Reports to the Twenty-Fourth Legislature

REPORTS TO THE TWENTY-FOURTH LEGISLATURE

SUBMITTED BY THE

OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTOR OF THE COURTS

THE JUDICIARY, STATE OF HAWAI#I

DECEMBER 2007 TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. Act 232, Session Laws of Hawai#i 1994, HRS §607-3.6

Report on the Spouse and Child Abuse Special Account, including an accounting of the receipts of and expenditures from the account.

II. Act 274, Session Laws of Hawai#i 1997, HRS §607-5.6

Report on the Parent Education Special Fund, including an accounting of all deposits into and expenditures from the fund.

III. Act 162, Session Laws of Hawai#i 2002, HRS §577-7.5

Report on Parental Preferences in Government contracts.

IV. Act 169, Session Laws of Hawai#i 2007, Section 7

Report on the Interagency Council on Intermediate Sanctions: providing a breakdown of expenditures and treatment services provided, costs incurred and treatment outcomes, results of evaluation performed, and analysis of the effectiveness of the project.

V. Act 169, Session Laws of Hawai#i 2007, Sections 8, 9, and 10

Report on the use of monies for medically targeted substance abuse treatment for drug addicted offenders - integrated approach supervised by physicians.

VI. Act 169, Session Laws of Hawai#i 2007, Section 11

Report on all revenues and expenditures from the court interpreting services revolving fund.

VII. Act 169, Session Laws of Hawai#i 2007, Section 12

Report on the status of implementation of the court interpreter program, including a detailed evaluation of services provided and effectiveness of the program.

VIII. Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 175, Regular Session 2007

Progress report of the Judiciary in meeting the requirements of Act 206, Session Laws of Hawai#i 1998, relating to the collection of crime victim compensation fees. ANNUAL REPORT TO THE TWENTY-FOURTH LEGISLATURE

ACT 232 SESSION LAWS OF HAWAI#I 1994

A Report on Spouse and Child Abuse Special Account

Submitted by:

Office of the Administrative Director of the Courts The Judiciary, State of Hawai#i

December 2007 SPOUSE AND CHILD ABUSE SPECIAL ACCOUNT

The Spouse and Child Abuse Special Account, placed in the Judiciary, was created in 1994 by the Legislature, State of Hawai#i, for the purposes of developing and/or expanding new and existing programs. The scope may include, but is not limited to, grants or purchase of services which support or provide domestic violence or child abuse intervention or prevention, as authorized by law, and staff programs, as well.

The Judiciary’s Special Account is financed through a portion of the monies collected from the issuance of birth, death, and marriage certificates. In addition, any fines collected pursuant to Hawai#i Revised Statutes Chapter 586-11 (Violation for an Order for Protection) and contributions from state tax refunds are deposited into the Special Account.

PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES FUNDED THROUGH THE SPOUSE AND CHILD ABUSE SPECIAL ACCOUNT

Monies from the Judiciary’s Special Account provided a broad range of programs, projects and activities statewide, which addressed the intervention and/or prevention of domestic violence and child abuse. The process of determining which services, programs and activities received priority funding involved internal planning and collaboration of the Judiciary, both internally, as well as coordination with other private and public stakeholders in the community.

A total of $434,025 was spent in Fiscal Year (FY) 2006-2007. The annual ceiling on expenditures, as determined by the Legislature is $500,000 per fiscal year.

The programs, projects and activities funded by the Special Account include the following:

PURCHASE OF SERVICES:

The following nonprofit organizations received funding to provide or supplement their contracted services with the Judiciary:

i Catholic Charities Hawai#i Assessment and specialized treatment services were provided to juveniles adjudicated for sexual offending in the First Circuit (island of O#ahu) and in the Third Circuit (island of Hawai#i).

i Child and Family Service The Developing Options to Violence Program in the First Circuit provided intervention services to juveniles adjudicated for abuse of a family or household member, or involved in intimate partner violence.

i Domestic Violence Clearinghouse and Legal Hotline Additional advocacy services were provided to victims of intimate partner violence, in the First Circuit, who filed petitions for temporary restraining orders and orders of protection. Services included assessments, information and referrals, development of safety plans, and accompaniment in court proceedings. i Island of Hawi#i YMCA Supervised child visitation/exchange services for families involved in domestic violence and/or high conflict cases were provided through the YMCA’s Family Visitation Center in East Hawai#i.

i Parents and Children Together Supervised child visitation/exchange services for families involved in domestic violence and/or high conflict cases were provided at the Family Visitation Centers in the First Circuit, Second Circuit (island of Maui), and the Fifth Circuit (island of Kaua#i) during this fiscal period. The majority of cases were referred by the Judiciary.

i YWCA of Kaua#i Funds were used to augment services to offenders convicted of domestic abuse, sentenced to probation in the Fifth Circuit and mandated to attend treatment.

FEDERAL GRANT PROJECTS

Matching funds from the Special Account were used for the two federally funded grant projects described below:

i State Access and Visitation Program Grant was awarded to the Judiciary by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and provided supervised child visitations and exchanges in a safe and neutral setting. Services were provided on the islands of O#ahu and Hawai#i, with priority given to court referred families involved in domestic violence and/or high conflict situations. Parents were involved in a range of court filings, including domestic abuse, protection orders, divorce, paternity, or child support. Matching funds in excess of the required 10% were provided in response to the high volume of these services requested.

i STOP Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) Grant from the U.S. Department of Justice and administered by the state of Hawai#i, Department of the Attorney General, was awarded to the Judiciary. The required 25% state match was taken from the Special Account. This VAWA grant was used during the past fiscal year to permit the continuance of Family Visitation Centers on the islands of Maui and Kaua#i. The Centers provided supervised child visitation services. These two Centers had previously been funded through another Federal grant, and were left with a period of approximately six (6) months to wait before the next funding cycle could resume. Without the use of funds from the Judiciary’s VAWA grant, these two sites would have had to close for several months, thus leaving the families on Maui and Kaua#i without any supervised visitation services.

TRAINING/MEETINGS, ETC.

During FY 2006-2007, the Special Account made it possible for staff and others in the community to participate in intra-state and inter-state training on a range of subjects such as foster care, domestic violence, child custody and domestic violence, and supervised child visitation services and issues.

Publications on domestic violence were also purchased through the Special Account. Monies were also used to cover expenses to conduct a site visit of grant funded activities and to participate in a multi-disciplinary program evaluation of a domestic violence offender program on the island of Hawai#i.

COLLABORATION

A committee composed of domestic violence advocacy organizations, the Department of Human Services, Child Welfare Services Branch, and the Judiciary have been meeting for approximately three years to promote systems’ collaboration and networking, and improve outcomes for victims of domestic violence and their children, who are involved in the child abuse and neglect cases. The Judiciary’s Special Account funds were used to hire a facilitator to assist the committee in developing strategy and planning.

CONSULTATION

Consultation services from Lee Stein, MSW, CSAC, a private consultant in Hawai#i, with expertise in domestic violence, substance abuse, Motivational Interviewing, and other areas, were obtained to assist the Judiciary. She continued the work initiated in the previous fiscal year to provide the contracted domestic violence batterers intervention service programs with technical assistance in curriculum development. In addition, on-site classes in Motivational Interviewing were conducted for all Judiciary contracted programs that worked with domestic violence batterers.

SUMMARY

The Judiciary’s Spouse and Child Abuse Account is a major impetus in enabling the Judiciary to continue it’s proactive stance in dealing with the prevention and intervention of both domestic violence and child abuse and neglect. A comprehensive range of services and activities has been funded to victims of domestic violence and child abuse. Services to domestic violence offenders have also been improved and innovations have begun which have the potential to develop model best practices in this area.

The Judiciary remains committed to using monies from the Special Account to continue efforts to promote the safety and well being of domestic violence and child abuse victims, and their families, in the State of Hawai#i. The Judiciary’s Spouse & Child Abuse Special Account

Expenditures for Fiscal Year 2006-2007

Special Fund Assessment (Act 34, SLH 1964) 23,965 Purchase of Service Contracts 383,749 Other Services on Fee Basis 14,100 Training Costs and Registration Fees 1,730 Transportation, Intra-State Employees 367 Subsistence Allowance, Intra-State Employees 394 Transportation, Out-of-State - Employees 1,693 Transportation, Out-of-State - Others 325 Subsistence Allowance, Out-of-State - Employees 2,734 Subsistence Allowance, Out-of-State - Others 1,113 Hire of Passenger Cars - Employees 407 Facilities for Meetings, Training (including food) 2,553 Other Materials & Supplies 304 Subscriptions 508 Other Miscellaneous Expenses 83

Total Expenditures $ 434,025 ANNUAL REPORT TO THE TWENTY-FOURTH LEGISLATURE

ACT 274 SESSION LAWS OF HAWAI#I 1997

A Report on the Parent Education Special Fund

Submitted by:

Office of the Administrative Director of the Courts The Judiciary, State of Hawai#i

December 2007 A Report on the Parent Education Special Fund

Act 274, Session Laws of Hawai#i, 1997, requires the Judiciary to submit a report on the Parent Education Special Fund. The Parent Education Special Fund

The Parent Education Special Fund was established by the 1997 Legislature, State of Hawai#i, through Act 274. On May 2, 2003, Hawai#i Revised Statutes § 607-5.6 was amended to increase the Fund’s surcharge to $50 for family court matrimonial cases and to add the surcharge to paternity actions. The amendment was necessary to insure that the program could expand to include the never-married population and to remain solvent.

The Purpose of the Fund

Parents attending the Kids First parent education programs in Hawai#i are encouraged to refocus on their children’s needs and to see how continued fighting negatively impacts their family. The families are given island-specific parent handbooks containing resources for counseling, parenting classes, anger management and supervised visitation centers. They watch the award winning Purple Family video, and are encouraged to mediate rather than litigate their custody conflicts. The program also assists children ages 6 – 17 to cope with their parents’ separation. Children learn that they are not the cause of their parents’ divorce, that parents do not divorce their children, and that their family is not the only one going through a separation. Through mock trials teens learn about the court system. They are given resource materials and encouraged to seek counseling if they are depressed or angry about the separation.

Current Programs

Each Circuit has a parent education program for all separating and divorcing parents and their minor children (ages 6 – 17).

Judicial Circuit FY 06 - 07 Program Schedule Attendance First (O#ahu) 4,505 Kids First Every Wed. Second (Maui) 918 Kids First 2nd Wed. Third (Hilo) 400 Children in Transition 2nd & 4th Tues (odd months) Third (Kona) 268 Children First 3rd Thurs. Fifth (Kaua#i) 297 Kids First 2nd Wed. Total: 6,388

To assist separating never-married families learn how to co-parent, parents contesting custody or visitation were included in the Kids First program. In 2006 on O#ahu, 4,088 new marital actions (divorce) were filed, of which half included families with minor children. Additionally, 1,348 new paternity (unmarried parents) petitions were filed. 27% of Oahu’s paternity cases involved contested custody issues. The remaining 73% were filed by the Child Support Enforcement Agency that sought child support reimbursement. Many families informed Kids First that they appreciated the Parent Handbook resources, including the parenting plan forms. Approximately 90% of all participants were able to resolve their disputes without litigation. The Kids First O#ahu coordinator recruits and trains 60 volunteer facilitators for the children’s program, and monitors seven psychologists (paid by purchase of service contracts) for the adult program. Statewide, over 130 individuals facilitate the adult and children’s groups.

The vast majority of the state’s cases are on O#ahu: 73% of the divorces and 66% of the paternity cases are filed in Honolulu. During the FY2007, the Oahu Kids First divorce program assisted 2,926 adults and 1,579 children.

Due to the success of the state’s parent education programs, attorneys from Los Angeles, California and Phoenix, Arizona contacted the O#ahu program to pilot their own Kids First programs.

In October, representatives from all five programs (O#ahu, Maui, Kaua#i, Kona, and Hilo) met in Honolulu to exchange ideas on improving curriculum and maintaining financial accountability. Statewide, 100 parent education sessions were attended by 3,987 adults and 2,401 children for a total of 6,388. This was 340 more people than the prior fiscal year. Revenue remained almost identical to last year.

The percentage of divorce filings in each Circuit remained consistent with each island’s population. To promote greater access to the program, Kids First O#ahu provided translation services for limited English proficiency and hearing impaired individuals.

The trend for paternity cases shows an increase of filings statewide. The paternity calendar consists of families who are unmarried and have children. Currently in Hawai#i, one of three children are born to unmarried parents. The Island of Hawai#i, with 13% of the state’s population, is accountable for 17% of the state’s total new paternity filings.

Circuit Census Population Divorce Divorce Paternity Paternity FY 05-06 Population % Filings % Filings %

First (O#ahu) 909,863 71 4,138 73 1,348 66 Second (Maui) 141,440 11 667 11.7 260 13 Third (Hilo, Kona) 171,191 13 668 11.7 357 17 Fifth (Kaua#i) 63,004 5 208 3.6 86 4 State of Hawai#i: 1,285,498 100 5,681 100 2,051 100

Financial Status of the Fund

The Parent Education Special Fund began collecting filing fee surcharges and donations on July 1, 1997. The attached financial report reflects the 10th year of collections. The Parent Education Special Fund continues to support all five of the Judiciary’s parent education programs. Parent Education Special Fund Revenue Fiscal Year 2006 – 2007

Circuit Surcharge Interest Total

First (O#ahu) 107,800 0 107,800 Second (Maui) 15,150 0 15,150 Third (Kona, Hilo) 15,700 0 15,700 Fifth (Kaua#I) 5,535 0 5,535 Investment 0 5,267 5,267 Total State Revenue: 144,185 5,267 149,452

Parent Education Special Fund Expenses Fiscal Year 2006 – 2007

Judicial Circuit: First Second Third Fifth Total

Food 0 0 0 804 804 Equipment: cameras2,5200002,520 Interpreter Fees 352000352 Misc. Exp. (statewide)140000140 Personal Services 186000186 Printing; Education 1,6570001,657 Security (statewide)10,86700010,867 Services for a fee 13,225 15,000 22,500 4,544 55,269 Special Fund Assessment 7,3640007,364 (statewide) Supplies, stationery 218000218 Telephone 0 0 437 0 437 Training (statewide)4,6500004,650 Transportation: instate 608000608 (statewide) Transportation: out of state 10,10400010,104 (statewide) Subtotal: 51,891 15,000 22,937 5,348 95,176 Encumbrances 475 0 0 275 750 Total Expenses: 52,366 15,000 22,937 5,623 95,926 ANNUAL REPORT TO THE TWENTY-FOURTH LEGISLATURE

ACT 162 SESSION LAWS OF HAWAI#I 2002

A Report on Parental Preference in Government Contracts

Submitted by:

Office of the Administrative Director of the Courts The Judiciary, State of Hawai#i

December 2007 Overview and Report of Act 162, Session Laws of Hawai#i 2002

Act 162, SLH 2002 provides that Judiciary contracts, programs, and services shall not favor one parent over the other in terms of child rearing and that the Judiciary provide an annual report to the Legislature.

We report that the Judiciary program administrators, program specialists and contracting officers are continuing to monitor their contracts to insure compliance with this act. In addition to using standard contract boilerplates, our Judiciary staff attorney assures compliance with all applicable laws by reviewing these contracts prior to finalization. None of our policies and procedures in the contracting of individuals or groups providing contractual services to the Judiciary has ever reflected in the past, nor will they ever reflect in the future, any parental preference. REPORT TO THE TWENTY-FOURTH LEGISLATURE

ACT 169, Section 7 SESSION LAWS OF HAWAI#I 2007

A Report on the Interagency Council on Intermediate Sanctions (ICIS)

Submitted by:

Office of the Administrative Director of the Courts The Judiciary, State of Hawai#i

Assisted by the Crime Prevention and Justice Assistance Division Department of the Attorney General, State of Hawai#i

December 2007 Interagency Council on Intermediate Sanctions

I. Introduction

Act 169, Session Laws of Hawai#i, 2007, also known as the Judiciary Appropriations Act of 2007, provided $199,883 for Fiscal Year 2007-2008 and $246,912 for Fiscal Year 2008-2009 to be used for the Interagency Council on Intermediate Sanctions (ICIS) and requires the following:

1) A detailed breakdown of expenditures; 2) A detailed breakdown of treatment services provided; 3) Costs incurred and treatment outcomes; 4) Results of the evaluation performed; and, 5) An analysis of the effectiveness of the project.

The monies appropriated by the Legislature were for dedicated staff positions to carry out the work of the ICIS. The Legislature permanently funded the ICIS coordinator who provides the overall system coordination of all member agencies involved in the ICIS endeavor and develops implementation of system enhancements. The other temporary positions funded by the Legislature were as follows: Social Worker IV for the Intake/Pre-sentence Investigation Unit that handles all new offenders and administers an actuarial risk/needs instrument, two Social Worker III positions for the Administrative Risk Management Section (ARMS) in the Supervision Branch, and one Social Service Assistant to do DNA collection and other activities in ARMS. These positions were needed as evidenced by a workload study conducted by William Woodward Associates, dated December 2006. The publication entitled, “Workload of Hawaii’s Probation and Parole Officers,” indicated that the number of probation and parole officers must be increased significantly to continue and enhance the implementation of evidence based practices. One of the major recommendations was for an increase in 44 full time probation positions over the next five years so that evidence based practices can be implemented effectively.

The other monies allocated by the Legislature for the Adult Client Services Branch are for equipment and rental space for the new positions.

II. Background Information

In the fall of 2000, Chief Justice Ronald T.Y. Moon convened a Judiciary Steering Committee on Intermediate Sanctions to address substance abuse, mental illness and other social problems related to the cycle of crime through the use of effective intermediate sanctions. Following a May 2001 symposium on intermediate sanctions, the committee determined that the following long-term initiatives were important elements to enhancing Hawaii’s intermediate sanctions: 1) invite key criminal justice and community stakeholders to participate in an Interagency Council to create a collaborative vision for the future use of intermediate sanctions; 2) support efforts to develop sound, uniform, empirically-based assessment techniques that will allow a more accurate assessment of offenders’ risks and needs; 3) inventory existing services and resources that in combination with court supervision would provide a wider range of intermediate sanctions options; and 4) develop a complete statistical profile of the offender population currently moving through the courts along with a clearer picture of the risks they represent and the needs that could be met through effective intermediate sanctions.

In January 2002, ICIS was formed by Chief Justice Ronald Moon in a cooperative agreement with the Judiciary, Department of Public Safety, Department of Health, and the Attorney General’s Office. Other partners in the council include the Office of the Public Defender, Department of the Prosecuting Attorney, the Honolulu Police Department, Hawai#i Paroling Authority, and the Department of Human Services. The Council is composed of a Working Group and a Policy Group. The Policy Group is chaired by Judge Steven Alm from the Judiciary and Clayton Frank, the Director of the Department of Public Safety. The vision of ICIS is the reduction of recidivism among its adult offenders and the prevention of future victimization of its citizens through a more effective criminal justice system. The mission of the council is to reduce offender recidivism by 30% through the use and application of effective evidence based correctional assessments and treatment approaches. Recidivism is defined as a new arrest, or probation, parole or pretrial revocation within three years of onset of community supervision.

A strategic plan was formulated by ICIS to implement the systemic application of empirically based tools to assist in the management of offenders and to establish a continuum of effective services to meet their needs. It required a philosophical shift in the system and in decision-making so that offenders receive “one voice, one message” throughout the system. The strategic plan is based on the progress implementation of the Eight Principles of Risk Reduction which are as follows: 1) Assess Actuarial Risk/Needs; 2) Enhance Intrinsic Motivation; 3) Target Interventions; 4) Skill Train with Directed Practice; 5) Increase Positive/ Reinforcement; 6) Engage On-going Support in Communities; 7) Measure Relevant Practices; and 8) Provide Measurement Feedback.

The Council has successfully implemented common risk assessment tools for all offenders (LSI-R Proxy, Level of Service Inventory - Revised, the Adult Substance User Survey (ASUS) and Static 99), trained correctional staff in tools to motivate offenders to change their behavior, created a research capability for the Council, and collaborated with treatment vendors to improve their services. Estimated incarceration cost avoidance with a 30 % reduction in recidivism by implementing ICIS’s plan is over $3 million dollars according to a report prepared by Janet Davidson, a Senior Research Analyst with the Department of the Attorney General in March 2003.

Intermediate sanctions being utilized by ICIS include the Drug Court Program and Hawaii’s Opportunity Probation with Enforcement (HOPE) project.

III. Expenditures

The Legislature appropriated monies for dedicated staff positions as follows:

Social Worker VI (Permanent Position) - ($46,800/year) Social Worker IV (Temporary Position) - ($31,608/year) Social Worker III (Temporary Position) - ($29,214/year) Social Worker III (Temporary Position) - ($29,214/year) Social Service Assistant IV (Temporary Position) - ($19,998/year) Rental of Office Space - $3,150/month Equipment - $5,249

1) ICIS Coordinator (Social Worker VI) – The First Circuit began providing the leadership in coordinating the implementation of the ICIS system change through funding by a JAG/Byrne Federal grant which ran its course on September 30, 2007. The creation of this permanent program specialist position beginning October 1, 2007, allows the Council to continue recidivism reduction activities. The ICIS coordinator provides the overall system coordination of all member agencies involved in the criminal justice system and develops implementation of system enhancements. This insures that offenders are properly assessed, treatment programs are operating effectively with evidence-based practices and that offenders are properly matched with programs. Probation officers, pre-trial, prison, parole and treatment staff are trained in the same assessment tools, communication skills and cognitive behavioral techniques. Using these skills in working with offenders adds efficient use of resources and consistent application of effort. Also, the coordinator has been the key to linking and obtaining resources and to the statewide implementation improvements. In addition to coordinating activities (training, research, policies, working group and policy meetings) for all agencies, she has managed grants and recently supervised the temporary Cognitive Behavioral Therapy trainers.

2) Pre-sentence Investigation Officer (Social Worker IV) - With the addition of an Actuarial Risk and Needs Instrument, probation officers are spending more time interviewing clients to capture the information needed for the LSI-R and ASUS. This additional Senior Probation Officer position will assist with the additional workload for the intake staff responsible to do screening and assessments on all new pre-sentence referrals.

3) Two Supervision Officers (Social Worker III) – These officers will be assigned to ARMS to deal with low risk offenders. ARMS handles the large number of low risk offenders so that staff can deal more effectively with the offenders who are classified to be higher risk.

4) A Social Services Assistant IV to collect the DNA samples from felony offenders as mandated by the Legislature and to assist with other functions in ARMS.

The Pre-sentence Investigation Officer, two Supervision officers, and Social Services Assistant positions are currently in the process of being advertised by the Judiciary Human Resources office.

The monies allocated by the Legislature also include equipment for the positions as well as rental space. The Judiciary will be ordering the equipment and is looking for additional rental space.

IV. Treatment Services Provided, Costs Incurred and Treatment Outcomes

The monies received from the Legislature for ICIS did not include additional treatment monies; however, the Judiciary is allocated monies for substance abuse treatment. The Judiciary has contracted for adult substance abuse treatment services which include substance abuse assessments, assessments for first-time drug offenders, substance abuse education, pre-treatment/motivational enhancement services, outpatient treatment, intensive outpatient treatment, day treatment, residential treatment, continuing care, and therapeutic living. Consumers of these services are clients under the supervision of the drug court programs and the Adult Client Services Branch. Providers of these services in the First Circuit include Queen’s Day Treatment Services, Waianae Coast Comprehensive Health Center/Malama Recovery Services, Ku Aloha Ola Mau (formerly Drug Addiction Services of Hawai#i), Kline-Welsh Behavioral Health Foundation (Sand Island Treatment Services), Care Hawai#i, The Alcoholic Rehabilitation Services of Hawai#i (Hina Mauka), Salvation Army-Addiction Treatment Services, Ho#omau Ke Ola, and Salvation Army Family Treatment Services. Most programs offer group counseling, individual counseling sessions, and family sessions. The Judiciary’s contractors have been asked to begin to incorporate evidence based treatment services for offenders into their programming for Judiciary clientele. The amount allocated for substance abuse assessment and treatment for FY2008 is $2,096,601. As of October 2007, Adult Client Services Branch has spent approximately $447,657 of the appropriated monies. It is anticipated that all of the appropriation will be used by the end of the fiscal year because of increased drug testing for our HOPE project. Service providers and clients are also asked to utilize managed care and the Alcohol and Drug Abuse Division funds to supplement services provided to offenders.

The Judiciary has contracts for sex offender assessment and treatment services and has been allocated $291,557 for the FY2008. The sex offender treatment providers include the following: Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Honolulu and Joseph Giovannoni, Inc. The billings received as of October 2007 are in the amount of $36,277.80.

The Judiciary has also contracted for domestic violence intervention services from Child and Family Services (Developing Options to Violence Program), and Parents and Children Together (Family Peace Program). The Purchase of Service funds allotted for the Domestic Violence programs is $1,270,750. The amount expended to date is $682,000.

Adult Client Services Branch has not conducted official program evaluations measuring program effectiveness; however, the Judiciary is a member agency of the Interagency Substance Abuse Treatment Monitoring Program established under Part III (Sections 23-28) of Act 40, SLH 2004. Program participants under the coordinating efforts of the Department of Health Alcohol and Drug Abuse Division have looked at an electronic management information system. In addition, all Judiciary providers have been approached to insure their participation in submitting data to Adult Drug Abuse Division.

Adult Client Services Branch is also a member agency of the ICIS and has been active in the move toward the adoption of the Correctional Program Checklist (CPC) which evaluates programs with regard to evidence based treatment elements which support offender treatment. The Judiciary also conducts intermittent program audits conducted by the Judiciary’s Office of Internal Audit. Programs are also required by contract to submit monthly progress reports on clients served and to submit quarterly reports noting provider service levels, achievements. At this time however, data is not being collected on a consistent basis to measure program effectiveness. ICIS, however, has discussed the necessity to look at a system of collecting such data and hopes to continue to collaborate with the Alcohol and Drug Abuse Division in this regard.

V. Overall Plan and Effectiveness of Project

Based on research which identified what works, what does not work, and what is promising in recidivism reduction, ICIS adopted the National Institute of Corrections Evidence Based Principles that had demonstrated reduced recidivism outcomes. The ICIS strategic plan is based on the implementation of the eight principles of risk reduction. The principles, in sequential order, start with using an actuarial risk assessment of an offender and is built upon intrinsically motivating the offender toward positive behavior changes in a supportive community milieu. The offender risk factors that collectively influence the offender’s probability for recidivism constituted the prioritized targets of treatment and correctional intervention by correctional and treatment staff. National and local research consistently showed six major risk factors to be criminogenic (i.e., leading to or causing crime and probation/parole failure): dysfunctional family relations; anti-social peers; alcohol and other drug problems; low self-control skills; anti-social attitudes/values; and callous personality features. These criminogenic risk factors constitute dynamic attributes of offenders that, when weakened, reduced the probability of recidivism.

In order to assess actuarial risk/needs, the LSI-R was selected. In addition, as 80% of offenders have a substance use issue, ASUS was also selected as an accompanying instrument to the LSI-R. Due to the increase in workload to implement these instruments, the LSI-R Proxy was developed as a screening tool that uses three highly predictive variables (age at first arrest, current age, and criminal history). The Proxy is used to screen cases out for higher level assessments. Training for the LSI-R/ASUS and Proxy first began in 2002 along with Motivational Interviewing. Motivational interviewing is a directive client centered counseling style for helping clients explore and resolve ambivalence about behavior change and uses techniques to get an offender to move along a change continuum. Since 2002, the Council has invested over one million dollars in federal grants to train pre-trial, probation, prison and parole staff in a standard risk assessment, motivational interviewing, and cognitive behavior therapy to assist organizations achieve better staff acceptance of skills. Three hundred workers in the Judiciary and Department of Public Safety have been trained in the application and use of the LSI-R and ASUS and Motivational Interviewing. The Council is committed to use the risk assessment instrument throughout the correctional system for all offender risk assessment and case planning.

The Council’s use of evidence based principles promotes treatment services that are research based and responsive to the offenders’ criminogenic risk factors and motivation for change. Under these principles, better programs match the treatment approach with the learning style and personality of the offender, match the characteristics of the offender with those of the treatment provider, and match the skills of the treatment provider with the type of program. The Council has invested in partnerships with treatment vendors to achieve cognitive-based programs that utilize competent, well-trained, and well-supervised staff that possess good communication skills. Using tools such as the Correctional Program Assessment Inventory, the Council has initiated a collaborative relationship with treatment vendors statewide to deliver effective, recidivism reduction treatment services. Key Progress towards Achieving Goals and Objectives

The goal of this project is to intervene in offenders’ lives in ways that will reduce recidivism and future victimization.

Objectives:

1. Maintain the system-wide LSI-R assessment protocol and quality assurance process for adult offenders.

Collectively, 94.47% of our criminal justice staff has been certified in the LSI-R assessment tool.

2. Improve methods to match offender to level of supervision and services.

A new proxy scale was introduced in July 2005 to prioritize services to higher risk offenders and has been utilized to date.

3. Develop the criteria for criminal justice contracted services.

To date, eighteen vendor site visit evaluations have been performed by the CPC teams. The CPC Advisory Committee, chaired by Julie Ebato of the Attorney General’s office, continues to provide oversight to the teams administering the evaluations.

Dr. Edward Latessa, a professor and Head of the Division of Criminal Justice at the University of Cincinnati, continues to be utilized to provide the teams with the most current research regarding the evaluation process and makes recommendations for modifications to our procedures based on these findings.

4. Reduce service gaps on the continuum of services.

A new gap analysis is currently being conducted. The last gap analysis was performed in August of 2004 and indicated a 12% match.

5. Improve the method used to match offender risks and needs to services.

Criminal justice supervisors and mentors have been trained in the Cognitive Behavior Therapy (COG) curriculum that has a case-planning component introduced. On the case plan, the three highest scored domains on the LSI-R are targeted for intervention by matching with appropriate provider services. The decision to first train at the supervisory level was determined so that they could operate in a mentoring capacity to their staff. The intent is to introduce the training to all the staff eventually. Funding for this effort has been provided through a Department of Labor grant.

6. Compile and analyze the data collected to evaluate the effectiveness of criminal justice contracted services.

The gap analysis addresses appropriate match of service to the identified domain. Tracking of all of the particular nuances of the match has not been fully developed to date, such as dosage/duration. It is the hope of the council to automate some of these features for tracking purposes.

7. Perform a workload analysis beginning with probation and parole officers.

A workload analysis was performed to analyze current daily workloads and case management and compared that to workloads and cases focused on managing offenders using evidence based practices, especially the management of offenders risk and criminogenic needs.

8. Improve sharing of offender information between criminal justice agencies and service providers.

Cyzap, Inc. continues to be engaged as a third party vendor to provide internet access to store the LSI-R and ASUS data for all participating agencies.

An interagency report that reflects the collective download from all participating criminal justice agencies are provided on an aggregate level on a quarterly basis to the ICIS working group by the ICIS researcher.

The provider network is currently not integrated in this automated system. Sharing of information with providers is by written consent and the content shared is dictated by statute.

The goal of ICIS is to reduce offender recidivism by 30% through the use and application of effective evidence based correctional assessments and treatment approaches by the year 2010 (see chart below).

30% Recidivism Reduction Goal

Recidivism Best Actualization of Eight Principles Rate for Recidivism Reduction

Parole 72.9% Probation 53.7% 51.0% Goal

37.6% Goal

2002 2006 2010 The Baseline Recidivism update that was completed by the ICIS Research team in early 2007 is shown below. There appears to have been a reduction in recidivism since the project first started in 2002 and hopefully, this is related to the activities implemented by the Council. Many of the staff only recently received the full complement of training and they will have an opportunity to use their new skills in working with our offenders to effectuate change.

In summary, the Legislature’s allocation of a permanent position for the ICIS coordinator as well as four temporary line staff positions will assist with the Council’s efforts to reduce recidivism in Hawai#i. It is hoped that ICIS will be able to achieve its goal of a 30% reduction in recidivism in the State of Hawai#i; however, in order to do this, ICIS will continue to need resources from the Legislature for more permanent staff positions (including positions for trainers) as well enhancements to its data collection system which is being used by a number of criminal justice agencies. REPORT TO THE TWENTY-FOURTH LEGISLATURE

ACT 169, Sections 8, 9, and 10 SESSION LAWS OF HAWAI#I 2007

A Report on the Use of Monies for Medically Targeted Substance Abuse Treatment for Drug Addicted Offenders - Integrated Approach Supervised by Physicians

Submitted by:

Office of the Administrative Director of the Courts The Judiciary, State of Hawai#i

December 2007 Progress Report in Response to Act 169, Session Laws of Hawai#i, Section 8 (First Circuit)

The Proviso requested that the Drug Courts of the First Circuit spend up to $100,000 on “medically supervised integrated drug treatment.” While researching the legislative proviso’s history it was clear that one of the Protocols the Circuit should look at was Prometa. During research aimed at assisting the Circuit to write an adequate scope of work for an RFP to meet the Proviso many questions were raised as to the efficacy of the Protocol for use at this time. The findings have been summarized below and documentation has been attached.

In light of the findings the First Circuit proposes that the solicitation for such a protocol be held at least until such a time as the UCLA double blind study with placebo is completed, peer reviewed and published. This study should be available in late summer or early fall of 2008. Based on the outcomes of this study the First Circuit would reassess whether to proceed to enter into a contract for such a protocol. The Drug Court Coordinators still have questions about long term effects as longitudinal studies will not be available for awhile. The liability questions posed by use of such protocols by the Courts are different from those when a member of the public seeks treatment on their own and there are cases in the past where courts and treatment providers have been sued for offering protocols that in the beginning looked good but longitudinally were shown to be more detrimental then the effects of the substance abuse being treated.

Whether the protocol is offered voluntarily or not, a case can and has been made in the past that if the court asks you to participate it is less then voluntary. Based on the above and on the information to follow in this report the First Circuit has opted to wait before pursuing using this type of protocol in our courts.

The Statewide Drug Court Coordinating Committee also discussed the proviso and as the Second Circuit was given two free trails by Island Recovery Centers the Committee decided to wait for the results of these trials before proceeding.

The First Circuit will continue to monitor studies regarding any protocol that meets the intent of the proviso.

Attached to this report:

! Report to the First Circuit Drug Court Judges and Coordinators ! Pierce County Alliance Waiver Form ! Newspaper Articles regarding Pierce County Alliance and the Prometa Protocol and funding ! Effectiveness of Prometa Treatment Protocol in Pierce County Drug Courts, Pierce County Auditor’s Audit Report, October 24, 2007 ! Pierce County Alliance’s response to the Audit ! Hythiam’s report on 30 day double blind study ! Newspaper article regarding the double blind study Report to the First Circuit Drug Court Judges and Coordinators

Summary of Prometa Protocol Prometa is a short term protocol that claims to stop cravings in drug addicted clients. According to Hythiam the company that markets the Protocol, the drugs in the Prometa protocol correct chemical imbalances in the brain related to cravings and inhibitions. In theory, patients using the protocol are better able to address their addiction because Prometa has eliminated the cravings for drugs.

Scientifically valid peer reviewed studies on its effectiveness will not be available till late summer or early fall 2008 at the earliest. This particular study is currently being done by UCLA and uses a double blind methodology including the use of placebos to determine if the protocol is as effective as advertised.

The protocol consists of the administration of three prescription drugs, none of which have been approved for addiction treatment by the FDA. The regimen is as follows:

! A medical exam. ! Three consecutive, daily visits of approximately 2 hours each during the initial medically supervised treatment. The cocktail is administered via IV hook up. ! A second two-day medically supervised treatment occurs approximately three weeks after the initial treatment. This is also via IV. ! One month of prescription medications to help reduce cravings and maintain a neurochemical balance in the brain. ! Nutritional support to improve physical health and help sustain recovery. ! Psycosocial therapy in the form of individual and group counseling during the rehabilitation process.

Hythiam does not produce or distribute any of the drugs used in the protocol which is why the protocol is not considered testing on human subjects which would be regulated by a research control board. If Hythiam did manufacture and/or distribute the drugs it could qualify as testing on human subjects. The Protocol must be administered under a Doctor’s supervision. Island Recovery Centers is the local licensed treatment provider.

None of the drugs are FDA approved for substance abuse treatment and the protocol is not eligible for federal funding. The cost in Peirce County is $5,000 per client (the County recently cut off funding to the Peirce County Alliance for this protocol due to a report by the auditor, see below). Island Recovery Centers has stated that the costs would be higher here $6,000 and up. The protocol suggests that the regular 12 to 18 months of outpatient treatment and counseling should be coupled with the protocol for optimum results. Cost savings if any seem to come from a reduction in the need for or number of days of residential treatment necessary.

Pierce County reports very good results with Prometa such as 86% of clients completing protocol and treatment are drug free 14 months later. They provide no information on how many of their clients on the regular track not volunteering to take Prometa are drug free 14 months later – so again there is no comparison to gage performance by. The program in Pierce County is voluntary and an extensive waiver is required (see Attachment 1 - Waiver). Pierce County recently stopped funding for the Protocol after an auditor’s report summarized later in this document was received. Attached are several newspaper articles about the removal of funding (see Attachment 2 - Newspaper Articles). Island Recovery Center has agreed to provide two treatments free of charge to the 2nd Circuit according to information shared at the last Statewide Drug Coordinators meeting and confirmed with Bob Toyofuku their lobbyist.

Company Background Hythiam Corporation is 35% owned by Terren Peizer. Peizer is a former junk-bond salesman who worked for Michael Milken; his past investments included the company that makes Candie’s shoes, a firm that went bankrupt after marketing an automobile tire it claimed would not go flat, and a successful computer company that bought the assets of Cray Research, the famous supercomputer company. He previously promoted an anti AIDS drug called Immunitin, in the 1990s. This drug never made it to market. Many remark on the similarity in aggressive marketing used by Peizer on both Immunitin and Prometa.

Although much of the information out in the world has been generated by Hythiam and therefore is positive – there are a few cautionary notes including the October 07 Auditor’s Report for Pierce County. Lori Karan, a researcher at the Drug Dependence Research Laboratory at the University of California San Francisco states “the marketing is way ahead of the science….it preys on the needs of desperate patients, sets unreasonable hopes and expectations and takes advantage of scarce economic resources.” Peter Banys, Director of Addiction Programs at the VA Medical Center in San Francisco states, “I would never recommend that someone spend $15,000 on this with the current state of data (and) I think it’s improper to spend public money on this product at this time.” The latest report critical of Prometa is the report by the Pierce County Auditor’s Office highlighted below and attached to this report (see Attachment 3 - Prometa Audit Report).

The company is now conducting clinical research on the “cocktail”, but has gone ahead with marketing Prometa without the conclusion of any double-blind peer reviewed studies. Study results may not be ready until some time in late summer/early fall of 2008, however, Peizer has stated, “Counties don’t care about double blind placebo controlled data – what’s interesting about Prometa is that out in the field – in the counties, justice systems, private centers – the clinical relevance is being shown daily.”

Pierce County Experience

What the Pierce County Alliance has said The Pierce County Alliance is a large criminal justice social service organization that provides many services to the community at large focusing on chemical dependency/drug addiction. Two of its largest programs are Felony and Family Drug courts. In 2006 they began treating a select portion of their Felony and Family Drug Court clients with Prometa. Their Executive Director Terree Schmidt-Whelan Ph.D. has stated that she has worked in this field for 32 years and continues to be stunned by the positive results the Prometa treatment overlay has had with their Felony and Family Drug Court clients. She notes that 14 months out from the beginning of use of Prometa 86% of the participants treated with Prometa are drug free (Auditor’s Report states the number is 50%) and only 2% of almost 1,150 urinalysis tests were positive (Auditor’s Report notes 13%). No data is provided concerning how many of their regular track clients are also drug free at 14 months. The Executive Director notes that they mange their liability issue by screening participants for predetermined selection criteria, providing a full and complete disclosure of treatment’s components, and offering the protocol on a voluntary basis. Those receiving Prometa still receive all the treatment modalities of the other clients in court such as cognitive behavioral counseling etc. She feels that clients progress faster with Prometa and are better able to internalize the learning. The cost per client in her jurisdiction is an additional $5,000. Their complete treatment regimen for the Drug Courts lasts 12 or more months depending on the needs of the individual.

Pierce County Alliance reports that clients have reported a total elimination of cravings for the substance of their choice during the protocol. They have recently secured County and State funding to continue the program. The protocol is still not eligible for federal funding due to lack of FDA approval and completion of studies. There has been some opposition to the County funding from Council Members who oppose the use of taxpayer money to fund research as no scientifically valid study on the effects of the protocol has been completed. County funding was recently withdrawn due to the results of the auditor’s report summarized below.

Pierce County Alliance has collected no data on outcomes for persons on the Prometa Protocol and regular treatment services, as opposed to those on just the regular treatment program to gage the impact the Protocol is having. All of the data is based on self reports and observations by staff. Attached is their waiver form which is quite extensive (see Attachment 1 - Waiver).

Results of the Pierce County Auditor’s Office Audit of the Pierce County Alliance’s use of Prometa Protocol

The title of the document which is also attached for your information (see Attachment 3 - Prometa Audit Report) is “Effectiveness of Prometa Treatment Protocol in Pierce County Drug Courts: dated October 24, 2007” and was conducted for the Pierce County Performance Audit Committee by Matt Temmel, Performance Audit Coordinator and William Vetter, Research Analyst. The aim of the evaluation was to do the following: (numbered items below describe the aims of the report and the bulleted items are a short synopsis on the results – the full report is attached as is Pierce County Alliance’s response summarized later in this report):

1. Analyze evidence of Prometa’s success, including whether the available evidence meets industry standards. ! Without a double blind study this is not possible. Empirical data shows that the graduation rate for the 2006 40 Prometa clients was 47% as contrasted with a 43% percent graduation rate for all clients from 2003 to 2006. This is not statistically significant. The 47% was aggregated data between the family drug court and the felony drug court when the data is separated it shows a graduation rate of 68% in Family and only 29% in Felony cases. The study also shows that of the 7 felony clients from the Prometa Protocol 1 has been re-arrested. The study also notes that there are more incentives in Drug Courts to succeed (i.e., staying out of jail and getting your children back which accounts for the high success of traditional Drug Courts).

2. Assess the risk to Pierce County as a result of being mentioned in Prometa advertising, including whether there is additional risk because the treatment may be research on human subjects. ! The pilot project requires clients to sign a 4 page waiver binding clients, spouses, families or heirs to not file suit against the County – the County risk management Office after reviewing the waiver and the contract with Hythiam found an acceptable level of risk. Hythiam manages its risk through an “exhaustive list of disclaimers” in the contract. These are quoted in the attached study. ! As to research on human subjects it is noted that the University of Washington study (mentioned later) will require review board approval as it is research but the Prometa Pilot Project because it is treatment does not.

3. Identify other jurisdictions that use Prometa and analyze their success rates. ! The report found little going on in other jurisdiction – in fact some jurisdictions contacted were currently not engaged in pilots or had elected not to adopt the protocol (see Table A below).

4. Review the planned University of Washington study on Prometa effectiveness including scope, research design, and status of the evaluation. ! This study has challenges in identifying a control group for the study. ! It will only look at Family Drug Court clients, not felony clients. ! It will not be ready until 2009 possibly as late as June.

5. Assess whether Prometa is an effective use of Pierce County tax dollars. ! The study states there are two possible answers depending on your point of view: i. “According to advocates, Prometa is a promising advance that should be pursued rather than awaiting definitive proof via double blind studies. Intervention is needed now to offer Prometa in publicly-funded treatment programs in order to make headway against the devastating problems of meth and cocaine addiction. ii. It is premature to fund the Prometa protocol because double-blind study results are not available, and because Prometa’s success in pilot projects has been greatly exaggerated in Hythiam marketing materials.”

The audit notes Pierce County Alliance’s contract with Hythiam licenses them to offer this treatment through a physician. It also notes what the Alliance will pay to Hythiam for both public and private pay clients. Pierce County Alliance bills the treatment courts $5,000 per client and pays Hythiam $2,500. The report also notes that the Alliance treats private pay clients at a cost to the client of $15,000 and pays Hythiam $7,425. The reports states, “Under the contract, the Alliance is required to report Prometa client data to Hythiam, and Hythiam may create reports and promotional materials using that data. According to the contract, Hythiam controls the public information about Prometa. For example: ! ‘Hythiam, in its sole discretion, will determine the type, extent and content of the data collected and the reports prepared, if any, for each patient. ! Public information and clinical presentations provided by the Alliance must be consistent with reports and marketing materials provided by Hythiam. ! The Alliance agrees to market and promote the Prometa protocol to area drug courts, other criminal justice programs, contracts with manage care companies, third-party payers, and the general public’

These provisions are all part of the contract.

The Audit also outlines the status of Prometa pilot projects mentioned in Hythiam materials. The table below identifies the jurisdiction and notes how Hythiam reports the status and the current status as ascertained from interviews with project personnel. TABLE A Status of Prometa Pilot Projects in Drug Courts

Jurisdiction Hythiam Description Current Status: Audit Findings Pierce County 2006: 40-patient pilot program 2006 results are discussed later in with very successful results this report. 2007 Prometa project includes 50 clients as of 10/22/2007 Fulton County, 2007: 4-patient pilot Pilot was canceled due to physician Georgia (Atlanta) misconduct. Another pilot is possible pending results of other pilot projects or clinical studies Idaho Drug 2006: 30-patient pilot program There was no pilot program. The Courts in Idaho Falls, Idaho Idaho Drug Court Coordinating Committee voted not to work with Hythiam pending results of double-blind studies. Drug court administrator expressed concern the Hythiam has used Idaho in promotional materials Gary Indiana 2006: 20-person pilot program; Pilot project ended early, and Prometa was adopted due to Prometa was not adopted as an ongoing overwhelming success of pilot part of drug treatment Las Vegas, 2007: 20-patient pilot program Unknown Nevada announced September 2007 Collin County, 2006: 20-person pilot program Unknown Texas

As part of the funding received from the State of Washington the University of Washington will conduct a study to evaluate the outcomes for clients of the Family Drug Court in Pierce County – the felony drug court will not be studied and the study will not be available until 2009.

The conclusion of the study finds:

! Hythiam reports that the protocol is exceptionally successful the results of the study note that the results of the pilot project do not surpass results normally found in drug court settings. ! Only double-blind clinical trials can determine whether the patient improvement is a result of treatment or other factors, including placebo effect. ! Other conclusion have already been noted in this report.

Pierce County Alliance’s answer to the Audit ! The authors of the audit had no background or expertise in drug treatment processes. ! The Alliance had no opportunity to respond to or clarify discrepancies. ! Because both successful and non-successful clients reported vastly reduce cravings – the writers questions the value of this in predicting success. ! The Alliance reports many letters of support from across the country of people in the criminal justice and substance abuse fields were provided to the County Council. ! The report only deals with three data outcomes to measure program effectiveness ignoring many additional measures. ! They did not factor in individuals recharged on their original offenses and found ineligible for drug court or those voluntarily released from drug court etc.

Hawai#i

HMSA HMSA is exploring the use of Prometa. The protocol will be provided to 50 patients with alcohol and stimulant addictions. Outcomes will be measured at 90 days, 6 and 12 months. Reimbursement may begin after the 90 day assessment.

Island Recovery Centers Hythiam has licensed these centers to provide the Prometa protocol in Hawai#i. The centers are located in Honolulu and Kailua. Two free Protocols have been given to the Second Circuit – one is underway at the writing of this report.

Research UCLA is conducting a double blind study on 90 clients which started in 1/06 and ends 1/08. Study report should be done in June of 08. The results will then have to go through peer review etc. so it is not clear when they would be available to the public but the earliest would probably be late summer or fall of 08.

Research Across America did a 30-day double-blind study at Hythiam’s request shortly after the Pierce County Audit Report came out. The result of the study as reported by Hythiam is attached as well as a newspaper article concerning the results (see Attachment 4 - Studies). The data published by Hythiam includes the following information:

! The study was conducted by Dr. Harold C. Urschel III (who had previously conducted an open-label study through Research Across America a for-profit research institute - funding in both cases was provided by Hythiam). ! Study lasted 30 days and is described as a “double-blind placebo-controlled study.” ! 134 patients were randomized for the study – 67 for each arm – of these 88 participated 44 in each arm of the study. ! Both groups received counseling during the 30 days of the study. ! The measurement for cravings was a 10-point visual analogue score anchored at one end with “no cravings for methamphetamine” and at the other with “most intense craving for methamphetamine ever experienced.” ! The study notes that self-reported methamphetamine use among patients who completed the study declined from 89.5% (30 days prior to treatment) to 28.7% (for the 30 days after the first visit) among Prometa group and declined from 83.1% to 33.5% for the placebo group representing a 4.8% difference in self reports between the Prometa and Placebo group. ! A longer 120 day study is being conducted by UCLA. ! The study has not undergone peer review at this time.

Several “open-label” studies have been completed on Prometa. These studies used no control groups and did not use placebos and other double-blind protocols. Most notable is a private research corporation in Texas (noted above as also recently completing the double blind). The study was funded by Hythiam. The study started with 50 clients and 36 completed the study. The clients involved in the program reported a reduction in cravings and a 47% reduction in use through urinalysis sampling was reported (Drug Courts in national studies show a reduction of 85 to 90+%). The study concluded, “findings suggest that the efficacy of the medications and of the entire program in treating methamphetamine dependence should be examined in controlled trials.”

NOTE: Attachments mentioned in this report have been provided to the House and Senate Judiciary committees in electronic format on CD. To obtain copies of the attachments please contact these committees directly or email the Judiciary’s Legislative Coordinating Office at [email protected]. Progress Report in Response to Act 169, Session Laws of Hawai#i, Section 9 (Second Circuit)

This progress report has been prepared in compliance with SECTION 9 of Act 169, Session Laws of Hawai#i 2007. The provisions within Act 169 require the First, Second, and Third Circuits to expend up to $100,000 per fiscal year of their respective general fund appropriations in drug court for “medically targeted substance abuse treatment for drug addicted offenders - integrated approach supervised by physicians.” The proviso within Section 9 specifically refers to the Second Circuit expenditures and also calls for the submission of an annual report to the Legislature thirty days prior to the start of the 2008 Regular Session and 2009 Regular Session from the Second Circuit.

The Second Circuit - Maui/Moloka#i Drug Court (MDC) is submitting the following progress as of July 1, 2007 in regards to medically targeted substance abuse treatment for drug addicted offenders:

1) No monies have been expended nor encumbered so far this fiscal year as the Maui/Moloka#i Drug Court staff are currently in the process of developing a general criteria for determining appropriateness of individuals that desire to receive the Prometa Protocol.

2) The Maui/Moloka#i Drug Court staff have spent a great deal of time and effort in the process of researching/gathering information and evaluating the experiences of other programs that have used the Prometa Protocol.

3) As the Maui/Moloka#i Drug Court was given two free trials by Island Recovery Centers, individuals that have desired to receive the Prometa Protocol this fiscal year have been able to receive it until #1 and 2 listed above are completed.

Once #1 and #2 listed above are completed, the program plans to move forward to provide access to the Prometa Protocol for all individuals that desire to receive the Protocol and are found appropriate. We anticipate that we will be concluding research and development of criteria for appropriateness as of July 1, 2008 which will hopefully coincide with release of appropriations requested this legislative session. Progress Report in Response to Act 169, Session Laws of Hawai#i, Section 10 (Third Circuit)

The State Drug Court Committee agreed that Second Circuit Drug Court would use Prometa as they were offered 2 to 4 free treatment slots. The other Circuits would use Second Circuits findings to determine who would be appropriate for this treatment or if we would use this treatment at all. Also, in determining whether Third Circuit would use Prometa, we would look at the cost benefit, and at this stage of our Drug Court we are satisfied with our current treatment providers. REPORT TO THE TWENTY-FOURTH LEGISLATURE

ACT 169, Section 11 SESSION LAWS OF HAWAI#I 2007

A Report on All Revenues and Expenditures from the Court Interpreting Services Revolving Fund

Submitted by:

Office of the Administrative Director of the Courts The Judiciary, State of Hawai#i

December 2007 BACKGROUND

The 2006 Legislature established a court interpreter services revolving fund to support the court interpreting services program’s educational services and the program’s activities towards the training, screening, testing, and certification of court interpreters. Act 169, Session Laws of Hawai#i 2007, Section 11 (Judiciary Appropriations Act of 2007), states that the Judiciary shall submit a report on the revenues and expenditures from the court interpreting services revolving fund.

STATUS OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COURT INTERPRETER PROGRAM

Under the Hawai#i Rules for Certification of Spoken and Sign Language Interpreters (“Rules”) adopted by the Hawai#i Supreme Court and made effective July 1, 2007, the Judiciary launched the Hawai#i State Judiciary Court Interpreter Certification Program (“Certification Program”) in July 2007 (see attached Hawai#i Rules for Certification of Spoken and Sign Language Interpreters adopted by the Hawai#i Supreme Court, effective July 1, 2007). Certification Program orientations and examinations were held statewide on the islands of O#ahu, Maui, Kaua#i and in Hilo and Kona on the Big Island from July through September 2007. Registration and fees were collected from individuals who participated in the Certification Program events and were deposited into the Certification Program Revolving Fund account (created for this purpose under Act 169, Session Laws of Hawai#i 2007, Section11).

The Certification Program developed by the Judiciary’s Office on Equality and Access to the Courts includes: 1) a two-day basic orientation workshop; 2) a written English proficiency and basic court interpreter ethics examination; and 3) an oral interpreting skills examination. Attendance and passage of the three above-mentioned program components are graduated mandatory minimum requirements to become certified as a Judiciary court interpreter.

The following are key components of the Certification Program:

* TWO-DAY BASIC ORIENTATION WORKSHOPS (BOW)

Due to the importance of acquiring a general understanding of the Certification Program, the fee schedule system, the Hawai#i state court system, basic court interpreting skills, and court interpreter ethics, the Judiciary requires spoken and sign language court interpreters to attend two full days of its BOW.

* WRITTEN EXAMINATIONS (WE)

As part of the mandatory requirements to interpret in the Hawai#i state courts under the Certification Program, interpreters who have attended the BOW are required to achieve a passing score of 80% on: 1) a 135-multiple choice, written English proficiency and comprehension exam developed by the National Consortium for State Court Interpreter Certification (“Consortium”); and 2) a 25-multiple choice, written English exam on court interpreter ethics developed by the Judiciary. Interpreters who have achieved the requisite passing scores on the WEs are eligible to take an oral examination administered by the Judiciary. * ORAL EXAMINATIONS (OE)

Through screening and testing under the Certification Program, the Judiciary is able to identify the most qualified and skilled interpreters. Because court interpreter oral certification exams do not exist in every language needed by the Judiciary, the Judiciary designed a Certification Program to include administration of all available Consortium OEs but also administration of other oral exams recognized for levels of quality below certification. Sign language interpreters holding credentials recognized for certification by national sign language organizations are also recognized under different tiers of court interpreter designations developed under the Certification Program.

* COURT INTERPRETER TIERS OF DESIGNATION

The Certification Program establishes six tiers of court interpreter designations to identify those interpreters who have shown quality skills and knowledge through testing. The Tier 6 “Certified Master” designation identifies interpreters who have passed each separate part of a Consortium oral certification exam with a minimum score of 80%, and at least 75% for each Sight Translation subpart. Interpreters that have been federally certified will also be granted this designation. The Tier 5 “Certified Advanced” designation has currently been reserved for development of a separate level of recognition for sign language interpreters who have met specialized sign language interpreting skills in the legal field. The Tier 4 “Certified” designation identifies interpreters who have passed each separate part of a Consortium oral certification exam with a minimum score of 70%, and at least 65% for each Sight Translation subpart. The Tier 3 “Approved” designation identifies interpreters who have passed each separate part of a full Consortium exam with a minimum score of 60%, and at least 55% by component and OR passed an abbreviated Consortium exam with a minimum score of 70% on each separate part. The Tier 2 “Conditionally Approved” designation identifies interpreters who have passed an abbreviated Consortium exam with a minimum of 60% on each separate part. In addition, as a means to provide alternative credential recognition for languages for which the Consortium has not developed oral exams, the Judiciary currently administers oral exams developed for the US Immigration Courts by LionBridge. Interpreters who have passed a LionBridge oral exam in a language for which no Consortium oral exam exists achieve Tier 2 “Approved” designation. The Tier 1 “Registered” designation identifies interpreters who have met the mandatory minimum requirements to interpret in the state courts by having attended the BOW, passed the WEs, and cleared a criminal background check.

(See attached Appendix A, Hawai#i Rules for Certification of Spoken and Sign Language Interpreters adopted by the Hawai#i Supreme Court, effective July 1, 2007.)

NUMBER OF INTERPRETERS CERTIFIED AND REVIEW OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE PROGRAM

* SUMMER 2007 CERTIFICATION PROGRAM TESTING CYCLE

September 2007 marked the completion of the first testing cycle of the Judiciary’s Court Interpreter Certification Program. Informational briefing sessions on the Certification Program were held statewide for Judiciary staff and interpreters in May-June 2007. Administration of the Certification Program BOW began in July 2007, followed by WE administration in August, and OE administration in September. * COURT INTERPRETER CERTIFICATION PROGRAM SUMMER 2007 TESTING CYCLE RESULTS

Of the 112 interpreters participating in the first testing cycle, 31, or 41%, fulfilled the mandatory minimum requirements to interpret in the courts as a Tier 1 “Registered” Interpreter. However, not a single interpreter in a Pacific Island language, statewide, fulfilled these requirements. Of the 21 OE test-takers in September 2007, 10 have achieved scores to place them in a higher tier designation. As a result of the Certification Program, the Judiciary now has one certified court interpreter in Ilokano, Laotian, and Mandarin; and two certified interpreters in Spanish. The Judiciary is also proud to report that it has produced the first court interpreters in the nation to be certified in Ilokano and Laotian. In addition, the Judiciary has succeeded in producing one Tier 3 interpreter each in Ilokano and Spanish, and one Tier 2 interpreter each in Farsi, Japanese, and Tagalog.

Under the Certification Program, 13 interpreters were granted certification via reciprocity based on their having previously tested in other states, of which eight are certified American Sign Language interpreters, three are Spanish language interpreters. In addition, via reciprocity recognition, one interpreter was granted Tier 3 designation in Vietnamese and another was granted Tier 2 designation in Thai. While the Judiciary is pleased with the success of the Certification Program, the Judiciary’s experience thus far establishes that ensuring a sufficient pool of qualified interpreters in every required language statewide will take continued effort, outreach, resources, and, most importantly, time.

* UPCOMING JANUARY 2008 TRAINING AND TESTING CYCLE

The Judiciary is currently preparing for the second testing cycle of its Certification Program which is scheduled to begin on Oahu on January 22, 2008. Certification Program orientations will be conducted statewide through February 2008 on the islands of O#ahu, Maui, Kaua#i, and in Hilo and Kona on the Big Island. Written exams will be administered statewide in March 2008, followed by oral exam administration in May 2008. A third testing cycle is projected to commence in May 2008.

*FEE WAIVER PROGRAM

The Judiciary, through partial collaborative funding from the State of Hawai#i Office of Language Access, is currently offering a fee waiver program for its upcoming 2-Day Basic Orientation Workshops, the first graduated requirement of the Certification Program. The fee waiver program would reduce the registration fees up to 75%. Eligibility for the waiver will be based on court need which will primarily be based on the languages within each Judicial circuit that are under- represented on the Certification Program Registry and the level to which these languages are needed for court interpretation. The three target groups of the waiver program are interpreters who interpret in languages for which there is low Judiciary demand, interpreters in a number of Pacific Island languages that are in high demand but have had difficulty in fully participating in the Certification Program, and lastly, interpreters in languages that have acute linguistic obstacles leading to lower success rates for test-takers in the respective language. * LANGUAGE-SPECIFIC WORKSHOPS

In order to specifically address the Judiciary’s critical need for court interpreters in the Chuukese and Marshallese languages, the Judiciary, in collaboration with the State of Hawai#i Office of Language Access, is offering language-specific workshops at minimal cost for Chuukese and Marshallese interpreters in January 2008.

REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES FROM COURT INTERPRETING SERVICES REVOLVING FUND

Below are the revenues and expenditures from the Court Interpreting Services Revolving Fund (as of November 30, 2007).

Total Deposits: 18,775.00

Interest Earned: 99.45

Expenditures: 407.98

Encumbrances: 4,900.00

Balance as of 11/30/07: $13,566.47

Costs for court interpreter training and testing during the first testing cycle of the Certification Program were primarily funded by appropriations granted under Act 120, Session Laws of Hawai#i 2006, to be used by the Judiciary during the 2006-07 fiscal year for the implementation of a Judiciary court interpreter certification program. Judiciary was appropriated $15,000.00 for Certification Program equipment and $77,821.00 for other current expenditures related to the Certification Program. Thus, start- up costs for training and testing during the first Certification Program testing cycle were not expenditures of the Court Interpreting Revolving Services Fund.

NOTE: Appendix A mentioned in this report has been provided to the House and Senate Judiciary committees in electronic format on CD. To obtain a copy of Appendix A, please contact these committees directly or email the Judiciary’s Legislative Coordinating Office at [email protected]. REPORT TO THE TWENTY-FOURTH LEGISLATURE

ACT 169, Section 12 SESSION LAWS OF HAWAI#I 2007

A Report on the Status of Implementation of the Court Interpreter Program

Submitted by:

Office of the Administrative Director of the Courts The Judiciary, State of Hawai#i

December 2007 BACKGROUND

Act 169, Session Laws of Hawai#i 2007, Section 12 (Judiciary Appropriations Act of 2007) appropriated $100,000 for service on a fee basis-interpreter fees for support of the Hawai#i State Court Interpreter Certification Program. Section 12 of Act 169 also states that the Judiciary shall submit a report to include the status of the implementation and effectiveness of the Court Interpreter Certification Program.

STATUS OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COURT INTERPRETER PROGRAM

The following are key components of the Certification Program:

* TWO-DAY BASIC ORIENTATION WORKSHOPS (BOW)

* WRITTEN EXAMINATIONS (WE)

* COURT INTERPRETER TIERS OF DESIGNATION

(See attached Appendix A, Hawai#i Rules for Certification of Spoken and Sign Language Interpreters adopted by the Hawai#i Supreme Court, effective July 1, 2007.)

NUMBER OF INTERPRETERS CERTIFIED AND REVIEW OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE PROGRAM

* SUMMER 2007 CERTIFICATION PROGRAM TESTING CYCLE

* UPCOMING JANUARY 2008 TRAINING AND TESTING CYCLE

*FEE WAIVER PROGRAM

PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

* CERTIFICATION PROGRAM STAFFING

The Hawai#i 2006 Legislature granted the Hawai#i State Judiciary’s budget request for appropriations to support two new permanent employee positions to staff the Judiciary’s Certification Program, providing $65,508.00 for payroll expenditures. On April 25, 2007, a Program Specialist was hired to essentially manage the Certification Program. On June 25, 2007, a Clerk Typist III was hired to provide additional support and staffing for the Certification Program. Both positions are housed within the Judiciary’s Administration Program, Office on Equality and Access to the Courts.

FUTURE PLANS

* DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURES

Recognizing the need to establish disciplinary procedures for court interpreters, the Hawai#i State Judiciary is currently working with the Supreme Court Committee on Court Interpreters (“CCI”) to develop a disciplinary procedure system most suitable for Hawaii’s court interpreters. The Judiciary intends to implement such system in 2008.

* CONTINUING EDUCATION

The Hawai#i State Judiciary is also working with CCI to develop a continuing education component of the Certification Program.

DETAILED BREAKDOWN OF EXPENDITURES

According to the legislative worksheet, the Judiciary was appropriated $100,000.00 for service on a fee basis - interpreter fees. Below are the amounts expended by each judicial circuit for court interpreter fees during Fiscal Year 2007-2008 thus far (based on report of Department of Accounting and General Services to December 19, 2007):

First Circuit Court 97,527.09 Second Circuit Court 11,786.40 Third Circuit Court 18,917.19 Fifth Circuit Court 4,388.50

Total Expenditures: $132,619.18 NOTE: Appendix A mentioned in this report has been provided to the House and Senate Judiciary committees in electronic format on CD. To obtain a copy of Appendix A, please contact these committees directly or email the Judiciary’s Legislative Coordinating Office at [email protected]. REPORT TO THE TWENTY-FOURTH LEGISLATURE

SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 175 (REGULAR SESSION 2007)

Requesting the Judiciary to Monitor the Collection of Crime Victim Compensation Fees

Submitted by:

Office of the Administrative Director of the Courts The Judiciary, State of Hawai#i

December 2007

A Progress Report in Meeting the Requirements of Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 175, Requesting the Judiciary to Monitor the Collection of the Crime Victim Compensation Fees ______

Initiated and adopted by the 2007 Hawai#i State Legislature, Senate Concurrent Resolution (S.C.R.) No. 175, requested the Judiciary to monitor the collection of crime victim compensation (CVC) fees.

S.C.R. No. 175 also required the Judiciary to provide a report to the 2008 Legislature detailing the progress made in meeting the requirements of Act 206, Session Laws of Hawai#i (SLH) 19981, including specific information regarding:

· Actual versus estimated compensation fee collections;

· The number of eligible cases in which the fee was ordered;

· The number of eligible cases in which the fee was collected;

· The number of eligible cases in which the fee was waived; and

· In eligible cases in which the fee was waived, the criteria used for waiving the fee.

Further, S.C.R. No. 175 requested the Judiciary to report its findings and recommendations to the Legislature no later than twenty days prior to the convening of the Regular Session of 2008.

______

Background Information

In accordance with HRS § 706-605(6), “The court shall impose a compensation fee upon every person convicted of a criminal offense pursuant to section 351-62.6; provided that the court shall waive the imposition of a compensation fee if it finds that the defendant is unable to pay the compensation fee. When a defendant is ordered to make payments in addition to the compensation fee, payments by the defendant shall be made in the following order of priority:

(a) Restitution; (b) Crime victim compensation fee;

1 Act 206, SLH 1998, established the mandatory CVC fee to enable the CVC Commission to become fiscally self-sufficient and to eliminate the need for general fund appropriations. (c) Probation services fee; (d) Other fees; and (e) Fines.”

Moreover, it is important to note that given the priority of payments identified in the aforementioned statute, should the courts order a CVC fee, if the defendant is unable to fulfill the first priority obligation of restitution, the CVC fee shall remain unpaid.

In addition, two factors affecting the collection of CVC fees are important to note: 1) a CVC fee ordered in any given year may be collected over a period of several years and, as a result, the amounts ordered will not necessarily ever match the amounts collected in a given fiscal year; and 2) the collection of CVC fees from incarcerated persons and defendants released from probation do not come under the purview of the Judiciary.

______

Overview

A CVC Fees Committee was established in May, 2007 to prepare a written response to S.C.R. No. 175. Members included chief court administrators from each circuit, a deputy chief court administrator from the First Circuit, the Branch Administrator from the Adult Client Services Branch in the First Circuit, and Judiciary Administration personnel from budget, fiscal, information technology, internal audit, legislative coordinating office, planning and program evaluation, and statistics.

To comply with the requirements of S.C.R. No. 175, the CVC Fees Committee conducted a statewide review, by circuit, of the handling of CVC fees. Phases of the project included but were not limited to discovery and implementing remedial actions with the intent to improve the reporting and handling of CVC fees.

The CVC Fees Committee reviewed and compiled information on the handling of CVC fees associated with persons convicted during fiscal year (FY) 2007, of criminal offenses pursuant to HRS § 351-62.6.

Data was extracted from three caseload management systems:

· Hawai#i Judicial Information System (“HAJIS”) for Circuit and Family Court criminal cases;

· District Court Criminal System (“DC CRIM”) for District Court criminal cases, excluding traffic; and

· Judicial Information Management System (“JIMS”) for criminal traffic cases.

The review was completed in November, 2007. Responses to S.C.R. No. 175

Item 1. Actual versus estimated compensation fee collections.

Fiscal Year

2006 2007 2008

Actual collections – 1st Quarter $170,723 $178,979 $183,051

Actual collections – 12 months $828,517 $853,276 ---

Estimated collections – 12 months ------$875,000

Actual collections for the first quarter of FY 2008 were slightly ahead of collections during the first quarter of FY 2007. On this basis, we estimate that collections for FY 2008 will approach $875,000.

Item 2. The number of eligible cases in which the fee was ordered.

Number of Cases 2,3

Circuit & Family Courts 3,010

District Courts (excluding Traffic) 12,910

Traffic Courts 17,322

Item 3. The number of eligible cases in which the fee was collected.

Information is not available in HAJIS and DC CRIM systems that monitor caseload activities at the Circuit, Family, and District (excluding Traffic) courts.

Item 4. The number of eligible cases in which the fee was waived.

2 An “eligible” case is defined as a case in which the defendant has been convicted or who entered a plea under HRS § 853-1. An “eligible” case at the Circuit, Family, and Traffic courts refers to one defendant who was convicted of or who entered a plea under HRS § 853-1, HRS for one or more offenses. An “eligible” case at the District Court level refers to one offense. For example, a defendant convicted of three offenses is represented by three “eligible” cases.

3 Entry of judgment during FY 2007. Number of Cases 4,5

Circuit & Family Courts 1,195

District Courts (excluding Traffic) 5,084

Traffic Courts 2,432

Item 5. In eligible cases in which the fee was waived, the criteria used for waiving the fee.

In accordance with HRS § 706-605(6), and HRS § 351-62.6, the law provides for judicial discretion to waive the CVC fee based on inability to pay.

“Inability to pay” was the only criteria used in cases where the reason for waiving the fee was indicated.

4 An “eligible” case is defined as a case in which the defendant has been convicted or who entered a plea under HRS § 853-1. An “eligible” case at the Circuit, Family, and Traffic courts refers to one defendant who was convicted of or who entered a plea under HRS § 853-1, for one or more offenses An “eligible” case at the District Court level refers to one offense. For example, a defendant convicted of three offenses is represented by three “eligible” cases.

5 Entry of judgment during FY 2007.