Title: Drug Court Monitoring, Evaluation, and Management Information
Systems: National Scope Needs Assessment
Series: Monograph
Author: SEARCH, The National Consortium for Justice Information and
Statistics
Published: February 2003
Subject: drug courts, information systems, drug case processing, court
management, drug testing, drug treatment, drug policy
81 pages
163,840 bytes

----------------------------

Figures, charts, forms, and tables are not included in this ASCII plain-text file.
To view this document in its entirety, download the Adobe Acrobat graphic file
available from this Web site. 

----------------------------

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

Drug Court Monitoring, Evaluation, and Management Information Systems:
National Scope Needs Assessment

Monograph

February 2003

SEARCH, The National Consortium for Justice Information and Statistics

BJA Bureau of Justice Assistance

----------------------------

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 195077

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

In November 2002, the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) assumed
responsibility for administering the Drug Court Grant Program and the Drug
Court Training and Technical Assistance Program. For further information,
please contact BJA.
     
Bureau of Justice Assistance
810 Seventh Street NW.
Washington, DC 20531
Telephone: (202) 616-5001
Fax: (202) 514-6452
E-mail: AskBJA@ojp.usdoj.gov 

----------------------------

Acknowledgments

This report was prepared by SEARCH, The National Consortium for Justice
Information and Statistics, Gerald E. Wethington, Chair, and Gary R. Cooper,
Executive Director. The project director was Francis L. Bremson, Courts
Program Director. The report was written by Victoria S. Cashman, Cashman
& Associates, Inc. Twyla R. Cunningham, Manager, and Juliet S. Farmer,
Writer/Researcher, Corporate Communications, edited this report. The Federal
project monitor was Jill Beres, Policy Specialist, Drug Courts Program Office
(DCPO), U.S. Department of Justice.

In the preparation of the study design and questionnaire, a number of individuals
in particular contributed their time and talents to ensure the success of this
project, and were all invaluable to the production of this report, including
Marilyn Roberts and Jennifer Columbel, DCPO; David Roberts, Francis
Bremson, and Owen Greenspan, SEARCH; Dr. Barry Mahoney, Richard
Hoffman, and Karen Booth, The Justice Management Institute; Caroline
Cooper, American University; and Eric Lee, Center for Court Innovation.

Many drug court practitioners contributed their time and effort to make this
study possible. We are indebted to the many drug court judges and court
coordinators who responded to the survey. We are especially grateful to the
following drug court judges and their teams who participated in the pilot test
phase of this survey: Hon. Russell Canan, Washington, D.C.; Hon. Rudy Diaz,
El Monte, California; Hon. Bonnie Dumanis, San Diego, California; Hon.
Michael Kavanaugh, Albuquerque, New Mexico; Hon. Stephen Marcus, Los
Angeles, California; Hon. Leslie Miller, Tucson, Arizona; Hon. Robert Russell,
Buffalo, New York; and Hon. Jorge Simon, New Haven, Connecticut. It is
because of the selfless efforts and dedication of these drug court professionals
that courts nationwide will benefit from their experience and expertise.

Our special thanks to Shelley Johnson, Ph.D. candidate at the University of
Cincinnati Division of Criminal Justice, who was responsible for all data analysis
and who helped draft the final report sections on the data. Johnson was assisted
by graduate student researchers Lisa Growette and Kate Andriacco.

We are grateful to all who have helped illuminate this issue and to those whose
efforts will contribute to the continuing improvement of drug courts.


----------------------------

Foreword

This report provides the results of an assessment conducted as part of the
National Drug Court Training and Technical Assistance Program, which
supports the Drug Court Grant Program. Both programs are administered by
the Drug Courts Program Office (DCPO), Office of Justice Programs, U.S.
Department of Justice. The Drug Court Grant Program addresses both the
increasing number of nonviolent, substance-abusing adult and juvenile offenders
who contribute to the pervasive problems of prison overcrowding, and the high
recidivism rate for those offenders. Drug treatment courts leverage the coercive
power of the criminal justice system to enforce abstinence among and alter the
behavior of drug-involved offenders.

Drug courts are a growing phenomenon, and the number of jurisdictions
establishing drug courts has grown significantly over the past 10 years. Although
numerous drug courts throughout the Nation report success stories, many
experts point out that rigorous evidence to document their impact is lacking,
especially with regard to longer term outcomes. For the most part, the
successes have not been rigorously documented because drug courts lacked
both process and impact evaluation data, because most programs began and
continue without the benefit of rigorous evaluation plans or automated
management information systems (MIS). In recognition of this gap in resources
and methodology, DCPO established initiatives to quantify the courts' needs for
information technology and evaluation training and technical assistance, and to
develop training and technical assistance solutions to address drug court priority
needs. This report documents that quantification--the results of the first national
survey of drug court MIS/evaluation requirements--and identifies a series of
proposed DCPO initiatives to address the highest priority training and technical
assistance requirements, as identified by the drug courts themselves.

SEARCH, The National Consortium for Justice Information and Statistics,
commissioned Cashman & Associates, Inc., to conduct this study on behalf of
DCPO. Special thanks go to the organizations that worked in partnership with
SEARCH to conduct this study: The Justice Management Institute (JMI), the
Drug Court Clearinghouse and the Technical Assistance Project at American
University, the Center for Court Innovation, and the National Association of
Drug Court Professionals.

----------------------------


Contents

I. Introduction and Executive Summary

o Drug Court Approach
o Monitoring and Evaluation Needs of Drug Courts
o Needs Assessment Survey: A Component of the National Training and
Technical Assistance Program
o Summary of Major Survey Findings
o Recommendations

II. Research Methodology

o Research Design
o Sample
o Assessment Areas
o Drug Court Characteristics
o Statistical Analysis
o Scope

III. Detailed Survey Results by Assessment Area

o Management and Evaluation Information Capabilities: Supporting
Decisionmaking
o Automation: Enhancing Effectiveness and Efficiency
o Technical Assistance: Overwhelming Appeal for Support
o Education and Training: Sharing and Expanding Successes
o Background and Other Characteristics

IV. Summary of Findings

o Major Findings
o Other Results

V. Recommendations

Appendixes 

1. Drug Court Needs Assessment of Evaluation and Management Information
Systems, May 1999
                    
2. Write-In Comments


Notes

List of Tables and Figures [These tables and figures are not included in this
ASCII plain-text file. To view this document in its entirety, download the
Adobe Acrobat graphic file available from this Web site.]

o Table 1a. Drug Court Assessment by Jurisdiction Size/Management
Information
o Table 1b.
o Table 1c.
o Table 1d.
o Table 1e.
o Table 1f.
o Table 2a. Drug Court Assessment by Jurisdiction Size/Automation
o Table 2b.
o Table 2c.
o Table 2d.
o Table 2e.
o Table 2f.
o Table 2g.
o Table 2h.
o Table 2i.
o Table 3a. Drug Court Assessment by Jurisdiction Size/Technical Assistance 
o Table 3b.
o Table 4a. Drug Court Assessment by Jurisdiction Size/Education and Training 
o Table 4b.
o Table 5. Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Drug Court Background
Characteristics
o Table 6. Drug Court Description by Number of Active Participants
o Table 7a. Drug Court Description by Efficiency of Test Results to Judge
o Table 7b.
o Figure 1. Level of Automation of Screening Information
o Figure 2. Level of Automation of Court Case Management Data
o Figure 3. Level of Laptop Availability for Travel Use
o Figure 4. Level of Drug Court Team Linkage via Computer Network
o Figure 5. Level Linked to Pretrial Services
o Figure 6. Level of Access to Main Trial Court Management Program
o Figure 7. Level of Training in General Office Applications
o Figure 8. Level of Training in Drug Court Software
o Figure 9a. Usefulness of Technical Assistance
o Figure 9b.
o Figure 10a. Usefulness of Education and Training
o Figure 10b.


----------------------------

I. Introduction and Executive Summary

As of June 2001, more than 697 drug courts were operating in the United
States, and 427 more were in the planning phases. Currently, all 50 States,
including major Native American Tribal Courts, the District of Columbia,
Guam, Puerto Rico, and 2 U.S. Federal Courts have operational adult drug
court programs. Thirty States have enacted legislation related to planning and
operating drug courts.[1]

More than 75 percent of the drug courts in the United States participated in a
national survey in mid-1999 designed to help those dealing with large drug
caseloads assess their needs for enhanced information- gathering tools.[2] This
phenomenal response rate confirms that drug courts place a high value on
information. As the Honorable Jo Ann Ferdinand, who presides over the
Brooklyn Treatment Court in New York, noted:

"Computers allow judges to draw the big picture--to browse quickly and to
spot connections, like the link between missed appearances and failed drug
tests. Speed is imperative when handling so many cases, but the real value of
automation is that it keeps appropriate team members apprised on all relevant
client details--the facts needed to make the best decisions--while at the same
time, [it] prevents unauthorized access to confidential data, such as judge's
notes."[3]

Drug Court Approach

Drug courts represent a unique, information-intensive approach to managing
drug-related cases. This approach is a fairly recent phenomenon for the justice
system. It grew out of problems created for the justice system, and the
communities it serves, when the growth of drug-related arrests threatened to
overwhelm the system in the early 1980s.[4] Faced with drained resources and
a lack of effective options to reduce recidivism, many jurisdictions began
searching for alternatives, which led to the movement toward specialized courts
in the late 1980s.[5] Drug courts were developed to reduce substance abuse
and recidivism through techniques such as treatment, judicial supervision, and
graduated sanctions.

Typically, each drug court team--judge, drug-treatment providers, court
coordinator, prosecutor, defense attorney, and other integral players such as
probation and pretrial services--carefully monitors and continually reports on
the nonviolent defendant's journey to a drug-free life. For example, almost all
drug courts require participants to obtain a General Educational Development
(GED) diploma, to keep a job, and to pay current financial obligations,
including drug court fees and child support (where applicable).

As team members track participants' compliance with program requirements,
the "total progress picture" must be available quickly and accurately so drug
court team members can manage the participants effectively. The drug court
team must be able to analyze and summarize these "progress pictures" to
provide the data that drug courts need to monitor their day-to-day operations,
evaluate their processes and impact, and demonstrate the costs and benefits of
their programs to their communities.

National research charting the drug courts' first decade of progress shows that
the drug court approach is working. For example, close to 230,000 defendants
have participated in more than 500 drug court programs nationwide since the
early 1990s. Almost 70 percent of these defendants are still enrolled in or have
graduated from drug court programs, nearly double the expected retention rate
from traditional treatment programs.[6]

But what of the costs of these programs? The average cost of the treatment
portion of drug court programs is $1,200 to $3,000 per participant. Contrast
that with a recent estimate of savings in jail-bed days of at least $5,000 per
defendant, which does not include savings in reduced police overtime, witness
costs, and grand jury and indictment expenses.[7]

Monitoring and Evaluation Needs of Drug Courts

Some drug courts, such as the Buffalo Drug Court in New York, have made
great strides in developing management information systems (MIS) that meet
the specific needs of the drug court. Others, such as the Los Angeles County
Drug Court Program, are pioneering ways to use systems for even greater
effectiveness and efficiency, including use of a secured intranet to make the
system available to authorized users whose locations are widely dispersed.[8]

Yet, study results show that most drug courts see major barriers to achieving
their goals of managing their programs and evaluating their results. For example,
drug courts surveyed clearly indicated that they lack funding for essential
equipment and software. Another major barrier is the difficulty in linking diverse
program information sources.

Drug courts want help to strengthen their ability to collect and manage
important program details. They are looking for training and technical assistance
to take advantage of available technologies that are capable of boosting
productivity in their vital information-gathering and evaluation-producing
processes.

This is known because of prior work in this area. In 1997, The Justice
Management Institute, in cooperation with the Drug Courts Program Office
(DCPO), Office of Justice Programs (OJP), U.S. Department of Justice
(DOJ), convened two focus groups of drug court practitioners, public health
officials, researchers, court managers, and MIS experts. The first meeting topic
was "Monitoring and Evaluating Drug Courts," and the second was "Drug
Court Management Information Systems." The topic areas, although distinct,
are ". . . closely interrelated, since sound monitoring and evaluation are heavily
dependent on the availability of relevant and reliable information about program
operations and participant outcomes."[9]

The focus group participants took a position of strong consensus on several key
points. Included among these was that

"Monitoring and evaluation of drug courts are critically important functions.
Drug court practitioners recognize the importance of these functions, but many
drug courts need help--through education and training, technical assistance, and
resource augmentation--to make effective monitoring and evaluation a
reality."[10]

Obviously, drug courts are at a critical juncture. Stakeholders are rightfully
encouraged by the successes of the drug court model. But more information is
needed. In its report to the U.S. Congress issued in 1997 (the same year the
focus groups convened), the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO)
concluded that "Existing evaluations provided some limited information but do
not permit firm conclusions regarding drug court impact."[11] GAO further
explained:

"We note in this report that many of the studies we reviewed provide positive
evidence of the merits of drug court programs. We do not believe, however,
that all of these studies are equally sophisticated in their design and methods, or
that the results of these studies can be simply summed to provide firm
conclusions."[12]

GAO went on to recommend more rigorous impact evaluations "To better
ensure that conclusions about the impact of drug court programs on
participants' criminal recidivism and/or drug use relapse can be drawn . . .
."[13]

Although there is general agreement on the desirability of improving the
monitoring and evaluation functions in drug courts, there is also recognition that
this is a particularly difficult area and that it would take a concerted effort to
implement this goal. Even GAO acknowledged:

"We recognize the difficulties inherent in collecting follow-up data. . . . We also
recognize that the need for and benefits of having data must be balanced against
the cost of collecting and maintaining it . . . ."[14]

Needs Assessment Survey: A Component of the National Training and
Technical Assistance Program

DCPO's national strategy for addressing these issues included the establishment
of a national training and technical assistance program that included an initiative
to provide the training and technical assistance for jurisdictions to develop
effective MIS and evaluations for all drug courts.[15] In other words, the
objective is to help drug court practitioners and stakeholders capture the best
practices of the current programs and share them nationwide to ensure that
future drug courts achieve the same success rates.

This survey is an important step in that initiative, identifying the technical
assistance and educational needs of existing drug courts and pinpointing the
barriers that keep courts from fulfilling those needs.[16] To bolster drug court
capabilities, this survey identified the specific resources and knowledge required
to collect the data needed to effectively manage, monitor, and evaluate drug
courts.

The survey queried the entire population of known drug courts in the United
States to develop an assessment that is nationwide in scope and broadly
reflective of all drug courts regardless of background or other characteristics.
(The research methodology undertaken in this survey--including research
design, assessment areas, drug court characteristics, statistical analysis, and
scope--is detailed in section II.)

Survey responses were received from 257 of the 340 drug courts that were
operational as of mid-1999, for a response rate of 75.59 percent. This
response rate increases our confidence in the significance of the results as
accurately representing the state of drug court evaluation and management
information systems and the preferred approaches for continuing improvements.
(Detailed survey results by assessment area are provided in section III. Section
III also includes a general profile of drug courts based on background and
other characteristics, such as population of the jurisdiction served and number
of active participants, and an overview of issues that need further discussion
and research.)

Summary of Major Survey Findings

In general, many drug court processes are not automated. Although there is
widespread use of computers in the drug court environment, this survey showed
that the automated support being provided to drug courts by existing computer
systems is inadequate. This hampers drug court operations in many ways, such
that

o Drug courts cannot take advantage of productivity gains and success sharing
that computer automation offers.

o Drug courts cannot serve larger numbers of participants unless they are more
fully automated.

The major findings of this study are summarized in the following key points, as
well as in section IV:

1. Although there is widespread access to personal computers, vital data are
not generally entered into automated systems, and there is not widespread,
appropriately shared access to data among drug court team members. In fact,
less than one-quarter of courts surveyed use automation to help judges interact
with their caseload of defendants.

2. A strong correlation exists between automation and the time it takes for the
judge to get failed drug test results. Because some of the less automated courts
also have rapid test reporting, it seems that those courts that place a high value
on the importance of information in the drug court environment are the same
courts that establish the processes that will get them the crucial data in a timely
fashion. The critical factor is the importance that the drug court places on the
value of information.

3. An overwhelming majority of the drug courts surveyed expressed their
willingness to use every technical assistance option offered to acquire the
proper automation, maintain the technology, and obtain the education needed to
generate regular productivity reports.

4. A lack of funding was the number one reason drug courts did not acquire the
additional automation needed and the training and technical assistance to
improve the administration of drug court justice.

5. In addition to funding barriers, drug courts also listed difficulty with linking to
other systems as a prime barrier to automation.

6. Even though most serve large jurisdictions, the majority of drug courts have
100 active participants or fewer. The largest drug courts--those with 200 or
more participants--are highly automated with good MIS support. This and
other survey results suggest that the lack of automation is hindering drug court
programs from serving larger numbers of participants and providing the
resultant benefits to their communities.

7. Drug courts clearly specified that they need technical assistance with all
aspects of automation--including help with initial "getting started" steps, such as
developing needs assessments and technology plans and preparing funding
proposals for stakeholders.

8. Surveyed drug courts overwhelmingly expressed a desire for additional
education and training to deal specifically with evaluation and management
information systems. Targeted workshops and videotaped training sessions
dedicated to monitoring, evaluation, and MIS development rated highly among
surveyed courts.

9. Difficulty with data entry and sharing are not a result of drug court
indifference to the need to provide regular evaluation information. Indeed, fewer
than half of the drug courts surveyed rated their current systems as good or
very good at providing information for evaluations.

10. Less than 15 percent of all surveyed courts report that they have completed
the necessary automation required to produce reports needed for overall
program evaluation. It is telling that this is about the same percentage of drug
courts that have the largest number of active participants (200 or more).

Recommendations

The results of this survey clearly show that the automated support being
provided to the drug courts by existing computer systems is inadequate.[17]
The respondents also identified several initiatives that, if adopted, would be
useful in improving the monitoring, evaluation, and MIS capabilities of drug
courts. Although the data were collected in summer 1999, the findings are as
important today as when the survey was initially conducted and provide the
only empirical evidence of user training and technical assistance needs.

Although DCPO and training and technical assistance providers have continued
to develop and present programs and solutions responsive to the needs
described in this report, those programs and solutions to some extent reflect the
fact that training and technical assistance project staff have worked
collaboratively throughout the project with DCPO staff, project partners, and
other technical assistance providers and experts in the field to address the
requirements of the drug court community. It would have been surprising if
survey findings and recommended responses to the findings were contrary to
DCPO's understanding of the field's needs and requirements, because the field
was the same source for determining resource needs throughout the grant
period. Thus, this report provides statistical evidence of the lack of hardware,
software, evaluation, and MIS expertise among drug court staff. It also offers
an agenda for addressing those needs through many of the same kinds of
training and technical assistance programs and content that DCPO and the field
had assumed were needed based on subjective assessments.

Without technology, it is difficult for drug courts to link the information about
their results with the goals of the court. It is also difficult to produce the reports
and evaluations needed to persuade stakeholders to allot more funding for
technology. This is obviously a vicious cycle that should be addressed to ensure
continued and enhanced court success.

To break this cycle and ensure future information sharing, the drug court field
should consider six broad recommended initiatives, which are detailed below
and also presented in section V.

Recommendation 1

Confront the main barriers to drug court efforts to gather and maintain
information through effective automated means.

The top two barriers to further automation cited by survey respondents were
lack of funding and difficulty linking with other systems. Some ways of
addressing these barriers are discussed below.

o Lack of funding. Although identifying a complete solution to this barrier is
beyond the scope of any one entity, this major barrier might be mitigated in part
by providing forms of assistance that drug courts identified as useful.

--One such tool identified in this study is a model presentation on drug court
costs and benefits. By taking data from available cost/benefit analyses
conducted throughout the country, and by using modern computer graphics
software such as Microsoft PowerPoint[R] or Harvard Graphics, assistance
can be provided to turn these facts into stakeholder presentations that can help
generate vital funding.

--Another form of assistance would be to develop an MIS/evaluation listserv to
update the field as developments occur, to provide a forum for practitioners to
discuss issues, and to pose and answer questions of peers.

--An online clearinghouse of frequently asked questions about drug court MIS
and evaluation that would feature answers by leading experts in the field would
also be helpful.

o Difficulty linking with other systems. Providing training and technical
assistance can also be instrumental in helping drug court personnel deal with the
security, privacy, and access issues that arise when automating a system with
shared information. Subject matter trainings could be conducted, including a
workshop on linking drug court information systems to court information
systems. 

Recommendation 2 

Respond to the call for specialized educational programs by developing
workshops that address high-priority issues.

o A first workshop should focus on program monitoring and process evaluation
and provide illustrations of output reports from a real MIS to illustrate what can
be accomplished through awareness and planning.

o A second workshop should address using technology to enhance drug court
operations. It should include the application of existing audio, video, data, and
telecommunications products and tools--including testing, monitoring, and
mapping technologies--to improve the drug court team's ability to make the
highest quality decisions and to improve the overall efficiency and effectiveness
of drug courts.

o A third workshop on linking drug court information systems to court
information systems should explore the barriers to system interface, including
the privacy and security issues inherent in integrated justice information systems.
Subject matter faculty should include representatives from jurisdictions in which
the court and drug court systems are already integrated.

Recommendation 3 

Provide technical assistance that addresses areas identified as needing special
attention.

Survey respondents identified the following areas for training.


o Information technology strategic planning, including staffing issues.

o Comparing data being collected with recommended data elements and
functional requirements.

o Conducting information system design and development and/or acquisition,
including help preparing requests for proposals (RFPs); selecting consultants,
hardware, and software; and drafting and negotiating contracts with vendors.

o Defining the scope of work to implement the technology plan.

o Making the business case to the funding agency.

o Establishing appropriately secure links to exchange critical information with
other criminal justice agencies and treatment providers.

o Developing a drug court evaluation plan and selecting an evaluator.

Recommendation 4 

Respond to the call for a specially tailored software package for drug courts by
designing programs that help develop intelligent consumers of technology.

There should be a multiple approach to this recommendation.

o First, there should be more education about the use of technology, its
acquisition, and the proper role of government in this process. These issues
should be included in the workshops discussed in recommendation 2. These
workshops should help drug court members become intelligent consumers of
technology by dealing with questions such as

--What is the role of management vis-a-vis technology as distinct from the roles
of MIS personnel?

--What are the appropriate roles of technology vendors?

--Why and how do we deal with private-sector technology vendors?

o Second, initiatives should be undertaken that illustrate the steps needed to
develop a system and demonstrate best practices for MIS systems. These
initiatives might include a case study documenting the development and
operation of a drug court MIS.


o Third, building on this case study and work that has already been done by
SEARCH--including an assessment report of four public domain drug court
software systems and an "information audit" report,[18] which identify
necessary information elements for a drug court MIS--an initiative should be
undertaken to develop a set of common requirements for such software
packages and/or a model RFP that includes the specific requirements of such a
package.

Recommendation 5 

Focus on the role of systems training in successful automation projects.

Drug courts should explore ways to focus on the role of systems training in
successful automation projects. Because proper training is so important to the
success of these projects, serious consideration should be given to various
methods of training. Also, there should be an exploration of the means of
encouraging this training, either by making training mandatory or by rewarding
those who have the training in a timely manner.

Recommendation 6 

Develop a research agenda for drug court best practices.

There is a need to identify the best practices that have been developed for drug
courts in particular, and courts in general, with regard to the use of performance
measures and technology and automation components.

----------------------------

II. Research Methodology

To bolster drug court capabilities, this survey was developed to identify the
specific resources and knowledge required to collect the data to effectively
manage, monitor, and evaluate drug courts. In developing the survey, we were
guided by the results of the 1997 JMI focus groups on evaluation and MIS.
Among other difficulties, these focus groups identified six major obstacles to
sound evaluation research on drug courts. These ranged from difficulty in
obtaining relevant data, to the lack of a cadre of experienced researchers, to a
lack of resources for evaluation, to inadequate management information
systems.[19]

We were especially cognizant of the drug courts' unique challenge to evaluators,
which has been documented by the work of the OJP Drug Court Clearinghouse
and Technical Assistance Project at American University. That is, a drug court
evaluation must rely on many sources, such as intake assessment results, court
dockets, probation officer notes, and treatment-provider outcomes. The survey
was developed with questions applicable to each part of the drug court team
and their needs, taking into account the many different sources for relevant
information.

Research Design

Focusing on the nexus between good information systems and evaluation, the
questionnaire was designed to answer questions in a number of key assessment
areas, including

1. How many courts use computers and to what extent are data routinely
entered into the system?

2. Are members of the drug court team able to effectively communicate
important information regarding an individual case or progress in treatment
through the current MIS?

3. Is the current system capable of producing useful summary reports for
overall program management and evaluation?

4. What are the main barriers to further automating the current system?

5. What are the most common types of technical assistance needs ranked by
their usefulness to the respondents?

6. What are the most common types of education and training needs ranked by
their usefulness to the respondents?

Sample

The survey questionnaire was pretested on a small group of drug courts and,
after revision based on the results, the survey was sent to the remaining drug
courts on the list of 340 drug courts operational as of mid-1999. The list of
drug courts was provided by the Drug Court Clearinghouse and Technical
Assistance Project at American University.

The survey was sent to the attention of the presiding drug court judge with a
copy to the court coordinator. These drug court leaders were asked to meet
with their drug court team before completing the survey in an effort to capture
the capabilities and needs of all the participating entities that compose the team.
Shortly after the survey was due, a followup postcard was mailed to increase
the response rate.

Each survey was logged as it was received and the remaining courts that had
not responded were sent an additional reminder postcard. This process proved
to be very successful, and 257 surveys were received, a response rate of 75.59
percent. This response rate increased confidence in the significance of the
results as accurately representing the current state of drug court evaluation and
MIS, and the preferred approaches for continuing improvements.

Assessment Areas

The survey mailed to the drug courts consisted of four assessment sections and
a section for write-in comments.[20]

o Management and Evaluation Information. Included questions to assess the
use of computers at each site, the type of information currently entered into
computers, and the ability to automatically produce useful management and
evaluation reports.

o Automation. Explored the extent to which each functional area is supported
by automation, the access to computers by the drug court team, the networking
of computers to improve communication, the availability of specifically relevant
applications and capabilities, the access to technology training programs, the
technology employees themselves, and the main barriers to further automation.

o Technical Assistance. Directed respondents to rate the usefulness of a
number of technical assistance activities that might be provided to them during
the second phase of this initiative.

o Education and Training. Asked respondents to rate the usefulness of a
number of education and training programs that might also be provided to them
in the second phase of this initiative.

o Comments. Each section of the survey provided space for additional
comments to allow respondents to express difficulties or needs in areas not
included in the structured portions of the survey. Many practitioners took
added comments and suggestions.

Drug Court Characteristics

A "background" section of the survey also asked about a number of different
court-identifying and demographic characteristics to determine where statistical
differences might occur. The characteristics included

o Type of court. As indicated by the persons eligible to participate, such as
adult, juvenile, family, or tribal.

o Clients served. As measured by the number of persons who are currently
active participants in the drug court program.

o Time in existence. As measured by the time since the drug court accepted its
first client.

o Population. As measured by the size of the population of the jurisdiction
served.

o Treatment providers. As indicated by whether the providers are in-house or
contractual and, if contractual, how many separate entities are providing
services to the program.

o Time elapsing before test results received. As indicated by the amount of time
it usually takes, from minutes to days, for judges to receive failed drug testing
information. This question was included because drug testing is such an integral
part of drug courts.

Statistical Analysis

Beginning with frequency and percentages, various statistical analyses were
conducted to summarize and organize the data. Where appropriate, measures
of association and bivariate tests of significance were conducted. The data,
then, are presented in this report in several different ways.

1. First, the results of each question of the survey are presented in tables with
percentages by both option and population served.

2. Second, bivariate analyses were conducted to determine if a statistically
significant relationship exists between the characteristics of the courts and the
survey responses to any of the evaluation or automation variables. Missing and
skipped categories were excluded for these analyses due to small cell size.
Chi-square was selected as the test of significance. The standard significance
level used was 0.05 or less.[21] Results of the significance testing are
selectively reported when any of the results show a significant correlation.

3. Third, an analysis was done of the write-in comments. Selected responses
were grouped by section, categorized, and the results presented in frequency
tables in the appropriate sections of this report. All of the comments were
assembled in full-text and are presented in appendix 2.

The population size of the jurisdiction served by the court was one of the court
characteristics that presented the most significant statistical differences in results.
Therefore, the tables in the body of this report are categorized based on
population size.[22] To present the results in a manageable format, the size of
the population of the jurisdiction was grouped into three categories:

o Small jurisdictions: fewer than 100,000 people, n = 59.

o Medium jurisdictions: between 100,000 and 350,000 people, n = 82.

o Large jurisdictions: more than 350,000 people, n = 107.

Obviously, although drug courts share common components, each is unique,
and surveying them individually allowed the survey team to identify unique
aspects. The inclusion of write-in comments was especially helpful to assess
how certain perspectives and practices contribute to the level of MIS and
evaluation competency.

Scope

This survey queried the entire population of then-known drug courts in the
United States to develop an assessment both nationwide in scope and broadly
reflective of all drug courts, regardless of background or other characteristics.
Based on time and resources available, it was not feasible to complete a
detailed analysis of each individual court's automated equipment configuration
or work processes. Although these indepth analyses were beyond the scope of
this assessment, it should be noted that such studies would provide valuable
information for the individual court studied. If such detailed studies were done
on a representative sample of drug courts, the studies would provide valuable
data for extrapolations to the larger population of drug courts.

----------------------------

III. Detailed Survey Results by Assessment Area

This section provides the following detailed survey results:

o Four specific assessment areas--Management and Evaluation Information,
Automation, Technical Assistance, and Education and Training.


o Background characteristics of responding drug courts.

o Policy, technology, and tactical issues that were identified as needing further
discussion and research through analysis of survey responses and write-in
comments.

Management and Evaluation Information Capabilities: Supporting
Decisionmaking

Drug courts determine their successes through information about what worked
and what did not. As pointed out in the DCPO report of the 1997 focus groups
that met to discuss drug court monitoring, evaluation, and MIS, "Drug courts
are information driven to a very significant extent, and their needs for
information are significantly greater than existing court-based management
information systems have been able to provide."[23] Specifically, focus group
participants were concerned about the lack of information to support the
following types of decisionmaking:

o Operational decisionmaking in individual drug court cases.

o Overall management of the drug court caseload.

o Sound program monitoring.

o Useful evaluation.[24]

But many questions are raised. By automating the routine processes of drug
courts and compiling the vital data they need to make these decisions, how well
are the current management information systems serving drug courts? What
types of data are routinely entered into court computers? How do the courts
rate their abilities to monitor the entire caseload based on comprehensive,
accurate, and current data? Is the information extensive enough to have an
evaluation conducted and presented to stakeholders with an accurate picture of
court success? Are the computer databases that support the data for the drug
courts part of separate or integrated systems capable of sharing?

Use of Computers

Without a doubt, computers are an integral part of the drug court environment
(table 1a) [Table 1a is not included in this ASCII plain-text file. To view this
document in its entirety, download the Adobe Acrobat graphic file available
from this Web site.]. In response to the question "Does your drug court use any
computers?," a vast majority of the courts, regardless of the size of the
jurisdiction, use computers--92 percent of the small, 92 percent of the medium,
and 96 percent of the large jurisdiction courts. Although computers are
widespread, the automated support provided to the drug courts by these
computers is inadequate.

These findings are illustrated by write-in comments from several different
respondents: "We do not have software yet, although we have computers."
Another noted, "No MIS system--some computers for word processing and
e-mail only." Yet another said, "Information is entered in an after-the-fact
manner. The system is not used to assist team members or the judge in their
daily duties. The system is merely storing the information so that it can be used
for evaluation purposes."[25]

As expressed in survey respondents' comments, it is also important to assess
the overall extent of the information being entered into automated systems.

At this time, it is apparently standard practice to gather drug court statistics
"after the fact." In some instances, this is handled by clerical personnel who
perform data entry only and in other instances it is through contracting with
outside sources. These outside contracts are typically with academic
institutions. Graduate students come in (on an irregular basis) to review all or
selected samples from the reams of paper reports. Then they match client
information to other data, thereby reconstructing court actions, and they finish
by compiling the statistics.

Although this process may meet the immediate goal of providing a program
evaluation report for local, regional, State, or Federal reporting requirements, it
is not meeting the needs for ongoing management and long-term planning. This
process also makes it more difficult to compile the reports that regional
stakeholders are comfortable using to answer important policy and managerial
questions. Further, these processes are at variance with the foundation
principles needed for the integration of the information systems of courts and
other justice agencies.

This move to integrate State court information systems is being driven mainly by
the cost savings associated with increased efficiency.[26] Two of the integration
principles that are relevant to this practice follow:

o Data should be captured at the originating point, rather than reconstructing it
down the line or having others capture it.

o Data should be captured once and used many times, leveraging existing
resources and improving data quality.[27]

Obviously, the full benefits of computerization are not being realized. First,
because the routine processes are not automated and data entry is after the
fact, productivity gains that may be realized from automation will remain elusive.
Second, important local progress and success stories are being lost because
information pertinent to drug court case outcome and processing is not
automatically being captured.

Automated Information Support

The second question in the Management Information assessment area probed
the extent to which specific types of information are being routinely entered into
the computer system. The questions about specific drug court functions follow
the typical sequence of handling cases, starting with an initial screening of an
individual for program eligibility (tables 1b-1d). [Tables 1b-1d are not included
in this ASCII plain-text file. To view this document in its entirety, download the
Adobe Acrobat graphic file available from this Web site.]

o Screening and assessment outcomes. Only 51 percent of the small, 56
percent of the medium, and 62 percent of the large jurisdiction courts routinely
enter information from an initial evaluation of the defendant.

o Defendant's criminal history. Only 58 percent of the small, 62 percent of the
medium, and 65 percent of the large jurisdiction courts routinely enter
information relevant to the defendants' criminal history, even though this
information is extremely relevant to the defendants' placement in the drug court
system and to matching them with appropriate treatment services.

o Treatment services (type, duration, intensity, status). Slightly more courts--54
percent of small, 68 percent of medium, and 68 percent of large jurisdiction
courts--input details on the drug treatment plans prescribed for defendants.

o Drug testing frequency and outcomes. This is the most important indicator of
a defendant's "clean" progress. Here, results are slightly more encouraging, with
about 64 percent of small, 70 percent of medium, and 74 percent of large
jurisdiction courts entering this information.

o Compliance/Noncompliance information. About 64 percent of small, 68
percent of medium, and 65 percent of large jurisdiction courts routinely enter
compliance information.

o Status hearing outcomes. One aspect that makes drug courts unique is the
relationship between the judge and offender during treatment. For example,
status hearings held throughout treatment increase accountability, yet only 53
percent of small, 60 percent of medium, and 58 percent of large jurisdiction
courts record the outcome of these hearings in an automated system.

o Sanctions imposed. Can courts assess the outcomes of sanctions based on
statistical records? About 63 percent of small, 61 percent of medium, and 65
percent of large jurisdiction courts routinely enter information on sanctions
imposed. This process allows for the effective monitoring of individual clients
and provides the data required to monitor the effects of specific sanctions on
the overall caseload.

o Incentives provided. What court-provided incentives work to promote
defendant success? Few drug courts can find out via an accurate, automated
report. In fact, only 31 percent of small, 42 percent of medium, and 34 percent
of large jurisdiction courts routinely enter this information. 

o Information needed to monitor client progress. About 61 percent of small, 61
percent of medium, and 52 percent of large jurisdiction courts make an effort to
enter this information into an automated database.

o Fees imposed/Bench warrants. Specifically, 51 percent of small, 54 percent
of medium, and 50 percent of large jurisdiction courts input information relevant
to fees imposed and collected. A somewhat higher percentage--61 percent of
small, 71 percent of medium, and 74 percent of large jurisdiction courts--enter
information on bench warrants issued or executed.

o Award of GED or vocational certificate/Employment status. Are defendants
preparing themselves for financial responsibility? Only 39 percent of small, 44
percent of medium, and 40 percent of large jurisdiction courts routinely follow
up on GED awards via automated systems. Slightly more--56 percent of small,
62 percent of medium, and 64 percent of large jurisdiction courts--input
employment status.

o Living arrangements. Finally, are defendants making lifestyle changes; that is,
living in a drug-free environment and maintaining relationships with "clean"
family and friends? Only 51 percent of small, 54 percent of medium, and 53
percent of large jurisdiction courts can effectively monitor their defendants'
living arrangements through automated reports. 

o Rearrest or conviction during program. Another important indicator of
compliance among participants is rearrest or conviction while the defendant is in
drug court services. However, only a little more than half--51 percent of small,
61 percent of medium, and 64 percent of large jurisdiction courts--routinely
enter this information into an automated system.

o Rearrest or conviction after graduation. This is a desirable component of any
outcome evaluation; however, it is generally very difficult for courts to obtain
reliable data after the court releases the defendant. Despite the difficulties, 29
percent of small, 32 percent of medium, and 35 percent of large jurisdiction
courts input this information into a database. To determine the effectiveness of
drug court programs, a record of how participants perform after they are
released from the drug court is especially helpful. If paired with a control or
comparison group, this information provides data to determine whether drug
courts are having an impact on drug use and subsequent criminal behavior.

o Drug-free/Employment status after graduation. Ideally, rearrest or measures
of recidivism should also be supplemented with more detailed measures of
behavioral or lifestyle change. Although this information is very desirable, it is
difficult to obtain after people have left the program. With most drug courts
focusing on operations, it is not surprising that only 17 percent of small, 17
percent of medium, and 10 percent of large jurisdiction courts can routinely
enter data relevant to the clients' drug-free status postgraduation. Similarly, only
10 percent of small, 13 percent of medium, and 8 percent of large jurisdiction
courts collect data with regard to employment status postgraduation.

These statistics paint a rather bleak picture of the support provided to these
courts regarding automated data available for various types of indicators,
especially data on postgraduation status. Yet these results are not surprising.
Even GAO acknowledges the difficulties of collecting certain types of data and
the policy considerations inherent in running these programs. In its 1997 report,
GAO stated:

"We recognize the difficulties inherent in collecting followup data on criminal
recidivism and particularly drug relapse, as well as comparable data on
nonparticipants . . . . We also recognize that the need for and benefits of having
data must be balanced against the cost of collecting and maintaining it, as well
as against any logistical and legal implications, including existing statutory
limitations. Nevertheless, if meaningful impact evaluations are to be done in the
future on the growing number of drug courts, more of them must collect and
maintain data on factors affecting program operations and outcomes, including
data on participants after they leave the program."[28]

The write-in comments of survey respondents provide insight, as some
comments show progress toward the goals set by GAO. For example, one
drug court official stated, "For rearrest, drug status, and employment status
postgraduation, we have the capacity and are just in the beginning stages of
data collection." Other drug courts show there is a long way to go to meet the
GAO challenge, as exemplified by comments from several respondents stating
that "most information is in narrative form only," and "all information is tracked
in a written chart."

Note: The drug courts that can count on the fastest automated turnaround for
vital drug test results--within minutes or hours--are usually the best equipped to
react quickly, because these courts are also more likely to have computerized
information detailing other aspects of defendant progress, such as sanctions and
rewards.

Assembling Data Into Helpful Reports

Drug courts were also asked to rate their ability to automatically produce
management reports for a number of purposes. It is no surprise that, since many
courts do not have the time or the equipment to capture all of the pertinent data
needed for reports, many do not rate their report-generating capabilities highly.
Only 56 percent of small, 56 percent of medium, and 44 percent of large
jurisdiction courts rate their system for generating automated reports to support
informed decisionmaking on individual cases as either "good" or "very good"
(table 1e).  [Tables 1e is not included in this ASCII plain-text file. To view this
document in its entirety, download the Adobe Acrobat graphic file available
from this Web site.]

The courts in the largest jurisdictions, and with the largest potential caseload,
are less likely to feel their system does a good job providing information
relevant to monitoring overall operations of the court. Only 53 percent of small,
51 percent of medium, and 39 percent of large jurisdiction courts rate their
information system as either good or very good.

The qualified concern regarding report-generating abilities also transfers to
courts using computerized reports to gauge their own effectiveness. Only 51
percent of small, 37 percent of medium, and 37 percent of large jurisdiction
courts rate their current system as good or very good at providing information
for evaluations to assess effectiveness. In addition, only 37 percent of small, 52
percent of medium, and 44 percent of large jurisdiction courts feel they can
provide statistics proficiently on target populations served. Only 27 percent of
small, 17 percent of medium, and 18 percent of large jurisdiction courts feel
their system can provide cost and benefit analyses for stakeholders.

Overall, less than half of the drug courts believe they have the information
needed to create automated reports for the people they serve that demonstrate
what they do and how well they are accomplishing their goals.

On a positive note, drug courts that value timely drug test turnaround times
appear more likely to capture the data that will support good management
decisions for the overall program. These courts are more likely to capture
information that will ultimately help the court evaluate its overall performance,
as well as its ability to reach targeted populations.

Separate or Integrated Computer System

Compounding the shortage of information for reports is the nonintegrated nature
of computer systems serving drug courts. These courts offer a unique continuum
of services that often involve the defendant in the court system, the treatment
providers, and pretrial and probation services. Therefore, each part of the
system needs appropriate access to the defendants' progress reports and the
ability to chart progress. However, 58 percent of small, 52 percent of medium,
and 50 percent of large jurisdiction courts have separate or stand-alone
computer systems that are not part of a larger court or county system (table 1f). 
[Tables 1f is not included in this ASCII plain-text file. To view this document in
its entirety, download the Adobe Acrobat graphic file available from this Web
site.]  "Currently, we keep information in at least four separate databases,"
reported one drug court coordinator. It would be helpful to know why the
majority of courts have separate systems and whether or not it would be
feasible to integrate them.

Automation: Enhancing Effectiveness and Efficiency

Within each drug court, automation offers the opportunity to enhance
productivity, to serve larger numbers of participants, and to chart results. A
lack of automation creates a barricade to sharing the information needed to
make a drug court program run effectively and efficiently. Ultimately, these
factors will limit both the number of participants served and the benefits that
accrue to the community.

Where are today's drug court programs in the continuum between effective,
shared communication and isolated, nonproductive operation? Results from the
automation assessment area of the survey show that drug courts of all sizes are
making definite inroads into automation. In fact, computers are prevalent in drug
court settings. However, computers are not located in the right places and the
right team members do not have enough access to them to ensure that courts
have the ability to gauge day-to-day and overall program success. Looking at
the activities of the drug court from a functional perspective--screening,
assessment, docketing, and scheduling--it is apparent that progress is needed in
supporting these processes with automation. More important, drug courts point
to lack of funding as a formidable foe that keeps needed court-specific
programs, training, and in-house expertise out of reach.

Screening and Assessment

Table 2a and figure 1 show each size court's level of automation with regard to
screening and assessment information on drug court defendants. [Table 2a and
figure 1 are not included in this ASCII plain-text file. To view this document in
its entirety, download the Adobe Acrobat graphic file available from this Web
site.]

o Screening information. Although partial automation is prevalent, 48 percent of
small, 44 percent of medium, and 28 percent of large jurisdiction courts report
that screening information on drug court defendants is not automated.

o Assessment information. Only 19 percent of small, 21 percent of medium,
and 11 percent of large jurisdiction courts are fully automated with respect to
assessment information. A full 41 percent of small, 38 percent of medium, and
32 percent of large drug courts report this function is not automated at all.

Once again, it is obvious that drug courts of all sizes are grappling with the
daunting task of obtaining current, accurate pictures of their clients and their
potential clients in their target populations, yet they are not receiving much
automated support from their MIS. Without this screening and assessment
information, along with criminal histories, it is hard to know if a drug court is
reaching its target population.

Monitoring Day-to-Day Defendant Progress

Drug courts, especially large jurisdiction courts, fare only slightly better with
regard to monitoring specific components of their day-to-day programs. They
are also deficient in terms of having certain information automatically accessible
to judges and other drug court team members. The following describes, and
table 2b illustrates, each size court's level of automation with regard to
information on treatment case management, probation monitoring, court case
management, drug court MIS, judicial supervision, and graduation/program
separation. [Table 2b is not included in this ASCII plain-text file. To view this
document in its entirety, download the Adobe Acrobat graphic file available
from this Web site.]

o Treatment case management. Only 19 percent of small, 20 percent of
medium, and 16 percent of large jurisdiction courts are fully automated in terms
of the treatment case management function.

o Probation monitoring. Although approximately 40 percent of the courts report
having this function partially automated, only 22 percent of small, 16 percent of
medium, and 14 percent of large jurisdiction courts are fully automated.

o Court case management (docketing and scheduling). Large jurisdiction courts
are more likely to have information partially automated (figure 2). [Figure 2 is
not included in this ASCII plain-text file. To view this document in its entirety,
download the Adobe Acrobat graphic file available from this Web site.] About
half, 44 percent of small, 54 percent of medium, and 51 percent of large
jurisdiction courts, have this function completely automated.

o Drug court management information systems (client sanctions and rewards).
Some 25 percent of small, 27 percent of medium, and 16 percent of large
jurisdiction courts are fully automated with regard to this function.

o Judicial supervision. Only 27 percent of small, 21 percent of medium, and 14
percent of large jurisdiction courts report being fully automated. In other words,
less than a quarter of the courts use automation to help judges interact with their
huge caseload of defendants.

o Graduation/Program separation. Only 17 percent of small, 31 percent of
medium, and 23 percent of large jurisdiction courts are fully automated with
regard to client graduation and program separation. 

Tracking Vital Client and Program Successes

Drug courts of all sizes are clearly struggling to use technology to capture,
maintain, and provide some of the more important composite data elements
used to determine the success of the total program. Table 2c illustrates that only
about 14 percent of small, 15 percent of medium, and 8 percent of large
jurisdiction courts report complete automation with respect to maintaining
overall program evaluation information. [Table 2c is not included in this ASCII
plain-text file. To view this document in its entirety, download the Adobe
Acrobat graphic file available from this Web site.] Obviously, many court
successes go unreported, and so too the opportunity to share the methodology
behind those successes is unreported.

Collecting data on postprogram recidivism is another challenge for these courts,
as was earlier described by GAO. Significant expense, logistical, and
jurisdictional issues must be addressed to obtain this information after the
defendants are released from the program. It is not surprising that only about 10
percent of small, 13 percent of medium, and 9 percent of large jurisdiction
courts report complete automation with respect to tracking this vital indicator of
success (table 2c). Almost half the drug courts report they have no access to
automation that is capable of tracking which defendants succeed after they
leave the drug court.

These drug courts, like other problem-solving courts, are setting a more
ambitious standard for themselves by seeking to assess the longer term
outcome of court actions on individual defendants. In this regard, entities like
GAO, acting on behalf of Congress, are ultimately requesting that courts take
more responsibility for the outcomes of individual case decisions and, in the
aggregate, for the quality of justice being dispensed. Such demands from the
legislative branch have policy implications for the entire judicial branch of
government. Although these policy issues are relevant to this discussion because
the demands for evaluative data drove the need for this assessment, a full
analysis of the policy implications are beyond the scope of this report.
Nonetheless, these policy issues need to be kept in mind, because those
responsible for courts in general, and drug courts in particular, have a
long-standing and bona fide interest in automated systems to support the
management of these courts.

Part of the difficulty in building systems to track drug court data stems from the
fact that traditional courts have not collected this type of data. Indeed, the role
of modern court management has only recently emerged, with most of the
development of the role of the court manager evolving in the last few decades.
Before that, traditional courts left the management of cases to others, most
notably to members of the bar. Although modern principles of case flow
management have been accepted by many legal communities, the focus on
performance standards and the measurement of performance in the courts is a
relatively recent phenomenon.[29] Although more attention is being paid to
court performance measures, court officials continue to face a tremendous
struggle to secure the resources necessary for MIS software that tracks
information on very basic court processes. And the goal of tracking defendants'
activities after their cases have been disposed seems even more difficult to
achieve.

Access to Computers by Individual Team Members

The lack of individual access to computers may be a contributing factor to the
lack of automated information. Most members of the drug court team do have
some access to computers. For example, 92 percent of small, 94 percent of
medium, and 86 percent of large jurisdiction courts responded "yes" when
asked if team members had access to computers (table 2d). [Table 2d is not
included in this ASCII plain-text file. To view this document in its entirety,
download the Adobe Acrobat graphic file available from this Web site.] Yet,
when asked if they had access at their desks rather than at central or shared
areas, the positive responses dropped noticeably, with 64 percent of small, 71
percent of medium, and 67 percent of large court teams having computers on
their desks.

Two other questions were used to gauge the accessibility of computers, one
about computer availability in the courtroom and the other about the availability
of laptops for travel. Drug court decisions may be made in the courtroom, in a
different building across town, or across the county from team members' desks.
When asked if the members had access to computers in the courtroom, the
number of affirmative responses dropped significantly, with only 20 percent of
small, 34 percent of medium, and 36 percent of large jurisdiction courts having
courtroom computer access. Similar percentages--27 percent of small, 46
percent of medium, and 30 percent of large jurisdiction courts--have laptops
available for travel (figure 3). [Figure 3 is not included in this ASCII plain-text
file. To view this document in its entirety, download the Adobe Acrobat graphic
file available from this Web site.]

Several respondents provided write-in commentary that illustrated the
environments reflected in the statistical results, such as, "Some team members
have computers on their desks. The computers in the courtrooms are for clerks
only." Another succinctly stated the desktop availability as "Some do, some
don't."

Sharing Information Among Networked Team Members

Added to the lack of timely access to computers is the diminished ability for
appropriate drug court team members to share current, accurate information via
computer. It is extremely important for all drug court team members to be
linked and to share appropriate information on the defendants' progress through
various drug court services. As in any court or justice setting, controlling access
to confidential data is also an important requirement.

Controlled computer networks, with password access to high-speed
information sharing among team members in diverse locations, are particularly
beneficial in settings such as drug courts. Yet not all courts have network
access. Table 2e shows that 39 percent of small, 63 percent of medium, and 66
percent of large jurisdiction courts have communication networks that allow
drug court team members to communicate or share information via computer
(also figure 4). [Table 2e and figure 4 are not included in this ASCII plain-text
file. To view this document in its entirety, download the Adobe Acrobat graphic
file available from this Web site.] It is important to note that small, more
physically dispersed areas fare the worst with availability of networks. This
distinction between the small jurisdictions and their colleagues in medium- to
large- size jurisdictions was so great that it was statistically significant at the
level of .005. That is, our statistical tests showed an extremely high level of
confidence that these results did not occur by chance.

It appears that the judge and the court coordinator are most likely to be linked
via a computer network. Specifically, table 2f shows that 32 percent of small,
51 percent of medium, and 57 percent of large jurisdiction courts have
networks that link to the drug court judge. [Table 2f is not included in this
ASCII plain-text file. To view this document in its entirety, download the
Adobe Acrobat graphic file available from this Web site.] In addition, 31
percent of small, 52 percent of medium, and 56 percent of large jurisdiction
courts have networks that are linked to the court coordinator, who oversees
case flow and ensures the efficient administration of justice.

However, beyond the judge and court coordinator, network coverage
decreases, especially among the team members responsible for providing
accurate progress information to the judicial decisionmakers. All of these team
members depend on current information to adequately represent their clients, as
well as to guard the public welfare, as tables 2e and 2f [Table 2e and 2f are not
included in this ASCII plain-text file. To view this document in its entirety,
download the Adobe Acrobat graphic file available from this Web site.]
illustrate:

o Treatment providers. Only 27 percent of small, 35 percent of medium, and
27 percent of large jurisdiction courts offer networked systems linked to
treatment providers.

o Pretrial services. Only 3 percent of small jurisdiction courts have networks
that are linked to pretrial services, in comparison to 21 percent of medium and
22 percent of large court networks (figure 5). [Figure 5 is not included in this
ASCII plain-text file. To view this document in its entirety, download the
Adobe Acrobat graphic file available from this Web site.] This is an important
issue because pretrial services are often responsible for collecting relevant
screening and assessment data.

o Probation. Some 20 percent of small, 37 percent of medium, and 42 percent
of large jurisdiction courts have a networked system that includes links to
probation.

o Prosecutors. Only 15 percent of small, 31 percent of medium, and 39
percent of large jurisdiction courts have networks with links to prosecutors.

o Public defenders. About 15 percent of small, 22 percent of medium, and 36
percent of large jurisdiction courts extend their network links to the defense
teams.

The write-in comments given in response to this question provide some details
from specific courts. The comments range from respondents whose courts are
not networked, who said, "Drug court members cannot communicate via
computer," to other respondents with more progress in developing networks
who stated, "Planned linkage (for) calendar year 2000." Other comments came
from drug courts even further along in the automation process who have
immediate team members and beyond all linked, such as, "Program evaluator is
also linked."

Gaining Access to Computer Programs That Support Success

Drug courts clearly have basic computer programs that help in tasks like letter
writing or sending e-mail. For example, 95 percent of small, 98 percent of
medium, and 96 percent of large jurisdiction courts have word-processing
programs (table 2g). In addition, more than 70 percent of drug courts of all
jurisdiction sizes report access to both e-mail and personal calendar functions
(table 2g). [Table 2g is not included in this ASCII plain-text file. To view this
document in its entirety, download the Adobe Acrobat graphic file available
from this Web site.] As further illustrated by table 2g, a majority of drug courts
have access to the Internet, database management software, spreadsheet
applications, and antivirus programs.

However, access drops off noticeably when it comes to programs specifically
tailored to court tasks. When asked if there was software appropriate for their
job, respondents were less positive. For example, only 49 percent of small, 57
percent of medium, and 66 percent of large jurisdiction courts have links to
other justice system databases as appropriate to job function, such as arrest
records, criminal histories, and court dockets. More important, even fewer
report access to task-relevant software, such as screening programs for intake
or pretrial services officers and case management programs. Only 34 percent of
small, 38 percent of medium, and 36 percent of large jurisdiction courts have
access to task-relevant software.

Finally, only 22 percent of small, 42 percent of medium, and 54 percent of
large jurisdiction courts have access to the court's main trial court case
management system. Although large jurisdiction courts report having this access
more often, even larger systems are not well automated. Only 54 percent of the
large jurisdiction courts report having this access (figure 6). [Figure 6 is not
included in this ASCII plain-text file. To view this document in its entirety,
download the Adobe Acrobat graphic file available from this Web site.]

The comment of one respondent sums up the picture of sporadic access to
job-specific capabilities, stating, "E-mail is limited to the office. We have links
to other justice system databases for arrest records only. Not all of us have
these functions." Another commented, "Working on software specific to drug
court."

Educating Team Members on Specific Software Programs and Technologies

Not only do drug courts have limited access to task-specific computer
programs, they also may face a severe shortage of automation training
programs. Many veterans of successful automation projects consider training on
the new computer systems and software critical to ensuring the successful
installation and usefulness of a system. As stated in a 1993 book on court
automation, "Millions of dollars can be spent on hardware and software, yet the
ultimate success of the system depends on the quality of work of the individuals
with the lowest salaries and the least training in the judicial branch. Good
training and quality control procedures are perhaps the most important
challenges project leaders will face. If training is not effective, the automation
process cannot be successful."[30]

To gauge the role training has in computer systems success in drug courts, the
survey asked respondents about access to formal, court-supported technology
training programs. A slight majority of drug courts indicated that such programs
exist, but that where they do exist they are generally not mandatory.

Specifically, only in the medium- to large-size jurisdictions are training programs
available to half or more of the drug courts (table 2h). When asked about
training in general office applications, only 36 percent of small, 51 percent of
medium, and 67 percent of large jurisdiction courts report that such training is
available (figure 8). [Table 2h and figure 8 are not included in this ASCII plain-
text file. To view this document in its entirety, download the Adobe Acrobat
graphic file available from this Web site.] A statistically significant finding is that,
whether for general or specific training, small jurisdiction courts are less likely to
have any formal training programs in place.

Furthermore, programs are mandatory in less than 12 percent of these courts,
regardless of court size. Only 9 percent of small, 4 percent of medium, and 5
percent of large jurisdiction courts require drug court team members to
participate in training to learn general office applications of the software.
Requirements for training in drug court-specific software fared little better, with
12 percent of small, 4 percent of medium, and 9 percent of large jurisdiction
courts requiring these specific training programs.

Add these data on education and training to the details on the lack of
court-specific programs, and it is easy to conclude that, although computers
and basic programs are available, this hardware and software cannot be used
effectively for drug court business.

Relying on In-House Automation Expertise

Another indicator of automation advancement is the presence of staff
technology personnel, one or more employees whose primary responsibilities
include data processing, programming, system administration, and computer
maintenance. However, only 29 percent of small, 29 percent of medium, and
40 percent of large jurisdiction courts have such expertise in-house (table 2i).
[Table 2i is not included in this ASCII plain-text file. To view this document in
its entirety, download the Adobe Acrobat graphic file available from this Web
site.] Write-in comments like this one indicate drug courts borrow MIS
personnel from other court functions or use student interns, even volunteers at
times, just to achieve basic data entry and data processing. "We just want a
good MIS so we can spend as little time as possible on reports and as much
time as we can on treatment of our clients," added one understaffed court
coordinator.

Facing Automation Barriers

Courts were asked to identify the main barriers to further automating their drug
courts. The barrier overwhelmingly cited was a lack of funding. In fact, 61
percent of small, 72 percent of medium, and 66 percent of large jurisdiction
courts point to funding as the number one impediment to their automation
development. In addition, 56 percent of small, 61 percent of medium, and 47
percent of large jurisdiction courts indicate difficulty in linking with other
systems that support drug court team members as a prime barrier. The vast
majority of the courts do not see the other items listed on the survey as being
"main" barriers to further automating their drug court (table 2i). These included
insufficient skills, a lack of guidelines specific to drug courts, a need to educate
stakeholders, ongoing maintenance costs, unfamiliarity with State and/or
national standards, and appropriate security controls to limit access.

Write-In Comments

The write-in comments for this section showed a wide range of concerns. Some
respondents mentioned the current demand for technical personnel, noting that
"Programmers are not available because they are so busy with other projects."
Other comments, perhaps reflective of a certain desperation where automation
is concerned, went so far as to suggest that the government go into the software
development business. One respondent suggested that DCPO/American
University develop a software package specific to drug courts.

Although identifying the need for tailored software is on target, the suggestion
that the government should develop such software seems misguided. Comments
such as these suggest that there may be a greater need for education, so that
those having to rely on these systems will have a better understanding of the
role of technology vendors, the use of various aspects of the procurement
process to acquire technology, and how to deal with the private sector.

The write-in comments about additional barriers were categorized and are
presented below.

Additional Barriers: Number of Comments Recorded

Lack of specific drug court software: 15
Currently addressing barriers: 13
Staffing issues:12
Insufficient or incompatible software: 10
Lack of equipment: 9
Lack of funding: 6
Lack of training: 2
Lack of political or administrative support: 2
Accessibility of data: 1
Population size: 1
No existing barriers: 1
Drug court is just beginning: 1

Technical Assistance: Overwhelming Appeal for Support

As drug courts take on greater roles within their communities and serve larger
client populations, they obviously take on additional responsibilities with more
goals that must be achieved. The survey asked the respondents to identify the
technical assistance that the courts need to fulfill those vital goals. In fact, the
survey team culled many technical assistance options from earlier drug court
focus groups. The report on these focus groups identified "eight high-priority
areas for direct technical assistance to jurisdictions with respect to development
of monitoring, evaluation, and MIS capabilities."31 From these areas, and
based on consultation with experts in the field, a list of specific options was
developed. The respondents were asked to rate these options from "extremely
useful" to "not useful."

The drug courts' responses were forceful and clear.

Overwhelmingly, drug courts ranked every offered technical assistance option
as useful. In fact, very few of the hundreds of respondents ranked any technical
assistance option as not useful. As one obviously frustrated court coordinator
wrote after answering with a long technical assistance wish list, "What day will
(help) arrive???"

The greatest needs center around the basics of getting started on long-term
automated productivity. The statistical results are shown in tables 3a and 3b
and are discussed below. [Tables 3a and 3b are not included in this ASCII
plain-text file. To view this document in its entirety, download the Adobe
Acrobat graphic file available from this Web site.]

Information Elements and Functional Requirements

One option listed on the survey was "Assistance in doing a comparison of the
information elements being collected in your drug court with a set of
recommended information elements and functional requirements." For help with
this "actual versus recommended" approach, 83 percent of small, 79 percent of
medium, and 87 percent of large jurisdiction courts feel this help would be
useful, very useful, or extremely useful.

Needs Assessment

Help in conducting an MIS needs assessment that includes documenting existing
procedures, determining functional requirements, and developing recommended
solutions was also popular. Results show that 87 percent of small, 79 percent
of medium, and 83 percent of large jurisdiction courts cite this as useful, very
useful, or extremely useful.

Strategic Information Technology Plans

The development of a strategic information technology plan for the drug court
would include an assessment of the staff's technical capabilities and a plan for
acquiring the technical skill sets that are not available in-house. Respondents
indicated that 70 percent of small, 71 percent of medium, and 70 percent of
large jurisdiction courts feel this activity would be useful, very useful, or
extremely useful.

As tables 3a and 3b further illustrate, there are other areas where help is
needed.

Defining the Scope of Work

When asked about help in defining the scope of work required to implement a
technology plan, 76 percent of small, 70 percent of medium, and 71 percent of
large jurisdiction courts rated this activity as useful, very useful, or extremely
useful.

Model PowerPoint Presentation

Some 78 percent of small, 94 percent of medium, and 85 percent of large
jurisdiction courts favored the development and maintenance of a template for a
model Microsoft PowerPoint[R] presentation on drug court costs and benefits
to use when making presentations to regional stakeholders.

Security Links To Ensure Privacy

When asked about help and advice on establishing appropriately secure links to
exchange critical information with other criminal justice agencies and treatment
providers, 86 percent of small, 85 percent of medium, and 82 percent of large
jurisdiction courts rated this as useful, very useful, or extremely useful.

Vendors and Products

Respondents were asked to rate the need for assistance and advice selecting
vendors and products, including help preparing RFPs; selecting consultants,
hardware, and software; and drafting and negotiating contracts with vendors.
Responses indicated that 64 percent of small, 68 percent of medium, and 60
percent of large jurisdiction courts cite this activity as useful, very useful, or
extremely useful.

Drug Court Evaluation Plans/Identifying an Evaluator

When asked about help to develop a drug court evaluation plan and identify an
evaluator, 75 percent of small, 61 percent of medium, and 65 percent of large
jurisdiction courts rate assistance as useful, very useful, or extremely useful.
Small jurisdiction courts gave this option a much higher rating than their
colleagues in medium- and large-size jurisdictions. This differential in ratings
was significantly different for small jurisdiction courts than for the other courts.
Stated differently, the statistical analysis indicated that a strong relationship
exists between size of jurisdiction and need for such assistance, and that this
finding is extremely unlikely to have resulted from chance.

Overall Ranking of Technical Assistance Options

By assigning a weight to each response category, and taking an overall average
for each activity, the relative importance of each activity could be assessed. The
results of this weighting, which show activities from least useful to most useful
overall, are displayed graphically (figures 9a and 9b). [Figures 9a and 9b are
not included in this ASCII plain-text file. To view this document in its entirety,
download the Adobe Acrobat graphic file available from this Web site.]

Write-In Comments

Respondents had the opportunity to write comments and suggestions for this
section. In response to the question of "Additional Assistance" the results were
as follows:

Assistance Requested: Number of Comments Recorded

Drug court-specific software: 7
Funding: 4
Evaluation: 3
Computer networks: 2
Currently addressing problems: 2
DCPO-required data elements: 1

These write-in comments continue to show an emphasis on the need for
adequate funding and software that meets the specific needs of drug courts.

Education and Training: Sharing and Expanding Successes

As with technical assistance, drug courts overwhelmingly underscored the need
for educational assistance. Only a handful of the hundreds of respondents
ranked any education and training options as not helpful (tables 4a and 4b).
[Tables 4a and 4b are not included in this ASCII plain-text file. To view this
document in its entirety, download the Adobe Acrobat graphic file available
from this Web site.] More important, respondents offered their views on the
specific types of training they need most and the types of training delivery
devices, such as videoconferences, videotapes, and preexisting conferences,
that they can access cost effectively.

Information Management "Add-On" Modules

Respondents from 88 percent of small, 87 percent of medium, and 84 percent
of large jurisdiction courts believe an information management component in
future DCPO-sponsored workshops on planning and implementation would be
useful, very useful, or extremely useful.

Dedicated Topical Workshops

Even more respondents, 93 percent of small, 89 percent of medium, and 90
percent of large jurisdiction courts, thought workshops dedicated to the topics
of drug court monitoring, evaluation, and MIS development would be useful,
very useful, or extremely useful.

Videoconferences

In recognition of limited travel budgets, respondents were asked to rate the
usefulness of conducting videoconferences, or State or regional conferences
targeted to specific monitoring, evaluation, and MIS issues. Respondents from
76 percent of small, 78 percent of medium, and 83 percent of large jurisdiction
courts indicated that such conferences would be useful, very useful, or
extremely useful.

Software Orientation

Also rated highly was the option of conducting orientation sessions on specific
software programs and their application to drug court MIS needs, with 83
percent of small, 91 percent of medium, and 81 percent of large jurisdiction
courts reporting that these would be useful, very useful, or extremely useful.

Drug Court Request for Proposals and Contract Database

Responses show that 75 percent of small, 74 percent of medium, and 78
percent of large jurisdiction courts thought the development and maintenance of
a drug court RFP and contract database could benefit the court by improving
the development of technology projects.

Frequently Asked Questions

This item focused on whether it would be useful to develop and maintain a list
of frequently asked questions (FAQs) about drug court MIS, with answers
contributed by leading experts in the field. Of those responding, 81 percent of
small, 84 percent of medium, and 81 percent of large jurisdiction courts rate
this list as useful, very useful, or extremely useful.

Internet Listserver 

A vast majority of courts would like to see development of an Internet listserver
that would automatically send copies of e-mail notes on drug court technology
issues and concerns to subscribers within the drug court community.
Specifically, 93 percent of the small, 88 percent of the medium, and 85 percent
of the large jurisdiction courts rated this activity as useful, very useful, or
extremely useful.

Evaluation and Management Information Systems Best Practices

Some 93 percent of small, 93 percent of medium, and 91 percent of large
jurisdiction courts noted that it would be beneficial to identify, describe, and
disseminate information about well-functioning drug court evaluation and
management information systems. 

Overall Ranking of Education and Training Options

As was the case with technical assistance, by weighting categories and taking
an overall average for each activity, the relative importance of each activity
could be assessed. The results of this weighting, which shows activities from
least useful to most useful overall, are shown in figures 10a and 10b. [Figures
10a and 10b are not included in this ASCII plain-text file. To view this
document in its entirety, download the Adobe Acrobat graphic file available
from this Web site.]

Write-In Comments

Respondents had the opportunity to write comments and suggestions for this
section. In response to the question of "Additional Assistance" the following
were suggested:

Educational Option: Number of Comments Recorded

DCPO-required data elements: 3
Miscellaneous: 3
Evaluation: 2
Software: 2
Network/Internet: 2
Security: 1

These results show that, unlike the technical assistance options, there was not
as much consensus on additional or alternative options that would help address
education and training needs.

Background and Other Characteristics

The general profile of drug courts assembled through analysis of the survey
responses and write-in comments shows that 69 percent were adult courts
(table 5). [Table 5 is not included in this ASCII plain-text file. To view this
document in its entirety, download the Adobe Acrobat graphic file available
from this Web site.] Of the more than 250 courts that responded, the majority
of courts serve adults in moderately large cities with populations of 100,000 to
1 million. In looking at the number of active participants in each drug court, 58
percent have 100 participants or fewer. In addition, the modal average, or the
largest percentage programs in a single category, had 50 participants or fewer.
Yet the "average," as measured by the arithmetic mean, was about 200 active
participants. This larger average results because the statistical mean is
influenced or skewed by the 15 percent of programs that have more than 200
participants.

These findings raise an important issue. Because most drug courts are serving
jurisdictions of 100,000-plus, one might expect that the majority of the drug
courts would be handling a larger number of participants. But the majority of
drug courts have 100 participants or fewer. This begs the question of why more
of the programs are not handling larger numbers of participants. Several
explanations come immediately to mind. Three possibilities are that

1. Not enough drug defendants are eligible and/or in need of the programs.

2. Treatment providers or other necessary services and facilities are not
available to increase the size of these programs.

3. These courts lack the automation that would allow the teams to handle larger
numbers of participants.

The first seems an unlikely causal explanation, knowing the explosive growth of
the drug-related caseload, but other research may be in progress to answer this
question. As to the lack of treatment resources, it is generally acknowledged to
be a constant challenge for these programs. To be sure, others within most
communities and certain Federal programs are seeking ways to address the
availability of treatment. The third explanation, that the lack of automation is
hindering these programs from serving larger numbers of participants, has not
been generally acknowledged. However, data in this study would tend to
support this explanation.

Significant correlations exist between several measures of the extent of
automation and the number of active participants--that is, the larger the number
of participants, the greater the extent of automation and the better the MIS
support (table 6). [Table 6 is not included in this ASCII plain-text file. To view
this document in its entirety, download the Adobe Acrobat graphic file available
from this Web site.] For example, the results of questions about information
elements entered into the computer show a significant correlation between the
number of participants and several of these elements. These include information
on screening and assessment, treatment services, and fees imposed and
collected. Significant correlations also exist between the number of participants
and other measures of automation, including how well the various functions are
automated, and whether or not there is a court case and drug court MIS. As
illustrated in table 6, an interesting additional finding is that a significant
correlation also exists between the number of participants and whether the
public defender is electronically linked to the drug court team. 

More than 77 percent of the drug courts operating at the time of the survey had
been in operation for at least 2 years. Almost 73 percent rely exclusively on
contractual treatment providers for service, rather than having in-house
treatment providers (table 5). Another 10 percent rely on both, bringing the
total of programs that rely in some fashion on contractual treatment providers to
83 percent. The number of different providers varied, but the average or
arithmetic mean was seven and the median, or the response at the midpoint of
the distribution, was two. In this instance, the median of 2 is a much more
representative indicator of the average number of providers because the
arithmetic mean is inflated due to 2 courts with more than 130 providers each.

The Background section of the survey also included a question addressing how
long on average it took to get a report to the judge about a failed drug test. The
cross-tabulation on this question, done to see how well reporting test results
correlates with other factors, produced some of the most interesting findings.
The results indicate that a high correlation exists between automation and
rapidity of test results (tables 7a and 7b). [Tables 7a and 7b are not included in
this ASCII plain-text file. To view this document in its entirety, download the
Adobe Acrobat graphic file available from this Web site.] There is also a
significant correlation between courts that get rapid results and those that are
characterized by two other factors: those that maintain data on rewards and
sanctions, and those that have good management reporting capabilities.

However, the results of the data on the time it takes to get test results also show
that some other factor must be at work, because some of the less automated
courts also have rapid test reporting.[32] A likely explanation is that those
courts that put a high value on the importance of information in the drug court
environment are the same courts that establish the processes that will get them
the critical data in a timely fashion. They seem to establish these processes
whether or not their system is automated. This likely acknowledges that
automation alone is not the answer. Rather, the issue is whether the drug court
places a high value on information. Even those drug courts that do a good job
now would be able to do it easier and faster with a good integrated automation
system.

----------------------------

IV. Summary of Findings

The detailed review of the survey results in section III showed that many drug
court processes are not automated. Without a doubt, computers are an integral
part of the drug court environment. Although computers are widespread, survey
results show that the automated support being provided to the drug courts by
existing computer systems is inadequate. Therefore, drug courts are hampered
in many ways. First, they cannot take advantage of productivity gains and
success sharing that computer automation offers. Second, there is some
evidence that courts cannot serve larger numbers of participants unless they are
more fully automated.

Major Findings

The major findings of the survey are summarized in the following key points:

1. Although there is widespread access to personal computers, vital data are
not generally entered into automated systems, and there is not widespread,
appropriately shared access to data among drug court team members. In fact,
less than a quarter of the courts surveyed use automation to help judges interact
with their caseload of defendants.

2. A strong correlation exists between automation and the time it takes for the
judge to get failed drug test results. Because some of the less automated courts
also have rapid test reporting, it seems that those courts that place a high value
on the importance of information in the drug court environment are the same
courts that establish the processes that will get them the crucial data in a timely
fashion. The critical factor is the importance that the drug court places on the
value of information.

3. An overwhelming majority of the drug courts surveyed expressed their
willingness to use every technical assistance option offered to acquire the
proper automation, maintain the technology, and obtain the education necessary
to generate regular productivity reports.

4. A lack of funding was the number one reason drug courts did not acquire the
additional automation and training/ technical assistance they need to improve the
administration of drug court justice.

5. In addition to funding barriers, drug courts also listed difficulty with linking to
other systems as a prime barrier to automation.

6. Even though most serve large jurisdictions, the majority of drug courts have
100 active participants or fewer. The largest drug courts, those with 200 or
more participants, are highly automated with good MIS support. This and other
survey results suggest that the lack of automation is hindering drug court
programs from serving larger numbers of participants and providing the
resultant benefits to their communities.

7. Drug courts clearly specified that they need technical assistance with all
aspects of automation. These include help with "getting started" steps such as
developing needs assessments and technology plans and preparing funding
proposals for stakeholders.

8. Surveyed drug courts overwhelmingly expressed a desire for additional
education and training that deal specifically with evaluation and management
information systems. Targeted workshops and videotaped training sessions
dedicated to monitoring, evaluation, and MIS development rated highly among
surveyed courts.

9. Difficulty with data entry and sharing are not a result of drug court
indifference to the need to provide regular evaluation information. Indeed, less
than half of the drug courts surveyed rated their current systems as good or
very good at providing information for evaluations. 

10. Less than 15 percent of all surveyed courts report that they have completed
the automation needed to produce reports for overall program evaluation. It is
telling that this is about the same percentage of drug courts that have the largest
number of active participants (200 or more).

Other Results

1. Access to computers. Although computers are prevalent in drug courts, most
are not located in areas conducive to regular, effective data entry and sharing.
Furthermore, most drug court team members, particularly pretrial services
personnel and treatment providers who must keep the judges regularly apprised
of drug court activity and participant statuses, do not have shared access to
data and data-updating capabilities. This problem is multifaceted, as is
illustrated by one respondent who commented, "These different types of
information are entered by different team members into their own PCs in
whatever format they choose. There is no connection between PCs at this
time."

2. Survey result differences. Generally, there was no statistically significant
difference in survey results of different types of courts or among courts in
existence for different durations. The major statistically significant difference in
results was among courts serving different jurisdiction sizes. A few of the drug
courts in the largest jurisdictions do have sophisticated systems that they rate
highly. Surprisingly, sometimes courts in the largest jurisdictions fare the worst
in information entry, access, and sharing. 

3. Recidivism tracking. About 60 percent of the programs can track recidivism
while offenders are in the program, a clear measure of program success. Less
than a third of surveyed drug courts can report on vital defendant recidivism
rates postgraduation. 

4. Internal technical personnel. Only between 30 to 40 percent of drug courts
can rely on their own experienced MIS personnel to guide data entry,
processing, and programming.

5. Access to court-specific software. A minority of drug court teams have
access to trial court management systems and software programs tailored 
to specific court tasks.

6. Training. A majority of drug courts surveyed indicated that automation
training programs for specific software or technologies are not available. In
instances where training is available, it is generally not mandatory. This is a
particularly telling statistic because proper training is crucial to the creation, use,
and effective maintenance of an automated MIS.

----------------------------

V. Recommendations

The results of this survey clearly show that the automated support being
provided to the drug courts by existing computer systems is inadequate.[33]
The respondents also identified several initiatives that, if adopted, would help
improve the monitoring, evaluation, and MIS capabilities of drug courts.
Although the data were collected in summer 1999, the findings are as important
today as when the survey was initially conducted because they provide the only
empirical evidence of user training and technical assistance needs.

DCPO and training and technical assistance providers have continued to
develop and present programs and solutions responsive to the needs described
in this report. However, to some extent, those programs and solutions reflect
the fact that training and technical assistance project staff have worked
collaboratively throughout the project with DCPO staff, project partners, and
other technical assistance providers and experts in the field to address the
requirements of the drug court community. It would have been surprising if
survey findings and recommended responses to the findings were contrary to
DCPO's understanding of the field's needs and requirements, because the field
was the same source for determining resource needs throughout the grant
period. This report provides statistical evidence of the lack of hardware,
software, evaluation, and MIS expertise among drug court staff and an agenda
for addressing these needs.

Without technology, it is difficult for drug courts to link the information about
their results with the goals of the court. It is also difficult to produce the reports
and evaluations needed to persuade stakeholders to allot more funding for
technology. This is obviously a vicious cycle that should be addressed to ensure
continued and enhanced court success. 

To break this cycle and to ensure future information sharing, the drug court field
should consider six broad recommended initiatives, which are detailed below.

Recommendation 1

Confront the main barriers to drug court efforts to gather and maintain
information through effective automated means.

The top two barriers to further automation cited by survey respondents were
lack of funding and difficulty linking with other systems. Some ways of
addressing these barriers are discussed below.

o Lack of funding. Although identifying a complete solution to this barrier is
beyond the scope of any one entity, this major barrier might be mitigated in part
by providing several forms of assistance identified as useful by drug courts.

--One such tool identified in this study is a model presentation on drug court
costs and benefits. By taking data from available cost/benefit analyses
conducted throughout the country, and by using modern computer graphics
software such as Microsoft PowerPoint[R] or Harvard Graphics, these facts
can be integrated into stakeholder presentations that can help generate vital
funding.

--Another tool would be to develop an MIS/evaluation listserv to update the
field on developments as they occur, to provide a forum for practitioners to
discuss issues, and to pose and answer peers' questions.

--An online clearinghouse of frequently asked questions about drug court MIS
and evaluation that would feature answers by leading experts in the field would
also be helpful.

o Difficulty linking with other systems. Providing training and technical
assistance can also be instrumental in helping drug court personnel deal with the
security, privacy, and access issues that arise when automating a system with
shared information. Subject matter trainings could be conducted, including a
workshop on linking drug court information systems to court information
systems.

Recommendation 2

Respond to the call for specialized educational programs by developing
workshops that address high-priority issues.

o A first workshop should focus on program monitoring and process evaluation
and provide illustrations of output reports from a real MIS to illustrate what can
be accomplished through awareness and planning.

o A second workshop should address using technology to enhance drug court
operations. It should include the application of existing audio, video, data, and
telecommunications products and tools including testing, monitoring, and
mapping technologies. The aim should be to improve the ability of the drug
court team to make the highest quality decisions and to improve the overall
efficiency and effectiveness of drug courts.

o A third workshop on linking drug court information systems to court
information systems should explore the barriers to system interface, including
the privacy and security issues inherent in integrated justice information systems.
Subject matter faculty should include representatives from jurisdictions in which
the court and drug court systems are already integrated.

Recommendation 3

Provide technical assistance that addresses areas identified as needing special
attention.

Survey respondents identified the following areas for training.

o Information technology strategic planning, including staffing issues.

o Comparing data being collected with recommended data elements and
functional requirements.

o Conducting information system design and development and/or acquisition,
including help preparing RFPs; selecting consultants, hardware, and software;
and drafting and negotiating contracts with vendors.

o Defining the scope of work to implement the technology plan.

o Making the business case to the funding agency.

o Establishing appropriately secure links to exchange critical information with
other criminal justice agencies and treatment providers.

o Developing a drug court evaluation plan and selecting an evaluator.

Recommendation 4

Respond to the call for a specially tailored software package for drug courts by
designing programs that help develop intelligent consumers of technology.

There should be a multiple approach to this recommendation.

o First, there should be more education about the use of technology, its
acquisition, and the proper role of government in this process. These issues
should be included in the workshops discussed in recommendation 2. These
workshops should help drug court members become intelligent consumers of
technology by dealing with questions such as

--What is the role of management vis--vis technology as distinct from the roles
of MIS personnel?

--What are the appropriate roles of technology vendors?

--Why and how do we deal with private-sector technology vendors?

o Second, initiatives should be undertaken that illustrate the steps needed to
develop a system and demonstrate best practices for MIS systems. These
initiatives might include a case study documenting the development and
operation of a drug court MIS.

o Third, building on this case study and work done by SEARCH--including an
assessment report of four public domain drug court software systems and an
"information audit" report,[34] which identify needed information elements for a
drug court MIS--an initiative should be undertaken to develop a set of common
requirements for such software packages and/or a model RFP that includes the
specific requirements of such a package.

Recommendation 5

Focus on the role of systems training in successful automation projects.

Drug courts should explore ways to focus on the role of systems training in
successful automation projects. Because proper training is so important to the
success of these projects, serious consideration should be given to various
methods of training. Also, there should be an exploration of the means of
encouraging this training, either by making training mandatory or by rewarding
those who have the training in a timely manner.

Recommendation 6

Develop a research agenda for drug court best practices.

There is a need to identify the best practices that have been developed for drug
courts in particular, and courts in general, with regard to the use of performance
measures and technology and automation components.

----------------------------

Appendix 1: Drug Court Needs Assessment of Evaluation and Management
Information Systems, May 1999 is not included in this ASCII plain-text file. To
view this document in its entirety, download the Adobe Acrobat graphic file
available from this Web site. 

----------------------------

Appendix 2

Write-In Comments

----------------------------

Management Information

Question 1. Does your Drug Court use any computers?[35]

Survey respondents added these explanations:

o We use Provider Plus and are looking to convert to new county system.

o Just for minute orders.

o We are working on getting data entry assistance on each of the unidentified
items (rearrest while in the program, rearrest, drug-free status, and employment
status postgraduation).

o Some by participants and probation.

o No MIS system but some computers for word processing and e-mail only.
Our calendaring/docketing mainframe used for all juvenile cases is used for drug
court cases. We are currently planning a case management system to be used in
addition to this. We developed an application in Power Builder for dependency
case management and may modify for drug court.

o Two systems: probation and treatment.

Question 2. Please indicate the type of information currently being routinely
entered into your computer system. (Check all that apply.)

In addition to selecting from the 18 options included in the survey, respondents
added the following comments:

o We intend to enter followup information for graduates. We do not have 
graduates at this time. (2)

o Treatment plans and discharge summaries.

o For rearrest, drug status, and employment status postgraduation, we have the
capacity and are just in the beginning stages of data collection.

o Probation department enters criminal history data and tracks the rearrest after
graduation.

o The provider keeps all records.

o Incentives and fees are not applicable.

o Rearrest, drug-free status, employment after graduation will be applicable,
but not at this time.

o This information is available, but not on computer.

o We have not been established long enough to have postgraduation 
information.

o We do not have drug court-specific software. We have two computers.

o We use the Iowa Court Information System.

o Demographic information (drug-free children, number of children, race, date
of birth, ZIP Code).

o Drug of choice, drug history, race, marital status, family size.

o Children unification.

o Drug-free babies.

o Track family relationships (e.g., reunification and healthy births).

o Program level changes.

o Mental health issues.

o Most of captured information is under treatment and tracking.

o Most information is in narrative form only on probation and social services
systems.

o Complete database of Social Security number, date of birth, case number,
judge, case specialist, date of entry, phase, date of completion/termination.

o Mental health history.
     
o Most information is in narrative form only.

o Urine and medical screens; individual, group, and family sessions; court
appearances per month; and case management sessions.

o Information is not kept in one system. Drug testing results, assessment
information, fees collected, and arrest information are maintained in separate
systems. Other data elements are entered into a Microsoft Access database
created in-house, which is in use on case managers' and the drug court judges'
desktops as of 5/21/99. We also collect data on past drug use, education
status, number of dependents, dependent living status, changes in employment
status, and changes in education status.

o Information to monitor client progress (some); rearrest or conviction after
graduation (within 3 months).

o Attendance at status reviews.

o All outgoing correspondence.

o General demographics; judge hearing case; pertinent dates.

o New system will incorporate almost all of the above.

o All information is tracked in a written chart.

o Employment status is not updated.

o The local university does a followup survey on graduated youth.

o All postgraduation information: we do not have the programming necessary to
do this.

o Drug testing: partial and in aggregate only; compliance: partial and in
aggregate only; status hearing: BR-15 only; sanctions imposed: BR-15 only;
drug-free postgraduation: in process; employment status: in process;
demographics; aggregate outcomes; existing status; drug-free babies born;
family reunification; resumption of child support; referral information.

o These different types of information are entered by different team members
into their own PCs in whatever format they choose. There is no connection
between PCs at this time.

o We do not have software yet, although we have computers. We do not have
a program. All checked information is a part of the weekly . . . . 


o Program is so new there are no graduates, yet. We plan to include this in the
database.

o We track jail time only on sanctions imposed, and meetings with counselors
and probation officers are also tracked.

Question 3. Please rate your drug court's ability to automatically produce
management reports in order to provide information for the following purposes.
(Check the appropriate response.)

Respondents provided the following additional comments:

o All paper reports.

o Cost and benefit analyses are not done.

o All information on paper.

o We share the ability to track criminal history with the rest of the court. There
is no MIS for the drug program individually.

o No automated system.

o We cannot automatically produce any management reports.

o Our ability to produce management reports is poor due to the fact that all
information is not included in one system, nor do the various information
systems communicate with each other at this time.

o Individual casework is done by hand or verbally, as are maintaining statistics
on target populations.

o System does not have capacity to generate automated reports. However,
system collects all necessary data and easily translates into aggregate statistical
analysis.

o These are rated very poor since we do not have a lot of data in the system.
Also, we are still working with the vendor to get some useful reports from the
system.

Question 4. Is the computer database that supports the drug court a separate
system or is it part of a larger court or county system? (Check one.)


Respondents added these comments:

o Separate, but equal to the county system.

o Integrated, but a separate track.

o Computer system not used.

o We have two databases: one for the clinic (separate) and one for the court
(integrated). There is data on both.

o We are using Drug Court PC+ and have much data entered but are having
technical difficulties with statistics outputs. This is being addressed.

o Treatment provider has some information on separate systems.

o Access 2.0.

o We are using three systems and they are both separate and integrated.

o Currently working on a software program specifically designed for this
project.

o No database is available. There is currently a proposal to implement a drug
court database. That has not been done yet.

o Kentucky has been granted an MIS grant and will soon be upgrading and
integrating systems.

o Treatment (Department of Public Health), the court, police department, and
probation have different systems. DPH--billing system; treatment--small
database on treatment history; criminal justice agencies--use court management
system for bench warrant, arrest, etc.

o We are currently working on a software program specifically designed for this
project and separate from our larger system.

o Our current Drug Court Information System was created in-house and lacks
depth. We are currently in a holding pattern; the Louisiana State Supreme
Court, along with the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals Office of
Alcohol and Drug Abuse, is in the process of implementing a statewide drug
court information system using the Baltimore/Washington HIDTA software
package.

o We also use a statewide database.

o Will be a separate server/database that links to and receives downloaded
information from other systems.

o No database. Separate system does our reports on MIS and the integrated
system is ICON MIS which is statewide in Colorado.

o Separate, but working on integration.

o Utilize more than one.

o Local information is sent to the State office. The State office can pull any
information on local program from their database.

o All databases are separate now.

o Both really. We have a client/service database; an aggregate supplemental
database in process of partial integration with county system; an
assessment/followup database in development and a screening/monitoring
database separate from the court and database. The district attorney's office
has its own database as well. Program cost and budget information separate.

o Clerk of circuit court is integrated.

o It is many different little databases, not yet one main drug court database.

o There is no database. We have requested same from American University
several times.

Automation

Question 1. Please indicate the extent to which each function is supported by
automation.

In addition to rating automation in 10 different drug court functions, survey
respondents also noted the following:

o We are working on screening and assessment.

o Postprogram recidivism is not applicable.


o When PC+ is working correctly, we'll be able to do these items (screening,
assessment, treatment case management).

o Court case management is done on a separate program. (2)

o Overall program evaluation and postprogram recidivism are on separate 
systems.

o The indicated items are supported through automation, but all items are not
maintained in one central database. This makes querying data possible but time
consuming.

o New system will incorporate almost all.

o Court case management is on the general court system.

o Information is entered in an "after the fact" manner. The system is not used to
assist team members or the judge in their daily duties. The system is merely
storing the information so that it can be used for evaluation purposes.

Question 2. Do the members of the drug court team have access to computers?
(Check all that apply.)

Survey respondents provided additional comments on computer coverage,
including:

o Laptop used in courtroom by drug court officer.

o Only the judge and court coordinator.

o Drug court team does not have access to the database system. They have
access to the LAN and other court information systems, but not the drug court
system.

o One laptop is available.

o Probation and coordinator have access. We hope to expand to treatment
providers next year with the enhancement grant.

o Each member is on their own system. We must copy and fax information
from one to the other.

o Bail commissioner and judge have laptops. State's attorney and public
defender have desktops. Social worker may also have a desktop. Service
providers handwrite reports, but could do better to e-mail them. They would be
legible and timely, if they did so.

o Court staff and clinic staff have access to computers.

o The drug court has its own LAN.

o In the drug court office.

o We only have two members.

o Only the drug court specialist has a computer that is set up for the drug court
use.

o We currently operate through JOLTS (Juvenile Online Tracking System). It's
a statewide computer system.

o AODS program is in central areas and the courtroom computers are for court
system contacts.

o Clerical computers are in the central area and probation officers have
desktops.

o Probation and the judge have desktops.

o Case management access is already existing with department case tracking
systems (probation/social service). Judges (felony/misdemeanor) have no
computer access. PCs on order.

o Limited availability.

o Only when contacting me or a probation staff.

o Judge and coordinator only have laptops.

o Most members have access to computers.

o There is a larger system probation officers use (on their desks); a system the
courtroom clerks use (in the courtroom); and a system the judge uses (in his
chambers). All are independent, nonintegrated.

o Team members have computers in their offices (Tribal Court and Public
Safety Department).

o Each case manager has a desktop PC connected to our recently installed
network (4/1/99). However, not all judges have PCs attached to the network
at their immediate disposal. Case managers are located in a satellite office. A
central shared area within the courthouse for them to be able to log on and
retrieve data would be helpful.

o Probation has desktops.

o At the drug court office, which is located a block from the courthouse, we
have computers. The treatment coordinator, however, has his system linked to
this one. There is a separate computer system used by prosecutors, public
defenders, etc., which shows arrest records and court information.

o Laptops are available for travel for probation officers and program director.

o Agency specific systems, not shared.

o Working toward putting computers in the classrooms.

o Will Beta test a new MIS in June. Team will have access in offices and
courtroom, through PCs and laptops.

o Some team members have computers on their desks. The computers in the
courtrooms are for clerks only and only for general family court calendaring
system.

o Also, remote access.

o Currently, only the resource coordinator has a computer. The court will be
receiving new computers by fall 1999. A total of 10 computers to be used by
the judge, courtroom staff, and case managers.

o Drug court coordinator's staff uses a separate MIS. Reports now court staff
and probation use a Colorado State system--ICON.

o But do not have access to database.

o Central computers are for probation for record checks of clients and
secretary has computer. One laptop is shared for screening and assessment.

o Some do, some don't.

o The computers are not linked with treatment providers, DA, and judge.

o Separate databases. We are seeking funding to link treatment to the court.

o Some have access to computers. Some on their desks; judges in the
courtrooms, and a few laptops.

o Computers are being installed in the courtrooms.

o On desks, but no programs.

Question 3. Do you have a communications network that allows team members
to communicate or share information via computer? If yes, who is linked?

In addition to explaining which drug court members were linked, survey
participants noted:

o This is the main problem with our system. The MIS software provided by
American University is designed for networks and we are unable to network at
this time.

o Only the treatment providers who are in-house.

o Drug court members cannot communicate via computer.

o Substance abuse administrator is also linked. We are all on the county e-mail
system.

o Judicial branch, employees in MIS, and alternative sanctions are also linked.

o We are linked by a county e-mail system.

o We will have a new system in the fall and all will be linked.

o Case managers and court-appointed special advocates are also linked.

o Multijurisdictional judges and coordinators are linked.

o Mental health specialist is also linked.

o Yes, through JOLTS.


o Limited to these areas only (treatment provider, pretrial services, and
probation).

o Treatment providers are only linked to each other.

o Data entry person is also linked.

o Perinatal, mental health, CPS, social services are also linked.

o Court management system can be accessed by the drug court team. Access
database is not on the network. This needs development.

o Not as of yet.

o Director of alcohol and drug program is also linked.

o Administrative Office of the Courts, Courtnet, Sustain are also linked.

o Use various systems for various reasons with various access abilities.

o Jail is also linked.

o Connected to access drug test results and criminal information only.

o Treatment liaison person. Communicate through e-mail.

o One is ordered and the following people will be linked (judge, court
coordinator, treatment provider, prosecutor, public defender).

o Department of Social Services and County Council are also linked.

o Case managers are also linked. (3)

o Communication via the computer network is nonexistent. Our system lacks
Internet access and e-mail which would enable increased efficiency and
timeliness.

o Planned linkage (calendar year 2000).

o Program evaluator is also linked.

o Court administrator and clerks are linked. (2)


o Court coordinator, counselors, and coordinators are connected to Douglas
County District computer system.

o Substance abuse evaluators and State administrative offices are also linked.

o New system will link court administration, district attorney, PD, treatment,
detention, and clerk's office.

o Some e-mail is available.

o Treatment providers are work in progress; onsite case managers, health
services providers, and drug testing laboratory are also linked.

o Not yet. However, we plan to have the network system up and running by fall
1999.

o Department of Alcohol and Drug Serv-ices, mental health, jail, and
Department of Corrections are also linked.

o TASC.

o Information shared through e-mail. Other members do not have access to
database. Public defender is networked through secretary.

o Case managers, assessors, and related court staff are also linked.

o Remote printing is also linked.

o E-mail only between systems; process evaluator/committee coordinator and
project administrator are also linked.

o The only linked computer system is the clerk of the circuit court's system that
can be viewed by the judge, PD, State's attorney, etc., but they cannot enter
information.

o Just started putting system together. Three of the team are now connected.
Research planner and assessment specialist/case manager are also linked.

o Drug testing center is also linked.

o Judge and court coordinator are currently linked. Treatment provider,
probation, and prosecutor are currently linked. Soon, all of the above will be
linked (3 months).

o Circuit is networked except juvenile. Hope to have juvenile online by 1/00.

o The network is expected to become operational in September 1999.

Question 4. Which of the following capabilities do you have? (Check all that
apply.)

In addition to selecting from 10 software/ task options, including task-relevant
software, survey participants noted:

o We do not have a direct link to other justice system databases. Assessment
software used by case management.

o Database management and spreadsheet, if necessary. Do have PC and drug
court software.

o E-mail is available within the courthouse only.

o Drug court data access.

o Drug court PC+ NT Server and database. 

o Links to other justice system databases are currently under development.

o Probation and district attorney only have links to other justice system
databases, and the treatment providers are the only ones with task-relevant
software.

o Links to other justice system databases are only in the in-court system.

o Links to other justice system databases through the Tiburon system.

o E-mail is limited to the office. We have links to other justice system databases
for arrest records only. Not all of us have these functions.

o Working on software specific to drug court.

o Mainframe case management system.

o NCIC system is also available.

o Task-relevant software relates to screening and assessment only.

o Personal calendar (some); e-mail (some); spreadsheet (coordinator); links to
other justice system databases (coordinator and probation); main trial court
case management system (coordinator).

o Some word processing capabilities.

o Case management is done manually typed and filed in the juvenile individual
case record.

o Probation has older computers using two and three systems to enter and
receive data.

o Statistical analysis software (SPSS).

o We will have e-mail soon. Our links to other justice system databases are on
a whole other computer system. We do have task-relevant software for drug
court personnel. Prosecutors, public defenders, and other court personnel have
access to the main trial court case management system, as do our drug court
screens.

o Only the program director has spreadsheet capabilities.

o Spreadsheet, not yet.

o All except treatment providers are county employees and as such have
access to capabilities checked.

o Some staff have word processing capabilities and some access to family court
system, but not to any criminal justice links.

o Paradox is the database management system used and Quattro Pro is our
spreadsheet program.

o Some have only internal e-mail and the judges only have Internet access.

o Can access DOC records, all district courts information.

o Only the district attorney has access to other justice database links and
task-relevant software.

o E-mail is internal only.


o Personal calendar and database management are partial.

Question 5. Do drug court team members have access to formal,
court-supported technology training programs for the following? If so, is the
training mandatory? (Check all that apply.)

In addition to indicating that training programs are not generally available,
survey participants also noted:

o Computer training for employees is not available, although computer training
for the statewide drug court system, when implemented, will be.

o Will have training for a new MIS.

o Drug court specific software applications are mandatory for some persons.

o Preparing to make operational; still in initial connection phase.

Question 6. Does your drug court have any employees whose primary
responsibilities include data processing, computer maintenance, programming,
etc.?

Write-in responses to provide detail on court MIS personnel included:

o Don't know.

o Yes, for data processing.

o Staff borrows from data processing personnel of team members.

o Yes, for data processing, but no for computer maintenance and programming.

o Employees are not dedicated to the drug court, but are available.

o Yes, through 6/30/99, plus volunteer help.

o Data processing only.

o County is too small.

o Data entry, mainly.

o Each office has its own employees.

o Support from Main Queen's Supreme Court Office.

o Student interns.

o Beginning 7/1/99, we will have .5 FTE dedicated to our system.

o Employees are in the treatment agency.

o Data processing: yes; computer maintenance and programming: no.

Question 7. What are the main barriers to further automating your drug court?
(Check all that apply.)

In addition to ranking lack of funding and networking difficulty at the top of their
barriers list (from a list of eight barriers), drug court survey respondents noted
specifically:

o We need to expand our data entry capabilities to gather more data related to
evaluation and achievement of our drug court goals.

o Database program development that meets our unique needs.

o Funding in place; enhancements being implemented currently.

o Current database is insufficient; awaiting New York statewide MIS.

o Lack of equipment (computers, laptops, etc.).

o Developing a good drug court software program for juveniles that can work
on a PC or LAN.

o Programmers are not available because they are so busy with other projects.

o Getting a truly useful program. My understanding is that what is available is
too cumbersome and more trouble than helpful.

o Family court database and drug court databases are not compatible.

o We need software that is drug court specific.

o Need for integrated criminal history information access and continued access
to current addresses for participants after leaving drug court.

o No programmer to set up such a system.

o Staff person recently hired (received grant) but needs to be trained.

o Numerous data collection instruments and variety of database programs.

o Some information is restricted by statute, i.e. criminal history information,
certain case related information, certain treatment information is protected by
privacy concerns.

o Small population.

o Need computer training.

o Our drug court team consists of several separate agencies/groups. "Court"
personnel (judge, state attorney, public defender, and pretrial) are on same
system. Drug treatment is provided by a private group and case management is
provided by the Florida Department of Corrections. Most answers pertain to
the "Court."

o The 16th Circuit has implemented a robust system. Software designed by
HIDTA-Baltimore called HALTS. It is questionable how critical this technology
is to our rural circuit or to our specific efforts of having in-house lab and
in-house treatment. Department of Justice has put the horse behind the cart!
Technical assistance should have been the focus prior to awarding grants for
MIS implementation.

o No PCs.

o Suggest that DCPO/American University develop a software package
specific to drug courts to include data needs for required reports, status
changes regarding treatment, urinalysis, sanctions, employment, education, etc.,
and the capability to refine software to meet jurisdictional needs.

o We are awaiting our Supreme Court finalizing a statewide drug court MIS.

o Combination of expertise, collaboration, and funding.

o Availability of staff time.

o Need network.


o Building wiring does not currently allow intranet communication between drug
court team members.

o Lack of technical assistance particular to the development of MIS for a
juvenile drug court.

o Not up and running yet.

o A specific software program should be developed to keep data which the
DCPO and American University requires in their reports.

o Grant availability; funds available 6/99.

o Time/resources.

o Philadelphia Treatment Court Automation Process has been combined effort
with the Focis Network of the courts, a CSAT-funded program. Automation
and training is anticipated to be finalized by August 1999.

o Adequate system identified to use in drug court.

o Time. We are currently doing system evaluation. (2)

o Inability to develop database that is thorough, yet user friendly.

o Lack of equipment.

o State system does not have drug court specific capabilities.

o Making software statewide compatible.

o None required.

o Our presiding judge doesn't support it, but he's gone in 6 months.

o Beta test--June. Online and finalized by September.

o Database/MIS system in development currently (specific for family court/drug
court).

o Grant money was just released and we are awaiting a larger courtroom to
accommodate all the computers.


o We are not linked to a network and we do not have a program for client
charts.

o Politics--having to rely on JIC (Court Computer Shop) and DHSS (social
service agency) to assist with design and integration.

o Program development and costs.

o Lack of funding for personnel to operate and set up a system.

o We have not purchased any hardware or software yet due to no Federal
funds being sent.

o Appropriate software.

o Time and staff.

o Physical space; juvenile officer being moved into new building. Makes running
lines "iffy".

o No software.

o Personnel to enter data.

Technical Assistance

When asked to rate the usefulness of the following technical assistance
activities, survey respondents entered these additional comments.

Question 1. Assistance in doing a comparison of the information elements being 
collected in your drug court with a set of recommended information elements
and functional requirements.

o Not sure what this means.

o Currently using GAO/AU dataset.

Question 2. Assistance in conducting a management information system needs
assessment that includes documenting existing procedures, determining
functional requirements, and developing recommended solutions.

o No comments.


Question 3. Assistance and advice on developing a strategic information
technology plan for the drug court that includes an assessment of the staff's
technical capabilities and a plan for acquiring the technical skill sets that are
currently not available in-house.

o No comments.

Question 4. Assistance in defining the scope of work to implement the
technology plan.

o No comments.

Question 5. Develop and maintain a model PowerPoint[R] presentation on drug
court costs and benefits for presentations to city or county councils, State
legislators, or community groups.

o No comments.

Question 6. Assistance and advice on establishing appropriately secure links to
exchange critical information with other criminal justice agencies and treatment
providers.

o Hotly debated local issue.

Question 7. Assistance and advice on selection of vendors and products,
including help preparing requests for proposals; selecting consultants, hardware,
and software; and drafting and negotiating contracts with vendors.

o Too late.

Question 8. Assistance in developing a drug court evaluation plan and
identifying an evaluator.

o Too late.

o Already have one.

Question 9. Additional assistance. (Please specify.)

o We are trying to help people not just function.

o Money to provide ongoing services for troubleshooting and training.


o We need software and we need our computers connected.

o What day will you arrive???

o Evaluating current automation system to maintain state-of-the-art capability.

o Developing a tracking program for recidivism.

o I wish this tech support was available previous to our implementation that was
required to be in compliance with an MIS system through our Federal drug
court enhancement grant.

o We are awaiting a grant request to do all of this.

o Funding for model system would be beneficial.

o Ability to track participant performance week-to-week throughout their time
in program to see if there are patterns to when relapse and frequency of
sanctions occur so that we know when additional resources are needed.

o Assistance in evaluating current system with recommendations for any needed
changes.

o Would like more discussion on the DCPO required data elements as a
minimum dataset for drug courts.

o OCA is putting together a technical support team from Albany, with core
support from each drug court office.

o Funding.

o Development of freeware which can be adopted to local needs.

o What program to use for evaluations.

o How to coordinate data collection/data entry/summary so as to avoid
duplication of efforts and to serve multiple purposes.

o Obtaining the software.

o Develop PC-based drug court MIS software in the public domain that meets
national drug court MIS standards and is updated as standards are revised.


Education and Training

When asked to rate the usefulness of the following educational and training
options, survey respondents entered these additional comments.

Question 1. Incorporate a dedicated 

information management component in future Drug Court Program Office
(DCPO)-sponsored workshops on planning and implementation.

o Family court's needs are entirely different from criminal.

Question 2. Develop a series of special DCPO workshops that focus on drug
court monitoring, evaluation, and management information system development.

o Too late.

Question 3. Conduct videoconferences or State or regional conferences
targeted to specific monitoring, evaluation, and management information system
needs.

o No comments.

Question 4. Conduct orientation on specific software programs and their
application to drug court management information system needs.

o If we had the money to buy the software.

o Too late.

Question 5. Develop and maintain a database of drug court requests for
proposals and contracts used for technology projects.

o No comments.

Question 6. Develop and maintain a list of "Frequently Asked Questions About
drug court Management Information Systems" with answers by leading experts
in the field.

o No comments.

Question 7. Develop an Internet "Listserver," which will automatically send
copies of e-mail notes on drug court issues and concerns to subscribers within
the drug court community.

o No comments.

Question 8. Identify, describe, and disseminate information about
well-functioning drug court management information systems.

o Too late.

Question 9. Additional assistance. (Please specify.)

o Training for team members on sharing data, security information, evaluation
outcomes, etc.

o Technical assistance without the availability of equipment (purpose lost).

o Software programs in Visual Basics; willing to work for government rates to
make generic MIS systems specific to individual drug courts.

o Project does not have Internet access, however, project coordinator would
use personal ISP.

o We do not currently have Internet access.

o We have a lot of other areas that need work first.

o Better define minimum datasets. DCPO data survey was difficult and some of
the data they wanted was not useful or not available in the format requested.

o We have requested additional assistance (someone to come to our location)
several times. No one has ever responded.

o We need a national minimum dataset for all drug courts.

Background

Question 1. Categories of persons eligible to participate in the drug court
program. (Check all that apply.)

o We may be adding a juvenile component. (2)

o Our family court is combined with our juvenile court.


Question 2. Please specify your primary "target population."

o No comments.

Question 3. How many months has it been since the drug court accepted its
first client?

o No comments.

Question 4. Please check the appropriate population of the jurisdiction served
by the drug court.

o No comments.

Question 5. Number of persons who are currently active participants in the
drug court program.

o No comments.

Question 6. Our treatment provider is (In-house or contractual). If contractual,
number of providers (are):

o In-house is with the county.

o We do not have a specific contract.

o County AOD and private providers.

o Includes one halfway house.

o Referred out to no specific provider, but there are two that are most
commonly used.

o State Alcohol and Drug Abuse Officer is treatment provider.

o Seven residential providers and five outpatient providers.

o Noncontractual referral network.

o Onsite case management staff use approximately 130 community-based
treatment providers (not contractual).

o Outside, noncontractual.

o Too many to list.

o Residential and some outpatient.

o Multiple providers; contracted with ADM office.

o County health care agency for outpatient.

Question 7. Within what amount of time does the drug court judge usually
receive negative drug test information? (Check one.)

o Future plan will provide information in 24-48 hours.

o Probation and counselors receive the results within 1 day.

o Weekly court reviews.

o Probation receives this information within approximately 3 days.

o This is very problematic.

o Same day, if judge requests it.

o Clients come back every 2-4 weeks and we can get results back within
minutes if we use the rapid test.

o Minutes if done in court and 2 days if done by the provider.

o Drug court judge receives immediate notice on all positive drug screens.

o Same day for onsite testing and 2-8 days for testing at treatment programs.

o Onsite laboratory.

o On court dates, however, if a defendant absconds from program, information
within 1 day.

o Agencies volunteer their services.

o Usually at next status conference, but available on demand.

o In court, within minutes and 4 or more days in treatment facility.

o A month.

o Court is held weekly. Test results are available the same day, but the client
may not appear in court until several days after submitting sample.

General Comments, Suggestions, and Remarks

Survey respondents were given the opportunity to provide additional
comments, suggestions, and remarks on the final page of the survey. These are
as follows:

o Our drug court is 1 year old. The current staff consists of one service
coordinator who is also the administrative drug testing person and does any
other tasks needed.

o We use the access program. We are standardizing nomenclature throughout
the State to better report progress and developmental opportunities.

o The San Diego Drug Superior Court is in the process of developing an
evaluation system in collaboration with San Diego State University and alcohol
and drug services.

o The entire juvenile court has a new MIS system (JEMS-Juvenile Enterprise
Management System). But as that is just being rolled out, its availability and
applicability vary widely.

o This response reflects the fact that we are less than 8 months in the
development and implementation of our juvenile drug court. More importantly
we are attempting to develop our own management information system. We are
presently attempting to acquire technical assistance to assist us.

o Assistance and education on management information systems and evaluation
is long overdue.

o I did not receive a request to complete this survey, so my colleague from the
Sixth Municipal District gave me a copy of hers.

o As of this time, each case in our drug court is processed manually. We would
appreciate any suggestions or recommendations that you may have in regards
to software packages, etc.

o We just want a good MIS so we can spend as little time as possible on
reports and as much time as we can on treatment of our clients. We have no
desire to become entangled in numbers and paperwork.

o We are creating automated reports and should be operational by 8/1/99.

o We are close to implementing a comprehensive, integrated system for drug
court. I attempted to respond with pre- and postsystem answers.

o CCI is currently developing a specialized family treatment court MIS system
for this project.

o Most of my responses are based on expected capabilities of our drug court
information system (DCIS) which is still under construction and targeted 
for implementation by the end of this summer.

o We are in the process of converting to a new computer system. Currently, we
keep information in at least four separate databases: criminal records,
evaluation information, information on participants, and urinalysis records. The
goal is to integrate all these databases into one system accessible to all.

o Most of the automated information about drug courts is kept at the State
office. They have the ability to collect information from their computer about
each drug/treatment court.

----------------------------

Notes

1. U.S. Department of Justice, Drug Courts Program Office, Looking at a
Decade of Drug Courts, and updates, 1999 and 2000 (Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Justice, Drug Courts Program Office, June 1998), p. 2. This
report was prepared by the Office of Justice Programs' Drug Court
Clearinghouse and Technical Assistance Project at American University.
Hereafter, A Decade of Drug Courts report. Available at www.ojp.usdoj.gov/
dcpo/decade98.htm and http://gurukul.ucc. american.edu/justice/publications/
decade1.htm. See also Drug Court Activity Update: Summary Information on
All Programs and Detailed Information on Adult Drug Courts, June 20, 2001,
available at http://gurukul.ucc.american.edu/justice/publications/
allcourtactivity.pdf.

2. Of the 340 drug courts that were operational as of mid-1999, 257
responded to the survey, for a response rate of 75.59 percent.


3. Interview with the Honorable Jo Ann Ferdinand, Brooklyn Treatment Court,
Brooklyn, New York, February 16, 1999. The court has more than 550 active
participants. See also John Feinblatt and Greg Berman, Informed Decisions: 
Technology in the Courtroom (New York, NY: Center for Court Innovation,
1999). Available at www.courtinnovation.org/pdf/info_deci.pdf.

4. John S. Goldkamp, "Miami's Treatment Drug Court for Felony Defendants:
Some Implications of Assessment Findings," Prison Journal 74 (2): 110-57,
1994.

5. Adele Harrell, Drug Courts and the Role of Graduated Sanctions, Research
Preview series (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute
of Justice, August 1998). Available at http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles/fs000219.
pdf.

6. A Decade of Drug Courts report, pp. 1, 6. 

7. Ibid.

8. Letter from Ed Brekke, Court Administrator, Los Angeles Superior Court,
May 9, 2000.

9. Barry Mahoney, Drug Court Monitoring, Evaluation, and Management
Information Systems (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Drug
Court Programs Office, May 1998), p. 1. Hereafter, Mahoney. Available at
www.ojp.usdoj.gov/dcpo/monitor/welcome.html.

10. Ibid.

11. U.S. General Accounting Office, Drug Courts: Overview of Growth,
Characteristics, and Results, GAO/GGD-97- 106 (Washington, DC: U.S.
General Accounting Office, July 1997), p. 69. Hereafter, GAO report.
Available at www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles/dcourts.pdf.

12. Ibid., pp. 90-91.

13. Ibid., p. 87.

14. Ibid., p. 86.

15. Drug Court Training and Technical Assistance Program, Fiscal Year 1998
(Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Drug Courts Program Office,
1998), pp. 27-29. Available at www.ojp.usdoj.gov/dcpo/drugctta.htm.

16. SEARCH, The National Consortium for Justice Information and Statistics,
commissioned Cashman & Associates, Inc., to conduct the survey. Other
organizations that worked in partnership with SEARCH to conduct this study
were The Justice Management Institute and the Center for Court Innovation.
Also involved through their advice and cooperation were the Drug Court
Clearinghouse and Technical Assistance Project at American University and the
National Association of Drug Court Professionals. A copy of the survey, which
was sent to the 340 drug courts operational in mid-1999, is included as
appendix 1.

17. This report on drug courts has implications for the handling of many other
types of cases, especially those that require critical data to be available during
courtroom operations.

18. These reports were prepared by SEARCH and are pending publication 
by DCPO. Robert Gibson and Owen M. Greenspan, "Public Domain Drug
Court Software: Functions and Utility," and Owen M. Greenspan, "Supporting
the Drug Court Process: What You Need To Know for Effective
Decisionmaking and Program Evaluation."

19. Mahoney, supra note 9, pp. 10-12.

20. The survey is included in appendix 1.

21. Chi-square is a statistical test frequently used to determine if there is an
association or correlation between several different variables. The significance
level indicates the level of confidence that the results did not occur by chance 
and that there really is an association between the variables.

22. Due to missing data from several courts regarding population size, the total
number of courts reported in the tables is 248.

23. Mahoney, supra note 9, p. 12.

24. Ibid., pp. 12-13.

25. See appendix 2.

26. SEARCH Group, Inc., Report of the National Task Force on Court
Automation and Integration, NCJ 177601 (Washington, DC: U.S. Department
of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance, June 1999). Available to download 
at www.search.org/publications/integrated-justice.asp.

27. David J. Roberts, Integration in the Context of Justice Information Systems:
A Common Understanding (Sacramento: SEARCH Group, Inc., April 2000).
Available at www.search. org/integration/pdf/integration%20definition.pdf.

28. GAO report, supra note 11, p. 86.

29. National Center for State Courts, Trial Court Performance Standards and
Measurement System, NCJ 161569 (Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice
Assistance, U.S. Department of Justice, July 1997), p. 13. Available at
www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/161569.pdf. See also Comprehensive Public
Information Programs Subcommittee, Holding Courts Accountable: Counting
What Counts (Williamsburg, VA: National Association for Court Management,
Spring 1999).

30. Lawrence P. Webster with Stephen A. Bouch, et al., Planning, Acquiring, 
and Implementing Court Automation (Williamsburg, VA: National Center for
State Courts, 1993), p. 82.

31. Mahoney, supra note 9, pp. 21-22.

32. These courts place the kind of value that we would like to see courts
generally place on this type of critical information.

33. This report on drug courts has implications for handling many other types of
cases, especially those that require critical data to be available during
courtroom operations.

34. These reports were prepared by SEARCH and are pending publication 
by DCPO. Robert Gibson and Owen M. Greenspan, "Public Domain Drug
Court Software: Functions and Utility," and Owen M. Greenspan, "Supporting
the Drug Court Process: What You Need To Know for Effective
Decisionmaking and Program Evaluation."

35. Editor's note: These write-in comments are presented as received, and
were not edited for content or style.

----------------------------

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:

o Mail
P.O. Box 6000
Rockville, MD 20849-6000

o Visit
2277 Research Boulevard
Rockville, MD 20850

o Telephone
1-800-688-4252
Monday through Friday 8:30 a.m. to 7 p.m. eastern time

o Fax
301-519-5212

o BJA Home Page
www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA

o NCJRS Home Page
www.ncjrs.org

o E-mail
askncjrs@ncjrs.org

o JUSTINFO Newsletter
E-mail to listproc@ncjrs.org
Leave the subject line blank
In the body of the message, type: 
subscribe justinfo 
[your name]