-based criminal history conforms to Federal guidelines. information from the State ❐ The MIS categorizes criminal history repository. information by arrests and convictions ■ The court, or an agency member of within the past year and since age 18 the drug court team, retrieves State by number of: and national criminal history infor- ■ Violent offenses. mation via computer and manually enters the record into the MIS. ■ Nondrug crime felonies. ■ The court, or an agency member of ■ Nondrug crime misdemeanors. the drug court team, receives State ■ Drug crime felonies. and national criminal history information from another department ■ Drug crime misdemeanors. (e.g., the booking agency) and man- ■ Traffic and other offenses. ually enters the record into the MIS. ❐ There is provision for recording self- reported crimes committed within the ❐ Eligibility determinations and partici- past year and since age 18 by estimated pant criminal profiles are based on: number of: ■ A statewide, court-based informa- ■ Violent offenses. tion system. Preadmission

■ County- or municipal-level booking ■ Frequency of use over the past records that are entered into the 30 days: MIS. ● Daily. ■ Local court records. ● Three to five times per week.

● Twice weekly. Alcohol or Other Drug Dependency Screening Checklist ● Weekly. ❐ The MIS records results of drug tests ● Other______. administered as part of the screening process. ■ Frequency of use over the past year:

❐ The MIS records responses from ● Daily. screening instruments/interviews: ● Three to five times per week. ■ Drugs of primary, secondary, third, ● Twice weekly. and fourth choice are identified and recorded: ● Weekly.

● Alcohol. ● Other______.

● Marijuana. ■ Number of years since first use.

● Inhalants. ■ Date of last use.

● Hallucinogens. ■ Longest period of time that primary 31 drug of choice was not used. ● Pills (downers). ■ Most recent length of sobriety. ● Pills (uppers). ■ Average amount of money spent ● Amphetamines. daily on alcohol and/or drugs. ● Phencyclidine (PCP). ❐ The MIS allows for the recording of ● Opiates. interviewer observations.

● Cocaine. ❐ Prior treatment:

● Crack. ■ Name of agency or provider.

● Heroin. ■ Address of agency or provider.

● Speed. ■ Contact name.

● Cocaine/Heroin. ■ For what drug/substance?

● Illegal methadone. ■ Telephone number of agency or provider. ● Legal methadone. ■ Approximate start date. ● Prescription drugs. ■ Approximate end date. ● Other______. Supporting the Drug Court Process

■ Reason for ending rehabilitation. Client Outcome Checklist ❐ The MIS records the date of program ■ Details of the candidate’s perform- enrollment. ance pertaining to his or her prior rehabilitation. ❐ The MIS records the date the client exited the program: Admission Decision Checklist ■ Voluntary separation: ❐ Admitted to drug court. ● Reason ______. ❐ Date found eligible. ■ Discharge: ❐ Date offered enrollment. ● Reason ______. ❐ Not admitted to program due to: ■ Graduation. ■ Current violent offense. ■ Death. ■ Prior violent offense. ■ Prior criminal history. ■ Not an alcohol or drug abuser. ■ Contagious health risk or other medical condition. ■ Not suitable. 32 ■ Declined admission. IV. Operational Drug Court

rug courts continuous- the screening process (such as family and D ly collect and analyze social relationships, employment and edu- extensive information cation history, and status information) and 33 throughout the course new areas. Assessment is the basis for of the program. This broad mix of informa- developing a treatment plan, including the tion supports treatment decisions, ongoing timing and provision of specific services.27 case management, and judicial supervision. Treatment frequently includes at least some In addition, appointments and their out- of the following services: individual and comes are carefully tracked. Detailed clinical group counseling, behavioral therapies, peer case management information is not usually counseling, culturally and gender-competent recorded in the drug court MIS. However, providers, job skills training, psychotherapy, the system should document counseling and drug testing. appointments, treatment-imposed sanctions, The MIS should include at least one compre- and other information that needs to be coor- hensive standardized assessment instrument dinated with the court or that may affect that is appropriate for the target population how the court supervises the client. and available treatment resources. Addition- al assessment instruments may be included Assessment to refine the decisionmaking process. Many A formal assessment usually takes place evaluative tools can be acquired without soon after a participant is screened and cost because they are in the public domain. admitted to the drug court program. It is However, there may be costs associated with the first stage of a process that continues bringing in a trainer. The cost of administer- while an individual remains under the drug ing an instrument and scoring the results court’s supervision. The assessment is a varies considerably. The lengthier and more detailed exploration of areas addressed in complex the instrument (particularly those Supporting the Drug Court Process

that call for qualitative judgments on the acquisition plus cost of administration and part of the interviewer), the more expensive scoring), target population, and the range it is to administer and score. In some of available treatment services. The objec- instances, costs decline when scoring is tive is to optimize the match between need automated. and treatment resources. Typically, the questionnaire and its scoring methodology The MIS should identify any instrument(s) can be stored, accessed, and completed as used in either pre- or postadmission pro- part of the MIS database. Full access to cessing, even those that are not automat- assessment information is often restricted ed as part of the MIS. This information is to treatment case managers and other diag- useful for studies of the effectiveness of nostic or clinical personnel. screening and evaluation tools undertaken to assist local drug court decisionmaking Supporting the Drug Court Process treats and for cross-jurisdictional research within assessment as a postadmission process. States and throughout the Nation. If entire However, as previously noted, some drug assessment or screening documents are not court programs have blurred the distinc- recorded in the MIS, consideration should tion between screening and assessment by be given to selectively including informa- combining these activities. (See chapter III tion relevant to various evaluation tasks. for a detailed discussion of screening.) For example, participants with coexisting The following section identifies some of the disorders are an exceptionally challenging many screening and assessment instru- population.28 Fluctuations over time in ments available to drug courts. It also lists the number of program participants with background information items the MIS coexisting mental disorders and substance 34 should record if they are not included in abuse problems may help to explain changes the instruments chosen. in program retention and graduation rates. A sample checklist for screening and Assessment determines a candidate’s assessment instruments is provided at the suitability for substance abuse treatment back of this chapter. and placement in a specific treatment modality/setting. A comprehensive assessment evaluation includes information Background Information regarding current and past use/abuse of The MIS should capture the background drugs; justice system involvement; med- information given in the checklist at the ical, familial, social, educational, military, end of this chapter, if it is not recorded as employment, and treatment histories; and a byproduct of screening and assessment. risk for infectious diseases (e.g., sexually transmitted diseases, tuberculosis, Ongoing Case Management HIV/AIDS, hepatitis).29 The drug court team reviews each program Many assessment instruments, typically participant’s status information continuous- scored questionnaires, are available in the ly. The judge and the drug court team public domain and from the private sec- require a wide-ranging set of information to tor.30 Some instruments require consider- effectively conduct the “staffings”31 and sta- able skill on the part of the interviewer; tus hearings that are fundamental to the some do not. Others are self-administered drug court process. Given the frequency of questionnaires. The selection of assessment these hearings, which are often held week- tools is largely based on budget (cost of ly, it is essential that information be collect- Operational Drug Court ed, disseminated, and weighed in a timely participants who remain sanction-free for fashion. Some events, such as a positive a specified period advance to another pro- drug test, an arrest, or a failure to appear gram phase. Conversely, participants are for a scheduled hearing, may call for team demoted if they accumulate a predeter- members to take immediate action, rather mined number of points. Many drug courts than waiting until the next scheduled status that use a schedule of sanctions tell partici- hearing. pants about the schedule when they enter the program. Infractions, Sanctions, Incentives, The Infractions, Sanctions, Incentives, and Rewards and Rewards checklist at the back of this Accountability is a central theme of drug chapter suggests MIS data items relating to court judicial supervision. Strategies for infractions, sanctions, incentives, and inducing program compliance include care- rewards. Included are illustrative infrac- fully tracking and weighing the severity of tions and sanctions of varying severity. infractions, imposing sanctions commensu- Consequently, the section provides both a rate with inappropriate or unacceptable framework for including an existing sanc- behavior, and providing incentives that tions schedule in an MIS design and a start- reward overall progress and specific accom- ing point for implementing a sanctions plishments. A chronicle of why, how, and schedule to assist in case management. A when sanctions and incentives are applied sample list of incentives and rewards is is part of the overall treatment record and provided both as a design tool for drug is also a foundation for understanding the court planners and as an assessment tool effectiveness of various alternatives. By for operational drug courts that want to 35 comprehensively recording infractions and evaluate the ways in which they are pro- the resultant sanctions, the drug court can viding encouragement and recognizing determine what works while also ensuring accomplishments. that sanctions are applied in a bias-free manner. Appointments and Outcomes Recording all punishments facilitates over- Drug court clients lead complex lives. They all case management and imposition of must appear for frequent status hearings incremental sanctions; this comprehensive and drug tests, meet a schedule of fee pay- approach, however, does not fully apply to ments, and keep myriad other appoint- the recording of incentives. Typically, the ments that are set by the court, case court will verbally commend small accom- managers, program coordinators, probation plishments. Announcement of a major officers, and treatment counselors. The achievement is often accompanied by drug court team’s scheduling requirements applause and a handshake. These common encompass not only clients’ appointments practices, serving as positive reinforce- but also certain events planned by drug ment, need not be recorded in the MIS. court team members without the client’s prior knowledge, such as random drug Some drug courts have opted to employ a tests, field-administered drug tests, and team-approved schedule of sanctions that planned visits to verify employment, sets out point values for various infractions attendance at school, or compliance with and defines corresponding penalties. Often, curfew restrictions. Supporting the Drug Court Process

In addition to client-specific appointments, rules, and imposition of a sanction may the drug court administers other schedules ensue. Therefore, it is important that the related to the management and operation MIS record the disposition of all scheduled of the drug court program. In this category events. For example, it should provide an fall the court’s calendar, NA and/or AA at-a-glance compilation of data on drug meetings, and group sessions that may pre- tests, including the date of each urine test, cede or follow the status hearing calendar, whether the test was positive or negative, staffings, and other activities. The MIS can and, when appropriate, the level of the sub- help drug courts effectively manage these stance determined to be present. scheduling tasks. A sample checklist for appointments and The drug court may opt to accommodate outcomes is provided at the back of this another set of commitments in the MIS chapter. design: client obligations external to the direct supervision of the court. For exam- Program Monitoring ple, the client may have a hearing sched- Effective management requires continual uled on an unrelated case in another court and aggressive collection and assessment of or jurisdiction that could interfere with a programwide statistical data about day-to- drug court obligation, or the client may day operations. The intention here is to request that a certain time be left open for build a process for continually improving personal reasons (e.g., to attend a child’s the program and to provide a mechanism school event). for alerting the drug court team to changes The value of adding an appointment and that are occurring broadly within the pro- 36 outcome component to the MIS depends gram. Unlike other drug court activities on the extent to which the drug court discussed thus far, program monitoring team uses the system to plan schedules focuses on aggregate data rather than infor- and coordinate appointments. Scheduling mation about individual candidates and conflicts are minimized when all team participants. A solid monitoring apparatus members can access and immediately enables program administrators to describe update client appointments and their own in quantitative terms what is going on in diaries. Jurisdictions that opt to imple- the program, assess operations, review ment a comprehensive appointment and operating data within the context of pro- outcome system enhance operational effi- gram goals, identify shortcomings or poten- ciency. Such a system also enables team tial problems, and implement changes members to provide clients with a periodi- while ensuring that resources are adequate cally updated calendar of appointments and appropriately used across the breadth and outstanding obligations (e.g., commu- of the program. The generation of monitor- nity service hours owed, fee payments in ing reports must be routine and frequent arrears, date and amount of next sched- enough that their extensive status informa- uled fee payment). tion is both reasonably current and truly reflective of operations. Schedule commitments in a drug court program are many and varied. Frequently, The Program Monitoring Checklist at the they correspond to activities that are at the back of this chapter includes questions and heart of judicial supervision and treatment. answers illustrative of program status and Failure to keep an appointment is often achievement information. Topics will vary considered an infraction of the program Operational Drug Court from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and those can be more effective as the eyes and ears suggested here should be modified to fit of the court. Other, more creative uses each drug court’s goals, objectives, and of this technology will become evident as concerns. drug courts begin to move in this direction.

A Word About Computer Exit Interviews and Mapping Postprogram Activities Government agencies at every level are The MIS should record reasons and impres- increasingly using mapping technology to sions gleaned from exit interviews conduct- enhance service delivery. It is inevitable ed with both dropouts and graduates to that drug courts will adopt this technology inform drug court team members’ percep- as an adjunct to or a module within the tion of the program and to influence future MIS. For many drug court clients, the cost decisions. The MIS should also document or inconvenience of transportation to the several postprogram activities. Many juris- court, treatment sessions, AA and NA dictions have founded alumni groups that meetings, and other appointments some- provide continued support to program grad- times leads to sanctions or, worse yet, com- uates. Participation in such groups and fre- pels a client to drop out of the program. quency of attendance should be recorded. Mapping can help to minimize travel issues The MIS database is often a source of refer- for drug court clients. rals for various services offered to active clients. Similar information may be of Mapping also provides an easy way to value when alumni seek aftercare. The out- identify the neighborhoods where clients come or impact evaluation, discussed reside, work, go to school, or socialize. 37 in the next chapter, strongly benefits when This sort of information often contradicts postprogram tracking information—such as expectations and assumptions about where recidivism, continued education, job history, services and supervision are most needed. and other data about graduates—is cap- By recognizing clusters on a virtual pin tured in the MIS. map, probation officers can perform more efficiently, and law enforcement liaisons Supporting the Drug Court Process

Screening and Assessment ❐ Simple Screening Instrument (public Instrument Checklist domain). ❐ The MIS includes at least one screening ❐ Other______. instrument that attempts to identify candidates who meet the substance Medical/Physical health (status and abuse criteria defined for the program’s problems) target population. ❐ General Health Rating Index. ❐ The MIS includes at least one compre- ❐ Other______. hensive standardized assessment instru- Psychological/Psychiatric problems ment that is appropriate for the target (mental health status, diagnosis) population and available treatment ❐ Symptom Check List (SCL–90–R). resources. ❐ Maudsley Neuroticism Scale. Comprehensive assessment instruments ❐ Addiction Severity Index (public ❐ Beck Depression Inventory. domain). ❐ Brief Symptom Inventory. ❐ Other______. ❐ IPAT (Institute for Personality and Alcohol screening questionnaires Ability Testing) Depression Scale. ❐ CAGE (four questions, public domain). ❐ Structured Clinical Interview (SCID) ❐ Short Michigan Alcohol Screening Test for DSM–III–R (Diagnostic and Statisti- (public domain). cal Manual of Mental Health Disorders III–R). 38 ❐ Michigan Alcohol Screening Test. ❐ The Mini-SCID. ❐ Manson Evaluation. ❐ Referral Decision Scale. ❐ Alcohol Dependence Scale. ❐ Other______. ❐ Other______. Motivation Substance abuse screening ❐ Circumstances, Motivation, Readiness ❐ Substance Abuse Screening Instrument and Suitability Scale. (public domain). ❐ Stages of Change Readiness and ❐ Offender Profile Index (public domain). Treatment Eagerness Scale. ❐ Drug Abuse Screening Test. ❐ University of Rhode Island Change ❐ Chemical Dependency Assessment Assessment Scale. Profile. Academic skills ❐ The Structured Clinical Interview for ❐ The Wide Range Achievement Test. Diagnosis. ❐ Other______. ❐ Quantitative Cocaine Inventory. Employment ❐ TCU (Texas Christian University) Drug ❐ Index of Job Satisfaction. Dependence Screen (public domain). ❐ Other______. Operational Drug Court

Social/Lifestyle ■ Approximate number of total ❐ Social Life Feelings Scale. suicide attempts. ❐ Social Intelligence Test. ❐ In-program pregnancy and child delivery: ❐ Other______. ■ Number of previous pregnancies. Family and marital relationships ❐ Family Environment Scale. ■ Number of previous childbirths. ❐ Family Assessment Measure. ■ Infant’s date of birth. ❐ Self-Report Family Inventory of the ■ Infant’s birth weight. Family Satisfaction Scale. ■ Infant’s toxicology screen at birth. ❐ Family Crisis-Oriented Personal ■ Where and with whom the infant Evaluation Scales. will live. ❐ The ENRICH Inventory. ❐ Dynamic Adjustment Scale. Infractions, Sanctions, Incentives, and Rewards Checklist ❐ Other______. ❐ The MIS records the dates of all infractions. Background Information Checklist ❐ The MIS automatically calculates the ❐ History of physical/sexual/mental number of days/weeks/months elapsed abuse. between program enrollment and each 39 ■ Age of client when abuse began. infraction. ■ Is client still around abuser? ❐ The MIS automatically calculates the number of days/weeks/months elapsed ■ Date of last abuse. between infraction occurrences. ■ Frequency of abuse. ❐ The MIS records dates when incentives ■ Relationship of client to the person or rewards are given. who is/was the abuser. ❐ The MIS automatically calculates the ■ Approximate date of first abuse. number of days/weeks/months elapsed between program enrollment and each ■ Is abuse still occurring? incentive or reward. ■ Type of abuse client received/is ❐ The MIS automatically calculates the receiving. number of days/weeks/months elapsed ■ Notes. between each incentive or reward. ❐ History of suicide attempts: ❐ The MIS records all levels of infractions. Sample infractions follow: ■ Approximate date of last suicide attempt. ■ Missed Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) meeting(s) during report period. ■ Reason why the client attempted to commit suicide. ■ Missed Narcotics Anonymous (NA) meeting(s) during report period. Supporting the Drug Court Process

■ Arrived late for scheduled drug test. ■ Missed treatment session without prior excuse. ■ Arrived late for treatment session. ■ Missed scheduled drug test. ■ Did not complete homework. ■ Violated curfew. ■ Did not provide a sponsor letter. ■ Fired from job. ■ Failed to appear for work and did not have an excuse. ■ Left employment without a replacement job. ■ Unemployed. ■ Observed in a known drug- ■ Failed to seek employment as trafficking area. directed by the court. ■ Observed in a premises that serves ■ Failed to enroll in an education or alcohol; presence was not job relat- job training program as directed by ed and was without prior approval. the court. ■ Positive drug test (without prior ■ Failed to pay scheduled fees. admission; first occurrence). ■ Partially paid fees without authori- ■ Positive alcohol test (without prior zation of the court. admission; first occurrence). ■ Missed probation office visit. ■ Delayed taking drug test. ■ Violated home detention. ■ Absent from program for less than 40 ■ Violated electronic monitoring. 5 days and voluntarily returned. ■ Missed status hearing—notified ■ Admitted use prior to second failed case manager/court coordinator drug test. beforehand (first occurrence). ■ Admitted use prior to second failed ■ Fulfilled partial community service alcohol test. requirement within allowed time ■ Missed status hearing—notified case (first community service sanction). manager/court coordinator before- ■ Discourteous to court or other hand (second occurrence). drug court team member (first ■ Failed to perform any community occurrence). service within allowed time (first ■ Wore inappropriate attire to status community service sanction). hearing (first occurrence). ■ Fulfilled partial community service ■ Forged AA or NA meeting attend- requirement within allowed time ance slip. (second or subsequent community service sanction). ■ Admitted use prior to failing drug test. ■ Discourteous to court or other drug court team member (second ■ Admitted use prior to failing alcohol or subsequent occurrence). test. Operational Drug Court

■ Wore inappropriate attire to status ■ Increase in outpatient individual hearing (second or subsequent and/or group sessions. occurrence). ■ Increase in drug testing. ■ Attempted to falsify drug test ■ Placement in jury box for duration sample. of day’s calendar. ■ Substituted or tampered with urine ■ Placement in holding cell for dura- sample. tion of day’s calendar. ■ Missed scheduled drug test (second ■ Electronic monitoring. or subsequent occurrence). ■ Home detention. ■ Positive drug test (without prior admission; second occurrence). ■ Jail (less than 24 hours). ■ Positive alcohol test (without prior ■ Extension of time before client admission; second occurrence). can advance to another phase or graduate. ■ Admitted use prior to third or subsequent failed drug test. ■ Community service (up to 24 hours). ■ Admitted use prior to third or subsequent failed alcohol test. ■ Increase in NA/AA meetings and submission of a written report fol- ■ Absent from program for more than lowing each meeting. 5 days. 41 ■ Increase in status hearings. ■ Failed to complete inpatient or halfway house program. ■ Jail (up to 10 days). ■ Arrested (nonviolent misdemeanor ■ Community service (up to or lesser offense). 60 hours). ■ Arrested (nonviolent felony). ■ Phase demotion. ■ Arrested for a violent offense. ■ Jail (up to 30 days). ❐ The MIS records all judicially imposed ■ Inpatient placement. sanctions. Sample sanctions follow: ■ Participant required to enter guilty ■ Verbal reprimand. plea (in pre-plea courts, acceptance of plea may be held in abeyance or ■ Written report (e.g., explain why participant may be allowed to with- action or behavior was inappropriate draw plea). or irresponsible). ■ Discharged from program. ■ Loss of a privilege. ❐ The MIS has a provision for noting ■ Community service (8 or fewer punitive action taken by outpatient hours). treatment providers. ■ Increase in NA meetings. ■ Increase in AA meetings. Supporting the Drug Court Process

❐ The MIS has a provision for noting ■ Permission to temporarily leave punitive action taken by residential jurisdiction for cause at the request treatment providers. of the participant. ❐ The MIS has a provision for noting ■ Advancement in a multiphase punitive action taken by probation program. staff supervising client. ■ Invitation to join alumni group. ❐ The MIS has a provision for noting ■ Graduation. punitive action taken by case manager supervising client. ❐ The MIS documents when each requirement for advancement to another phase ❐ The MIS selectively records incentives or level is met. or rewards given to program participants. Sample incentives and rewards ❐ The MIS records dates of advancement follow: in multiphase programs. ■ Less restrictive curfew. ❐ The MIS documents when each graduation requirement is met. ■ Removal of curfew. ❐ The MIS records the date the drug ■ Reduction in required AA meetings. court team certifies that all graduation ■ Reduction in required NA meetings. requirements have been met, as well as the reason for any decision to defer ■ Immediate release after status hear- graduation. ing (not required to sit through 42 whole drug court calendar). ❐ The MIS records the date of graduation. ■ Placement in a group whose status hearings are called early in the Appointments and Outcomes day’s calendar. Checklist ❐ The MIS automatically generates the ■ Less frequent scheduled drug tests. case calendar for staffings. ■ Participant can serve as a program ❐ The MIS automatically generates the representative speaker. status hearing calendar. ■ Participant can participate in a ❐ The MIS can be used to generate lists court-sponsored recreational event. of scheduled attendees for group ■ Gift of tickets to a recreational, activities: entertainment, or social event. ■ Group meetings. ■ Certificates for restaurants, for ■ Other _____. participant’s own use or for a family event. ❐ The MIS records drug test appointments and dispositional information: ■ Certificates for clothing. ■ Date and time of test/sample taken: ■ Financial support for education, job training, or other activity consistent ● Scheduled. with objectives of the program but not affordable for the client. ● Random. Operational Drug Court

● Confirmation. ● Positive: ■ Location of test: – Level.

● Court. ● Negative.

● Treatment. ■ Notes _____.

● Jail. ❐ The MIS records status hearing appointments and dispositions: ● Field. ■ Date and time scheduled. ■ Missed appointment—not excused. ■ Failure to appear—excused. ■ Missed appointment—excused. ■ Failure to appear—not excused. ■ Late for appointment—not excused. ● Warrant issued. ■ Late for appointment—excused. ❐ The MIS records fees assessed and ■ Refused to provide sample. payable to the court: ■ Attempted to submit fraudulent ■ Frequency and amount of scheduled sample or tamper with test process. payments. ■ Screening panel/drugs tested: ■ Payment dates and amounts. ● Alcohol. ■ Current with payments, or amount ● Amphetamines (e.g., metham- in arrears? 43 phetamine, MDA, MDMA). ■ Total amount of payments to date. ● Barbiturates. ■ Court-ordered change in frequency ● Benzodiazepine. or amount of payments is logged.

● Cocaine. ❐ The MIS records fees payable to treatment providers: ● Marijuana (THC). ■ Frequency and amount of scheduled ● Methadone. payments. ● Methaqualone. ■ Current with payments, or amount ● Opiates (e.g., heroin, morphine, in arrears? codeine). ❐ The MIS records schedule and disposi- ● PCP (e.g., phencyclidine, PCDE, tional information about other pending PCM). nondrug court cases:

● Propoxyphene (e.g., Darvon). ■ Date, time, court of scheduled appearance. ■ Date and time the test results were determined. ■ Judge. ■ Date and time the test results were ■ Purpose of appearance. entered in the MIS. ■ Nature of charges or pending matter ■ Test results: (e.g., civil action, family court). Supporting the Drug Court Process

■ Disposition of appearance. ❐ The MIS records client’s personal commitments to avoid conflicts with sched- ■ Date and disposition of case uled drug court events and to provide information. an incentive for complying with drug ❐ The MIS records treatment appoint- court appointments. ments and dispositions: ■ Date and time scheduled. Program Monitoring Checklist ❐ The MIS provides aggregate data and ■ Failure to appear—excused. generates summary reports about ■ Failure to appear—not excused. program participants. ❐ The MIS records scheduled community ❐ The MIS provides aggregate data and service: generates summary reports about program performance. ■ Total number of hours required. ❐ The MIS periodically generates reports ■ Date by which community service that answer the following questions: requirement must be satisfied. ■ What attributes of the drug court ■ Date, time, number of hours participant population correspond scheduled. to characteristics of the court’s ■ Entity and location. planned target population? ■ Contact name and telephone ■ How many clients are enrolled? number of person who can verify. 44 ■ What is the average and mean ■ Appointment kept. duration of client enrollment in the program? ■ Number of hours completed. ■ How many males and females are ■ Cumulative number of community enrolled? service hours completed. ■ What is the ethnic breakdown of ■ Failed to appear. the client population? ❐ The MIS records supervisory case ● African-American. management contacts (e.g., probation supervision): ● Hispanic/Latino.

■ Date, time, location of scheduled ● Asian/Pacific Islander. supervision. ● Native American. ■ Failed to appear—excused. ● Alaska Native. ■ Failed to appear—not excused. ● Caucasian. ■ Could not be located. ● Other______. ❐ The MIS records drug court law ■ How many clients had felony enforcement liaison contacts: charges when referred to the drug ■ Date, time, location of contact. court? ■ Could not be located. Operational Drug Court

■ How many clients had misdemeanor ■ What is the total number of arrests charges when referred to the drug since program inception? court? ● Number of drug offenses. ■ What is the criminal history profile ● Number of nondrug felony of the client population (number arrests. of clients categorized by number of prior felony convictions, prior ● Number of nondrug misde- felony arrests, prior misdemeanor meanor arrests. convictions, and prior misdemeanor ● Number of domestic abuse arrests)? arrests. ■ Is drug testing being performed as ■ What is the total number of arrests envisioned in the plan for the of the current program population? court? ● Number of drug offenses. ● Frequency of testing. ● Number of nondrug felony ● Cumulative and average number arrests. of tests of the client population. ● Number of nondrug misde- ● Types of tests conducted. meanor arrests. ■ To what extent is the combination ● Number of domestic abuse of judicial supervision and treat- arrests. ment successfully retaining partici- 45 pants in the program? ■ Is the drug court having a beneficial impact on the life circumstances of ● Percentage and number of participants? eligible clients enrolled in the program. ● Percentage of clients employed.

● Number of graduates. ● Percentage of clients enrolled in school. ● Number of clients voluntarily separated from the program ● Percentage of clients enrolled in since its inception. job training.

● Average duration of program par- ● Number of drug-free babies ticipation before voluntary sepa- born to clients since program ration from the program. inception.

● Number of voluntary program ● Number of clients regaining separations by program phase. custody of children since program inception. ● Number of clients involuntarily separated from the program since its inception. ■ Have active program participants been arrested on new charges? V. Evaluation

valuation is an essen- be identified and answers will be E tial tool for developing, understood. managing, modifying, 47 ■ Data collection within the MIS not only sustaining, and justify- supports day-to-day operations, but ing a drug court program. An objective eval- also is designed with evaluation utility uation that addresses stakeholder questions in mind. and concerns will help secure funds, win community support, and facilitate the pas- ■ Data are collected in a format the eval- sage of legislation. Several types of evalua- uator can use; the data do not have tions are commonly employed to assess the to be converted to another format or operational effectiveness and success of drug manually manipulated. court programs. These include process and outcome evaluations. Comprehensive quali- DCPO Implementation Grants ty evaluations are frequently beyond the DCPO implementation grant recipients are expertise of the drug team. An outside evalu- required to conduct both a process evalua- ator familiar with the evaluation process, tion and an outcome evaluation and to col- criminal justice, and treatment can be an lect and maintain the key data necessary invaluable asset. Although the cost of evalu- to support both types of evaluations.32 In ation depends on many factors and varies their applications, grant applicants must widely, costs generally are minimized when include an MIS plan that, among other ■ The evaluator is identified and consult- things, encompasses methods for collected early enough to participate in the ing, storing, and maintaining adequate data planning of the drug court. The sooner to support the drug court’s operations and the evaluator is engaged, the more its process and outcome evaluations.33 likely it is that key questions will Supporting the Drug Court Process

Process or Operations Outcome or Impact Evaluation Evaluation The outcome or impact evaluation primari- The process or operations evaluation, ly assesses the effect of the drug court pro- which typically builds on program monitor- gram on the lives of participants after they ing, carefully documents how the program leave the program, as compared with out- is currently operating and contrasts that comes associated with more traditional jus- with how it was intended to operate. This tice processing. (Lifestyle changes of active assessment chronicles the history of pro- clients may also be considered in an evalu- gram development and changes over time ation.) At the core of these evaluations are and identifies the specific elements of the changes in criminal involvement, recidi- program, including participant characteris- vism, and substance abuse and progress tics, program services, and the extent to toward a positive lifestyle. This evaluation which services are matched with and used process allows drug courts to determine by participants. Questions answered by the and report the extent to which graduates— process evaluation include and often offenders who are still active in the program—have progressed toward pro- ■ Is the drug court program meeting its gram goals and objectives and also to judge planned operational and administrative the effectiveness of various services for the goals? population served. This type of evaluation ■ Is the program serving the intended takes a long-term view, as compared with target population? the relatively short-term view of a process evaluation or ongoing program monitoring. ■ Do screening and assessment proce- 48 dures yield the optimal number of can- Much of the information that is critical for didates without introducing unfair or conducting both process and impact evalu- inappropriate exclusions? ations is collected and routinely entered into the MIS as part of documenting tasks ■ Is the provision of services consistent and decisions in the areas of program eligi- with the needs of program participants? bility, screening, assessment, ongoing case A process evaluation may be broader in management, and, most importantly, pro- scope and answer many other questions. gram monitoring. In short, nothing may be For example, one of the underlying goals out of bounds when trying to draw conclu- established early in the planning process sions about how things are working and might be that creating a drug court will how well they are working. Policymakers, benefit calendars in other court areas and legislators, funding sources, court adminis- facilitate better use of courtroom space. A trators, drug court team members, and primary objective of the process evaluation community advisory and other interested is to look at whether the drug court pro- public groups may all have questions about gram is meeting its goals—the very goals the effectiveness of the drug court program. that determine the framework for the As these concerns are identified, it may process evaluation. Program records, as be appropriate to lay the foundation for a recorded in the MIS, play an important role response through the design or subsequent in the process evaluation. However, the modification of the MIS. evaluation may include other components, As with process evaluation, early identifica- such as direct observation of program serv- tion and involvement of the evaluator are ices, surveys, and interviews of stakehold- important for outcome evaluations. The ers, clients, and staff. Evaluation evaluator can help to ensure that the MIS The drug court MIS, because it documents is optimized for the planned evaluation and an array of activities, is especially useful in can also focus on the source of information identifying program elements amenable to that will be needed. For instance, there are cost analysis and determining whether their various definitions of recidivism and multi- costs are above those usually experienced ple sources of data relevant to recidivism. when defendants are processed without a If the research design intends to use FBI drug court option. In this way, analysts can reports to track participants’ arrest activi- identify costs that are unique to the drug ties during and after program enrollment, court program and that, when added the MIS database should include each together, constitute the program’s total offender’s FBI identification number. If this price. The MIS provides documentation of research is to be limited to or supplement- arrests, improved job skills, employment, ed by information from the agency that enhanced education, and improved health houses the State’s criminal records reposi- and family circumstances. From this infor- tory, the fingerprint-based State identifica- mation, analysts can extrapolate diverse tion number should be included in the sources of fiscal savings or revenue genera- database. tion. For example, reduced use of health care services, increased legal earnings and Cost Analysis tax revenues, decreased need for public support, and reduced use of child welfare Perhaps the most fundamental considera- and foster care services all imply quantifi- tion in determining whether a drug court able fiscal benefits for the community. program merits sustained or increased funding is an economic analysis that con- 49 trasts costs and benefits. What is the mone- Drug Court Grantee Data tary cost per program participant per year? Collection Survey How does this compare with the presumed Prior to March 15, 2002, all recipients of costs for probation or incarceration and the grants awarded by DCPO were required to societal costs associated with crime, poor submit the grantee data collection survey health, and other consequences of contin- on a semiannual basis “to ensure that ued drug use? Key to effective cost-benefit grantees are collecting critical information analysis is a clear understanding of the about their drug court programs for evalua- question or questions to be answered. For tion purposes and to assist in the national example, the information needed to analyze evaluation of drug courts.”34 The survey a drug court program’s overall costs and instrument expired in March 2002; there- benefits for a local jurisdiction is quite dif- fore, grantees no longer need to submit this ferent from the information needed when data collection survey to DCPO. The latest the analysis is limited to the perspective of survey is presented in appendix 3 as an the judicial branch. example of a minimum data set that may be useful to drug court programs. Appendix 1

Sample Consent Form for Disclosure of 51 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. Supporting the Drug Court Process

SAMPLE CONSENT 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 of jurisdiction, (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 eligibility and/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 reports concerning 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 and effective termination of my involvement with the drug court for the case named above, such as the discontinuation of all court (and/or, where relevant, probation) supervision upon my successful completion of the drug court requirements or 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 governs the confidentiality of substance abuse patient (or client) records, and that recipients of this information may redisclose it only in connection with their official duties. 52

Date Signature of Defendant

Signature of parent, guardian, or representative (if required) Appendix 1

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 into a 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 Osborne Treatment Services, Inc. Furthermore, PIONEER 1) acknowledges that in receiving, storing, processing, or otherwise dealing with any information from OSBORNE about any client of OSBORNE, past or present, PIONEER and all of its agents and assigns are fully bound by the provisions of the Federal laws and regulations governing the confidentiality of Drug and Alcohol Abuse Patient Records (42 United 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 to any OSBORNE client otherwise than as expressly provided for in the Federal confidentiality regulations (42 CFR Part 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 Officer PIONEER CLAIM MANAGEMENT OSBORNE TREATMENT SERVICES, INC. 195 Lake Louise Marie Road 809 Westchester Avenue Rock Hill, NY 12775 Bronx, NY 10455 Supporting the Drug Court Process

PARISH OF RAPIDES, STATE OF LOUISIANA INTERGOVERNMENTAL 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 in Alexandria, Rapides Parish, Louisiana (hereinafter referred to as “PARISH”), acting through Donald Wilmore, duly elected President of the Rapides Parish Police Jury; and (2) The NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, a constitutional political subdivision of the State of Louisiana, domiciled in the Parish of Rapides (hereinafter referred to as “DISTRICT COURT”), acting by and through B. Dexter Ryland, Chief District Judge; and (3) The NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT ATTORNEY, a constitutional political subdivision of the State of Louisiana, domiciled in the Parish of Rapides (hereinafter referred to as “DISTRICT ATTORNEY”) acting by and through the duly elected Ninth Judicial 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 means of 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 pursuant to Grant number 98–DC–VX–0113 from the U.S. Department of Justice; 54 WHEREAS, the DISTRICT ATTORNEY and the DISTRICT COURT have agreed to participate in the operation of the DRUG COURT and to provide in-kind services for the above named grant, along with in-kind services from the Rapides Parish Clerk of Court, Rapides Parish Public Defender’s Office and the Department of Public Safety and Corrections, Division of Probation and Parole and the State of Louisiana, Department of Health and Hospitals, Office for Addictive Disorders, for the above named grant; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that all parties named above, in conformity with La. R. S. 33:1321, et seq., hereby enter 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, Public Defender’s Office, Department of Public Safety and Corrections, Division of Probation and Parole and the State of Louisiana, Department of Health and Hospitals, Office for Addictive Disorders, all other employees hired to provide services under this agreement and pursuant to grant funds shall be employees of the PARISH. Appendix 1

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 rules and regulations of the U.S. Department of Justice Grant # 98–DC–VX–0113, including but not limited to all necessary reports, documents, and records of any kind so required thereby. The DRUG COURT, prior to seeking reimbursement from the PARISH for funds the PARISH acts as fiscal agent, shall certify that all of its operational expenditures are in compliance 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) shall be assessed $30.00 per month for probation supervision/drug screening fees that will be collected by the DRUG COURT administrator 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 but not limited to office expenses, educational and training materials, training expenses, drug testing expenses, counselor certification, etc. In seeking payment, the DISTRICT COURT shall certify in writing that the requested expense is a legitimate 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 probation supervision/drug screening fund shall be continued to be maintained in this separate account and used solely for the psychiatric/psychological/family counseling diagnosis or testing of substance abuse or mental illness/disorders requested by any civil, criminal, or juvenile division of the Ninth Judicial District Court. The District Court sitting en blanc, 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 55 ______BY:______DONALD WILMORE ______President, Rapides Parish Police Jury Supporting the Drug Court Process

______NOTARY PUBLIC WITNESSES: STATE OF LOUISIANA ______BY:______CHARLES F. WAGNER ______District Attorney, Rapides Parish ______NOTARY PUBLIC WITNESSES: NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT ______BY:______B. DEXTER RYLAND ______Chief District Judge, Ninth District 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, District Attorney (DA); the Rapides Parish Public Defender’s Office (PD), through Kenneth Rodenbeck, Director, and the Ninth 56 Judicial District Court, through B. Dexter Ryland, Chief Judge, who agree that the following procedures will apply to all cases 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 or privileged 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, and in appropriate cases (e) the Notice of Intent to Introduce Scientific Evidence as provided by La. R. S. 15:499.1, with attached lab report. (2) Upon receipt of the above, the arraigning PD shall sign a joint stipulation on a form approved by the Court which states that this information will satisfy the defendant’s Motion for Discovery and Inspection under C.Cr.P. articles 716–723, the Motion for Bill of Particulars under La. C.Cr.P. article 484–485 and the Motion for Preliminary Examination as provided by Louisiana Constitution Article I, Section 14 and La. C.Cr.P. articles 291–298. However, the PD reserves the right to file motions for the Court to determine the sufficiency of the State’s response and any other motions provided by law. (3) After the State of Louisiana has complied with the above discovery requirements at arraignment, the following delays 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 paragraph 3(a) above; (c) All pretrial motions shall be set for hearing on the motion date [Monday] for Division “X” cases closest to the defendant’s trial date; (d) The pretrial conference shall be set on the Division “X” pretrial date [Wednesday] closest to the defendant’s trial date. Unless excused by the Court, the defendant shall be present at the pretrial conference and after the pretrial, the public defender shall discuss with the defendant the matters discussed at the pretrial conference, the sentence the defendant will receive upon a plea of guilty to the charge, and determine if the defendant desires Appendix 1

to enter a plea of guilty or proceed to trial. The Public Defender’s appearance before the Court will not be excused 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’s trial 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 sentence which 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 strategy would dictate otherwise. In those cases, the DA shall provide to the PD at arraignment a written notice of: (a) the DA’s refusal to enter into informal discovery as outlined above and (b) a request for the defendant to file formal discovery motions as provided by law. (5) The Court shall adopt a Division “X” calendar in compliance with this Memorandum of Understanding and distribute it 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 without bond, 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 by any person being screened for Drug Court eligibility or any person who has entered a plea of guilty to a criminal charge 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, shall not be revealed to any person or as evidence in a pending case against the client being screened; however, the screening counselor shall inform the Court, the defense attorney, and the District Attorney of the results of their examination 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 to file new charges of possession of a controlled dangerous substance but can be used by the Court in imposing 57 sanctions 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, maintained 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 the Rapides Parish Public Defense Office may subject the attorney to the penalties as provided by La. C.Cr.P. article 16, et seq or La. C.Cr.P. article 729.5. Alexandria, Louisiana, this______day of______, 1999.

STATE OF LOUISIANA RAPIDES PARISH PUBLIC DEFENDER

BY:______BY:______CHARLES F. WAGNER KENNETH RODENBECK District Attorney Director

NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

BY:______B. DEXTER RYLAND Chief District Judge Appendix 2

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

* Excerpted from DCPO’s Fiscal Year 2002 Program Application Kit. Supporting the Drug Court Process

Evaluation and Management be collected, maintained, and integrated Information System Plan into existing automated systems. (8–12 pages) 4. Discuss plans for data sharing agree- Grant recipients are required to conduct ments with treatment service providers and both a process and an outcome evaluation, other agencies. Please note that all appli- and to collect and maintain the key data cants are expected to adhere to applicable necessary to support both types of evalua- local, State, and Federal confidentiality tions. Grant recipients are required to sub- guidelines and requirements regarding mit a final evaluation and/or MIS plan prior treatment program records. to accessing funding for these activities. See page 60 [of DCPO’s Fiscal Year 2002 Pro- Process Evaluation gram Application Kit] regarding Human The data collection plan must enable the Subject Testing and Information Technology drug court to summarize its basic opera- requirements. tions and services delivery, client characteristics, and treatment outcomes. Applicants must identify the independent evaluator who will assist the drug court in 1. Describe how the evaluation will conducting the process and outcome evalu- include both qualitative and quantitative ations. If the evaluator has not been identi- information. fied, describe the steps the drug court will 2. Describe the minimum data set that will take to solicit and select the evaluator, and be used (see appendix D for suggestions [in how the drug court will work with the eval- DCPO’s Fiscal Year 2002 Program Applica- uator to design the data collection process, tion Kit]) and how it will allow the drug 60 collect and maintain the data, analyze the court to describe the target population, the data, and prepare evaluation reports. Fol- screening and assessment process, intake lowing is some specific guidance regarding flow, sanctions and incentives, drug test information which must be included in this results, in-program rearrests, number of sta- section of your application. tus hearings, failure and completion rates, services delivered, and referrals made. MIS Plan 3. Provide information on how the MIS will 1. Describe the methods planned for collect- be flexible enough to allow the evaluator to ing, storing, and maintaining adequate data analyze the following by participant char- to support the drug court’s operations as well acteristics and other factors: program serv- as the process and outcome evaluations. ices received, drug test results, in-program 2. Describe the nature of the planned MIS, rearrests, length of time in the program, including staffing, hardware and software, sanctions and rewards, number of court standardized data collection forms, sched- hearings, and completion rates. ules of data entry, routine reports, quality 4. Describe the specific data elements to assurance procedures, and statistical analy- be collected and analyzed for the process sis capabilities. evaluation, and how these data will be used 3. Discuss how data related to court opera- for program operation and management. tions, individual participant characteristics The Drug Court Grantee Data Collection and behaviors, and treatment services will Survey (see appendix 3) can be used as a starting point to identify these data elements. Appendix D (Process Evaluations Appendix 2 and MIS)(see DCPO’s Fiscal Year 2002 employment and earnings, health care, Program Application Kit), also contains drug treatment participation, etc.) is useful information to guide the develop- strongly encouraged (but not required) ment of a proposed data collection plan. and should be described if available. 5. Describe how the process evaluation will 2. Describe the sources of data on rearrests assist the drug court in assessing the effec- and other outcome measures, and how these tiveness of its operations and ability to meet measures will be defined. It is recommended its goals and objectives, and how the find- that individual rather than aggregate out- ings could be used to change and improve come data be collected and maintained. The the court’s operations. Drug Court Grantee Data Collection Survey (see appendix 3) can be used as a starting The process plan should incorporate meas- point to identify these data elements. urable program goals and objectives. Ex- amples include number and type of target 3. Identify and justify a comparison group population screened and admitted, program for measuring the relative change in post- completion rates, average time in program program recidivism outcome measures. (or 1-year retention rates, cohort-based), The comparison group should be as similar percentage of drug tests that are negative, as possible to the drug court participants. percentage of participants rearrested dur- 4. Describe the procedures for collecting ing program participation, amount and comparison group data on court process- type of services received, and percentage ing, individual characteristics, rearrests, of participants employed after 1 year. and other outcome measures if available. Outcome Evaluation 5. Describe the specific data elements to 61 A feasible plan for collecting and analyzing be collected and analyzed for the outcome the impact of the drug court on 1-year post- evaluation, and how these data will be used program recidivism outcomes is required. for program operation and management. 1. Describe the plan for collecting data on 6. Describe how the outcome evaluation rearrests, reconviction, and/or reincarcera- will assist the drug court in assessing the tion for a period of 1 year following drug effectiveness of its operations, and how court completion (or dropout). Applicants the findings could be used to change and are encouraged to consider the collection improve the court’s operations. of recidivism data for longer than a 1-year postprogram period. In addition, the 7. Describe the products expected from identification of sources of data for other the evaluation. postprogram outcomes (such as drug use, Appendix 3

Drug Court Grantee 63 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 of a minimum data set that may be useful to drug court programs. Supporting the Drug Court Process

Drug Court Grantee Reporting Drug Court Grantee Data Collection Survey Requirements To ensure that grant recipients are collect- All recipients of Drug Courts Program Office ing critical information about their drug grants are required to submit the following court programs for evaluation purposes and reports: to assist in the national evaluation of drug courts, grant recipients that receive funds to Financial Status Reports (SF 269A) implement or enhance a drug court are Financial status reports (SF 269A) are due required to submit the Drug Court Grantee quarterly on the 45th day following the end Data Collection Survey on a semiannual of each calendar quarter. A report must be basis. The survey periods run January 1 submitted every quarter the award is through June 30 and July 1 through Decem- active, even if there has been no financial ber 31. The surveys are due 60 days after activity during the reporting period. The the end of the report period; that is, no later final report is due 120 days after the end than August 31 and February 28, respective- date of the award. The Office of the Comp- ly. These data will capture baseline informa- troller will provide a copy of this form in tion on both drug courts and defendants. the initial award package. Future awards NOTE: This is no longer a requirement for and fund drawdowns will be withheld if DCPO; however, the form is attached for financial status reports are delinquent. reference by jurisdictions interested in Categorical Assistance Progress Reports using it as a starting point to identify data Recipients of funding are required to submit elements. an initial and then semiannual progress Single Audit Report report. The progress reports describe activi- 64 Recipients who expend $300,000 or more ties during the reporting period and the sta- of Federal funds during their fiscal year are tus or accomplishment of objectives as set required to submit an organizationwide forth in the approved application for fund- financial and compliance audit report. The ing. Progress reports must be submitted audit must be performed in accordance within 30 days after the end of the reporting with the U.S. General Accounting Office periods, which are January 1 through June Government Auditing Standards. The audit 30 and July 1 through December 31 for the report currently is due to the Federal Audit life of the award. A final report, which pro- Clearinghouse no later than 9 months after vides a summary of progress toward achiev- the end of the recipient’s fiscal year. ing the goals and objectives of the award, significant results, and any products developed under the award, is due 120 days after the end date of the award. The Office of the Comptroller will provide a copy of this form in the initial award package. Appendix 3

65 Supporting the Drug Court Process

66 Appendix 3

67 Supporting the Drug Court Process

68 Notes

1. Drug Courts Program Office, Defining 11970.1–11970.4) require the State Judi- Drug Courts: The Key Components. (See cial Council to develop an evaluation bibliography for full citations of most design and provide the statutory authority reports listed in footnotes.) for a reporting requirement in furtherance of the evaluation design. California’s much 2. Ibid., quoting directly from pp. 10, 11, publicized proposition 36, more properly 22, 24, 30, and 37. known as the Substance Abuse and Crime 3. Barry Mahoney, Drug Court Monitoring, Prevention Act of 2000, requires an annual Evaluation, and Management Information study “of the implementation process, a Systems, p. 12. This DCPO report docu- review of lower incarceration costs, reduc- 69 ments the outcomes of focus group meet- tions in crime, reduced prison and jail con- ings on drug court MIS issues held in struction, reduced welfare costs, the March 1997 in New York, NY, and Septem- adequacy of funds appropriated, and any ber 1997 in Washington, DC, which were other impacts of issues the department can convened by The Justice Management identify” (CAL HEALTH & SAFETY CODES § Institute in cooperation with DCPO. 11999.9). Funding is also provided for a long-term study to evaluate the effective- 4. A May 2001 report by the Office of Jus- ness and financial impact of drug courts tice Programs’ Drug Court Clearinghouse (CAL HEALTH & SAFETY CODES § 11999.10). and Technical Assistance Project at The American University, titled Background 6. The report cited in supra note 4 reveals Information on State Court Administrative that in 17 States, the OCA has oversight of Office Activities in Support of Local Drug drug court evaluation activities, and in 7 Court Programs, noted that at least 10 States, the OCA has direct responsibility States are developing State-level drug court for the conduct of drug court evaluations. information systems and at least 5 States 7. 42 U.S.C. § 290dd-2, and 42 C.F.R. pt. 2. are developing information systems for local drug court programs. 8. 42 U.S.C. § 290dd-2 applies to any drug court that “holds itself out as providing, 5. For example, California’s Drug Court and provides, alcohol or drug abuse diagno- Partnership Act of 1998 (CAL HEALTH & sis, treatment or referral for treatment.” SAFETY CODES § 11970) and the Compre- hensive Drug Court Implementation Act 9. 42 C.F.R. § 2.31(a) specifies nine ele- of 1999 (CAL HEALTH & SAFETY CODES §§ ments that must be included in a written Supporting the Drug Court Process

consent (all of which are applicable to Fiscal Year 2002 Program Application Kit, criminal drug courts): pp. 62–63. The sample intergovernmental agreement and MOU are available through (1) The specific name or general designa- the Office of Justice Programs’ Drug Court tion of the program or person permitted to Clearinghouse and Technical Assistance make the disclosure. Project at The American University Web (2) The name or title of the individual or site at www.american.edu/spa/justice/ the name of the organization to which dis- publications/intgov_agr_jun.htm and closure is to be made. www.american.edu/academic.depts/spa/ justice/publications/memo_under_jun.htm. (3) The name of the patient. 11. U.S. General Accounting Office, Drug (4) The purpose of the disclosure. Courts: Overview of Growth, Characteris- (5) How much and what kind of informa- tics, and Results. tion is to be disclosed. 12. The Justice Research Center developed (6) The signature of the patient or, when A Self-Evaluation Manual and Case Man- required for a patient who is a minor, the agement System for Adult Drug Courts signature of a person authorized to give under Grant No. SJI–98–N–128 from the consent. State Justice Institute. The manual accom- panies a CD containing the Case Manage- (7) The date on which the consent is signed. ment System 2000 software, which is (8) A statement that the consent is subject available from the Justice Research Center, to revocation at any time except to the 591 Lighthouse Avenue, Suite 24, Pacific 70 extent that the program or person who is Grove, CA 93950. to make the disclosure has already acted in 13. Felix Lopez, Confidentiality of Patient reliance on it. (Note: This element should Records for Alcohol and Other Drug not be included in consent forms in crimi- Treatment. nal drug courts, but it must be included in juvenile and family drug court waivers. See 14. 42 U.S.C. §§ 290dd-3, ee-3, and 42 42 C.F.R. § 2.35.) C.F.R. pt. 2. (9) The date, event, or condition upon 15. 42 C.F.R. §§ 2.52, 2.53. which the consent will expire if not 16. See supra note 10. revoked. This date or condition must ensure that the consent will last no longer 17. Drug Courts Program Office, Fiscal than reasonably necessary to serve the Year 2002 Program Application Kit, purpose for which it is given. pp. 38–40. For more information on Federal consent 18. Ibid., pp. 111–115. requirements, see Jeffrey Tauber et al., 19. For example, TCP/IP (Transmission Federal Confidentiality Laws and How Control Protocol/Internet Protocol) com- They Affect Drug Court Practitioners, p. 9. munications protocols and browser user See also Rebecca Holland, Practical Guide interfaces. for Applying Federal Confidentiality Laws to Drug Court Operations. 20. Robert Gibson and Owen M. Greenspan, Public Domain Drug Court Software: Func- 10. The consent form and qualified service tions and Utility. organization agreement are from DCPO’s Notes

21. See supra note 12. 24. Ibid., p. 109. 22. Information from the FBI-administered 25. James A. Inciardi, Screening and Interstate Identification Index is subject to Assessment for Alcohol and Other Drug strict controls of access and secondary Abuse Among Adults in the Criminal Jus- dissemination—even between justice agen- tice System, p. 19. cies. Each State has a designated official, 26. Ibid., p. 18. typically within the State police, known as the National Crime Information Center 27. For a more complete discussion of Control Terminal Officer, who should be the assessment process and the various consulted on issues involving access and techniques and instruments that may be dissemination of information from the employed, see Roger H. Peters and Eliza- national system. Every State has an agency beth Peyton, Guideline for Drug Courts that serves as a central repository for crim- on Screening and Assessment, and the inal records information and can assist in following reports published by the Center resolving questions associated with access for Substance Abuse Treatment: James A. and dissemination of information from the Inciardi, Screening and Assessment for State’s criminal records database. Both the Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse Among Interstate Identification Index and State Adults in the Criminal Justice System, and central repository are based on fingerprint- Ken C. Winters and Jonathan M. Zenilman, based arrest information. Some jurisdic- Simple Screening Instruments for Out- tions will choose to rely on a statewide reach for Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse court-administered database. On the local and Infectious Diseases. level, police and court records may be the 28. For a detailed discussion of the rela- 71 primary source of criminal information tionship between psychiatric disorders and about a program candidate or participant. alcohol and other drug use problems, see 23. Page 107 of DCPO’s Fiscal Year 2002 Richard K. Reis, Assessment and Treat- Program Application Kit describes the ment of Patients with Coexisting Mental term “violent offender” as a person who Illness and Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse. either (1) is charged with or convicted of 29. See supra note 25. an offense, during the course of which offense or conduct (A) the person carried, 30. Ibid. possessed, or used a firearm or dangerous 31. Staffings are drug court team meetings weapon, (B) there occurred the death of, at which individual participant progress is or serious bodily injury to, any person, reviewed and possible sanctions, incen- or (C) there occurred the use of force tives, and rewards are discussed. against the person of another, without regard to whether any of the circumstances 32. Drug Courts Program Office, Fiscal described in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) Year 2002 Program Application Kit, p. 38. is an element of the offense or conduct of which or for which the person is charged 33. See appendix 2 for additional informa- or convicted; or (2) has one or more prior tion on application requirements relating convictions of a felony crime of violence to evaluation. involving the use or attempted use of force 34. Drug Courts Program Office, Fiscal against a person with the intent to cause Year 2002 Program Application Kit, p. 111. death or serious bodily harm. Bibliography

Published Materials SEARCH, The National Consortium for Steven Belenko. “Research on Drug Courts: Justice Information and Statistics, Wash- A Critical Review.” National Drug Court ington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Institute Review, Volume I, Issue I. Alexan- Office of Justice Programs, Drug Courts dria, VA: National Drug Court Institute, Program Office, 2002. Summer 1998. Rebecca Holland. Practical Guide for Steven Belenko. Research on Drug Courts: Applying Federal Confidentiality Laws to A Critical Review, 2001 Update. New York, Drug Court Operations. NCJ 176977. NY: National Center on Addiction and Sub- Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Jus- 73 stance Abuse at Columbia University, June tice, Office of Justice Programs, Drug 2001. Courts Program Office, June 1999. Drug Courts Program Office, Office of Jus- James A. Inciardi, Consensus Panel Chair. tice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Screening and Assessment for Alcohol Defining Drug Courts: The Key Compo- and Other Drug Abuse Among Adults in nents. Prepared in collaboration with the the Criminal Justice System. Treatment National Association of Drug Court Profes- Improvement Protocol (TIP) Series, #7. sionals, Drug Court Standards Committee. DHHS Pub. No. (SMA) 94B2076. Rockville, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Jus- MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human tice, January 1997. Services, Center for Substance Abuse Treatment, 1994. Drug Courts Program Office, Office of Jus- tice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Susan M. Jennen. Privacy and Public Fiscal Year 2002 Program Application Kit. Access to Electronic Court Information: A SL 000495. Washington, DC: U.S. Depart- Guide to Policy Decisions for State Courts. ment of Justice. (Note: Grant solicitations Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State and application kits are available each fiscal Courts, 1995. year at the DCPO Web site at www.ojp. Robert A. Kirchner, Ph.D. A Realistic usdoj.gov/dcpo/applicationkits.htm.) Approach to Drug Court Evaluation. Pre- Robert Gibson and Owen M. Greenspan. sentation given at the National Association Public Domain Drug Court Software: of Drug Court Professionals’ Fifth Annual Functions and Utility. Sacramento, CA: Training Conference, June 3–5, 1999, in Supporting the Drug Court Process

Miami, FL. Dr. Kirchner is Senior Advisor DHHS Pub. No. (SMA) 95–3061. Rockville, for Evaluation, Bureau of Justice Assist- MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human ance, U.S. Department of Justice. Services, Center for Substance Abuse Treatment, 1994. Felix Lopez. Confidentiality of Patient Records for Alcohol and Other Drug John Roman, Jennifer Woodard, Adele Har- Treatment. Technical Assistance Publica- rell, and Stacia Riggs. A Methodology for tion Series, #13. DHHS Pub. No. (SMA) Measuring Costs and Benefits of Court- 95–3018. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department Based Drug Intervention Programs Using of Health and Human Services, Center for Findings from Experimental and Quasi- Substance Abuse Treatment, 1994. Experimental Evaluations. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute, December 1998. Barry Mahoney. Drug Court Monitoring, Evaluation, and Management Information Kevin M. Sherin and Barry Mahoney, Con- Systems. Prepared by The Justice Manage- sensus Panel Cochairs. Treatment Drug ment Institute. Washington, DC: U.S. Courts: Integrating Substance Abuse Department of Justice, Office of Justice Treatment with Legal Case Processing. Programs, Drug Courts Program Office, TIP Series, #23. DHHS Pub. No. (SMA) May 1998. 96–3113. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Center for National Institute of Justice, Office of Jus- Substance Abuse Treatment, 1996. tice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. 1999 Annual Report on Drug Use Among Jeffrey Tauber, Susan Weinstein, and David Adult and Juvenile Arrestees. A report of Taube. Federal Confidentiality Laws and 74 the Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring Pro- How They Affect Drug Court Practitioners. gram. NCJ 181426. Washington, DC: U.S. Alexandria, VA: National Drug Court Insti- Department of Justice, June 2000. tute, April 1999. Roger H. Peters. Evaluating Drug Court U.S. General Accounting Office. Drug Programs: An Overview of Issues and Courts: Overview of Growth, Characteris- Alternative Strategies. Washington DC: tics, and Results. GAO/GGD–07–106. The American University, School of Public Washington, DC: U.S. General Accounting Affairs, Justice Programs Office, March Office, July 1997. 1996. Gerald L. Vigdal. Planning for Alcohol and Roger H. Peters and Elizabeth Peyton. Other Drug Abuse Treatment for Adults in Guideline for Drug Courts on Screening the Criminal Justice System. TIP Series, and Assessment. Prepared for the Justice #17. DHHS Pub. No. (SMA) 95–3039. Programs Office, School of Public Affairs, Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health The American University, in association and Human Services, Center for Substance with the Drug Courts Program Office, Abuse Treatment, 1995. Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Depart- Ken C. Winters and Jonathan M. Zenilman, ment of Justice. Washington, DC: U.S. Consensus Panel Cochairs. Simple Screen- Department of Justice, May 1998. ing Instruments for Outreach for Alcohol Richard K. Reis, Consensus Panel Chair. and Other Drug Abuse and Infectious Assessment and Treatment of Patients Diseases. TIP Series, #11. DHHS Pub. No. with Coexisting Mental Illness and Alcohol (SMA) 95–3058. Rockville, MD: U.S. and Other Drug Abuse. TIP Series, #9. Department of Health and Human Services, Bibliography

Center for Substance Abuse Treatment, San Diego (CA) Municipal Court Drug 1994. Court. “Program Data Sheet.” Washington/Baltimore High Intensity Drug Unpublished Materials Trafficking Area HATTS. “HIDTA Automat- Brooklyn (NY) Treatment Court. “Treat- ed Treatment Tracking System Training ment and Supervision Structure” (revised Guide.” January 5, 1998). Buffalo (NY) Drug Treatment Court. “Policy Electronic and Online Sources and Procedures Manual” (draft, 1998). Buffalo/Jacksonville Drug Courts. “Drug Court Data Management Information Buffalo (NY) Drug Treatment Court. System–99.” “Process Evaluation” (interim report, February 1999). Center for Court Innovation. “Brooklyn Treatment Court System.” 1999. Escambia County (FL) Family Focused www.drugcourttech.org. Juvenile Drug Court. “Program Description.” Justice Research Center. “Case Manage- Jacksonville (FL) Juvenile Drug Court. ment System 2000.” “Program Description.” Office of Justice Programs Drug Court Justice Programs Office, School of Public Clearinghouse and Technical Assistance Affairs, The American University. “Guide- Project at the Justice Programs Office, line for Compiling Information Relevant to School of Public Affairs, The American Drug Court Program Management and Eval- University. “Parish of Rapides, State of uation.” 75 Louisiana, Intergovernmental Agreement” Los Angeles County (CA) Criminal Justice and “Memorandum of Understanding- Coordination Committee, Drug Court Over- Ninth Judicial District Court Drug Court sight Subcommittee. “Drug Court Program Division: Parish of Rapides, Louisiana.” Standards & Practices” (version 4.1, Febru- www.american.edu/spa/justice/publications. ary 17, 1998). “South Florida High Intensity Drug Jan Roehl and Kristin Guertin. “A Self- Trafficking Area: Treatment Automated Evaluation Manual and Case Management Referral System (TARS) and Judicial System for Adult Drug Courts.” Justice Access Management System (JAMS).” Research Center (March 2000). www.drugcourttech.org. San Bernardino County (CA) Drug Court. “Participant Handbook” (revised November 4, 1997). Bureau of Justice Assistance Information

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

❒ Mail ❒ BJA Home Page P.O. Box 6000 www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA Rockville, MD 20849Ð6000 ❒ NCJRS Home Page ❒ Visit www.ncjrs.org 2277 Research Boulevard Rockville, MD 20850 ❒ E-mail [email protected] ❒ Telephone 1Ð800Ð688Ð4252 ❒ JUSTINFO Newsletter Monday through Friday E-mail to [email protected] 8:30 a.m. to 7 p.m. Leave the subject line blank eastern time In the body of the message, type: ❒ Fax subscribe justinfo 301Ð519Ð5212 [your name]