Title: Supporting the Drug Court Process: What You Need To Know for

Effective Decisionmaking and Program Evaluation

Series: Monograph

Author: SEARCH, The National Consortium for Justice Information and

Statistics

Published: February 2003

Subject: drug case processing, drug courts, court management, drug testing,

drug treatment, drug policy

100 pages

172,032 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



Supporting the Drug Court Process: What You Need To Know for Effective

Decisionmaking and Program Evaluation



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 197259



This document was prepared by SEARCH, The National Consortium for

Justice Information and Statistics, under the Drug Court Training and Technical

Assistance Program, under grant number 98-MU-VX-K017, awarded by the

Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. The opinions, findings,

and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this document are those of

the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of

the U.S. Department of Justice.



The Bureau of Justice Assistance is a component of the Office of Justice

Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the National

Institute of Justice, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention,

and the Office for Victims of Crime.



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



Notice



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, Chairman, and Gary R.

Cooper, Executive Director. The project director was Francis L. Bremson,

Courts Program Director. The report was written by Owen M. Greenspan,

Criminal Justice Information Services Specialist. Twyla R. Cunningham,

Manager, and Juliet S. Farmer, Writer/Researcher, Corporate

Communications, edited the report. The Federal project monitor was Jill Beres,

Policy Specialist, Drug Courts Program Office (DCPO), U.S. Department of

Justice (DOJ).



The author expresses sincere appreciation to the following persons, who

volunteered their valuable time and expertise to the development and review of

this document:



o Karen Booth, The Justice Management Institute



o Ed Brekke, Administrator, Los Angeles (CA) Civil and Criminal Courts

Operations*



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



o Jennifer Columbel, Deputy Director, DCPO, DOJ 



o Caroline Cooper, Drug Court Clearinghouse, The American University*



o Bob Gibson, Consultant, Preston Corporation*



o Harvey Goldstein, Director, Intensive Supervision, New Jersey

Administrative Office of the Courts



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



o Linda Hughes, San Diego County (CA) Public Defender's Office*



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



o Lisa Lightman, Management Analyst, New Mexico Administrative Office of

the Courts



o Dr. T.K. Logan, Center on Drug and Alcohol Research, University of

Kentucky*



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



o Robert Mimura, Executive Director, Los Angeles (CA) Criminal Justice

Coordination Committee



o Hank Pirowski, COURTS Program Coordinator, Buffalo (NY) Drug Court*



o Kate Reeves, Judicial Display Project Manager, New Mexico Administrative

Office of the Courts



o Ralph Rogers, Assistant Director, Criminal Administration, Orange County

(CA) Superior Court*



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



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



o Yvonne Segars, First Assistant Deputy Public Defender, New Jersey Office

of the Public Defender, Essex Adult Office*



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



o Joe Stelma, Senior Deputy Court Administrator, Jacksonville (FL) Drug

Court



A special note of thanks to Larry Webster, Justice Information Systems

Specialist, SEARCH, whose contributions addressed the selection, acquisition,

and operation of computer systems.



* Reviewed draft document and participated in a focus group meeting on April

11, 2000, held in Sacramento, CA.



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



Foreword



The drug court is information driven. This report was written to help those who

are planning, implementing, or operating adult drug courts to understand the

critical importance of the availability of a wide range of timely, accurate, and

complete information. The extent to which this information is appropriately

available and how it is used are major determinants of effective decisionmaking

and evaluation.



Most drug courts require a computer for effective entry, storage, retrieval,

sharing, and analysis of information because of the sheer volume of pertinent

drug court data, its ongoing accumulations, and the length of time it remains

integral to the drug court process. Supporting the Drug Court Process provides

advice on the selection and acquisition of computer systems for drug courts, as

well as an overview of ongoing and pertinent issues associated with these

systems. Drug courts preparing to acquire a management information system

(MIS) and jurisdictions that have already implemented an MIS will find that

Supporting the Drug Court Process offers a basis for assessing the strengths

and weaknesses of a planned or existing information system.



Supporting the Drug Court Process presents a functional overview of the drug

court and the nature of the questions and answers that together form the

foundation for sound decisionmaking for the court's key activities. This report is

not intended to be a standard for the court's MIS. Rather, it will be most useful

when selectively viewed to fit the circumstances and needs of the individual

court. Although there is no intent to focus on the informational needs of juvenile

and family drug courts, those who are concerned with their operation will find a

starting point here for thinking about the requirements of an MIS suitable for

those court environments.



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



Contents



I. Introduction



o Importance of Management Information Systems

o Purpose of This Document

o Organization of This Document



II. Characteristics of an Effective Drug Court Management Information System



o System Design

o Frequently Asked Questions

o Drug Court MIS Requirements Checklist



III. Preadmission



o Screening Eligibility With the MIS

o Residency Screening

o Criminal Justice Screening

o Alcohol or Other Drug Dependency Screening

o Mental Health Disorders

o Medical Conditions

o Motivation

o Admission Decision and Client Outcome Record

Personal Descriptive Information Checklist

Financial Information Checklist

Insurance Information Checklist

Contact Information Checklist

Residency Screening Checklist

Criminal Justice Screening Checklist

Alcohol or Other Drug Dependency Screening Checklist

Admission Decision Checklist

Client Outcome Checklist



IV. Operational Drug Court



o Assessment

o Ongoing Case Management    

o A Word About Computer Mapping

o Exit Interviews and Postprogram Activities

Screening and Assessment Instrument Checklist

Background Information Checklist    

Infractions, Sanctions, Incentives, and Rewards Checklist    

Appointments and Outcomes Checklist    

Program Monitoring Checklist    



V. Evaluation



o DCPO Implementation Grants    

o Process or Operations Evaluation

o Outcome or Impact Evaluation   

o Cost Analysis    

o Drug Court Grantee Data Collection Survey    



Appendixes    



1. Sample Consent Form for Disclosure of Confidential Substance Abuse

Information, Sample Qualified Service Organization Agreement, and Sample

Intergovernmental Agreement and Memorandum of Understanding Between

Drug Court Team Partners



2. Drug Courts Program Office Implementation Grant Management Information

System, Process Evaluation, and Outcome Evaluation Requirements    



3. Drug Court Grantee Reporting Requirements and Data Collection Survey



Notes      



Bibliography



o Published Materials    

o Unpublished Materials

o Electronic and Online Sources



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



I. Introduction



Drug courts are a revolutionary problem-solving approach within the justice

system that can potentially change the lives of substance-abusing offenders and

reduce their criminal activity, while producing significant benefit to the

community. The overarching strategy of drug courts is to bring together

intensive judicial supervision with substance abuse treatment--and frequently

health services--in an environment of multidisciplinary teamwork. The drug

court process functions through the timely availability of a wide range of reliable

information to support high-quality decisionmaking. As a practical matter, the

volume of information that needs to be recorded, processed, accessed, shared,

and analyzed--often in a time-critical context--is a strong argument for

developing a management information system (MIS).



The importance of data collection, access to data, and the ways in which data

are used extends beyond the drug court's daily operations to how a program is

monitored and evaluated. Monitoring the drug court program is an ongoing

activity of the drug court team, which looks at the program as a whole rather

than at the progress of individual participants. Monitoring is but one of several

types of program evaluations dependent on easily retrievable information

presented in a format that facilitates its use for measuring program performance

and impact. 



The National Association of Drug Court Professionals, with the support of the

Drug Courts Program Office (DCPO), Office of Justice Programs (OJP), U.S.

Department of Justice (DOJ), developed key components of adult drug courts

and performance benchmarks for sound practices, effective program designs,

and comprehensive operations of these courts.[1] Fundamental to many

performance benchmarks are the manner in which drug court team members

interrelate and the existence of procedures that enable the team to communicate

and share information, including the following:[2]



o Court and treatment providers communicate regularly, including frequent

exchanges of timely and accurate information, about the participant's overall

program performance.



o Prosecutors and defense counsel help design screening, eligibility, and

case-processing policies and procedures to guarantee that due process rights

and public safety needs are served.



o The court is immediately notified when a participant has tested positive, has

failed to submit to alcohol or drug (AOD) testing, has submitted someone else's

sample, or has adulterated a sample.



o Treatment providers, the judge, and other program staff communicate

frequently and regularly to ensure timely reporting of participant progress and

noncompliance and to enable the court to respond immediately.



o Management, monitoring, and evaluation processes begin with initial planning.

As part of the comprehensive planning process, drug court leaders and senior

managers establish specific and measurable goals that define the parameters of

data collection and information management.



o Monitoring and management data are assembled in useful formats for regular

review by program leaders and managers.



o Representatives from the court, community organizations, law enforcement,

corrections, prosecution, defense counsel, supervisory agencies, treatment and

rehabilitation providers, educators, health and social services agencies, and the

faith community meet regularly to provide guidance and direction to the drug

court program.



There is often a significant gap between recognizing that collecting, transmitting,

and sharing information is essential to effective decisionmaking and recognizing

that implementing systems, practices, and procedures ensures an optimal

knowledge environment within the drug court. Practitioners, public health

officials, researchers, court managers, and MIS experts have noted that "most

jurisdictions simply do not have the capacity to maintain, in an automated

format, the kind of detailed client information needed to support drug court

management."[3] However, this is changing. Drug courts now use MISs that

strengthen many of the day-to-day activities of the drug court and its team

members. Some of these systems are in the public domain, others are

commercial products, while still others are developed in-house using commonly

available database software. Whatever its derivation, a drug court MIS

generally needs some customization when implemented in a new jurisdiction.



Several State court administrative offices are developing statewide drug court

information systems.[4] State court administrators are also increasingly requiring

drug courts to routinely report certain data to a central entity, such as the Office

of Court Administration (OCA) or State Office of Alcohol and Substance

Abuse. Further, there is a growing awareness that evaluation is essential and

goes hand in hand with data collection and MIS design.[5] State court

administrators realize the utility and value of well-designed evaluations.[6] In

some jurisdictions, evaluation results are the compelling argument that garners

the support of political decisionmakers and other key stakeholders, which

ensures continued financial and policy backing for the drug court program.



Importance of Management Information Systems



The range of information required for a drug court to be consistently effective in

accomplishing its goals far exceeds that of the typical criminal court. Existing

information system models, to the extent that they are useful to the judiciary and

court administration, are of less value to the drug court. In most jurisdictions, it

is not practical for drug courts to replicate the existing MIS used by criminal

courts. In rare instances, however, the best approach might be to expand and

modify the criminal court MIS to establish the software functionality necessary

to support the drug court. Yet this approach raises real concerns about the far

more stringent confidentiality safeguards that must attend certain drug court

information, safeguards which are not necessarily found in the typical criminal

court calendaring and case management system.



At every step of the drug court process--from initial screening, assessment,

treatment, and supervision through graduation--decisions are made. The

soundness of these decisions depends on the judge and other members of the

drug court team having timely and appropriate access to accurate and complete

information. With the evolution of the drug court movement and advancements

in information technology over the past 10 years, there is now a recognition that

in most instances, an MIS is an invaluable aid to the drug court, the collective

drug court team, and each of the team's member entities within the judicial,

legal, and treatment communities.





Drug court practices are a major departure from those of the traditional criminal

court. Drug courts operate in a milieu where customary adversarial roles are 

less evident to the observer and, most importantly, to the program participant.

"Staffings" bring together the members of the drug court team--typically the

judge, treatment manager or counselor, program coordinator, prosecutor,

probation representative, and public defender--to review participant status

information and progress and to discuss the imposition of actions or

requirements affecting program participants. Having resolved potentially divisive

issues outside the courtroom, the drug court team presents a cohesive and

unified front to the program participant.



Before a drug court can make use of the information that is so critical to its daily

operations, court officials must be cognizant of relevant laws, regulations,

practices, and policies. Drug courts must comply with Federal and State

confidentiality laws. Federal laws and regulations protect information about

persons receiving alcohol and drug abuse prevention and treatment services that

are directly or indirectly assisted by any department or agency of the United

States.[7] Hence, Federal grant dollars provided to the State or local

government that funds the courts are sufficient to bring the drug court within the

scope of Federal regulations.



Confidentiality requirements encourage participation in treatment programs. It is

noteworthy that the Federal regulations predate the drug court movement,

leaving practitioners to reconcile statutes that, at times, may seem at odds with

intensive judicial supervision and certainly the traditional justice system. A

treatment provider or program is defined as an individual or entity that provides

diagnosis of chemical dependency, referral to treatment, and rehabilitative

services. Consequently, most--if not all--drug courts are considered treatment

programs and are subject to Federal confidentiality regulations.[8]



Before a treatment provider can disclose information to members of the drug

court team or others regarding an individual's participation in a treatment

program, the participant must sign a written consent form that, at a minimum,

meets the requirements set forth by Federal regulations.[9] The consent

includes the purpose of disclosure, how much and what kind of information may

be disclosed, and the duration or conditions, if any, under which the given

consent is subject to revocation. An MIS that reflects the specifics of the

consent form, combined with a memorandum of understanding (MOU)

between drug court team partners that addresses how information is accessed

and handled, offers strong safeguards for ensuring the confidentiality of

treatment-related information. Appendix 1 includes a sample consent form for

disclosure of confidential substance abuse information, a sample qualified

service organization agreement, and a sample intergovernmental agreement and

MOU.[10]



Many States have also enacted confidentiality laws or implemented policies and

practices intended to limit disclosure of information relating to treatment. When

a State law is more restrictive (that is, it bars disclosure of information that

would be permitted under Federal regulations), the drug court program's

handling of treatment information must be so structured as to ensure compliance

with both Federal and State law. The most effective means of ensuring

compliance with statutory confidentiality safeguards is an MIS programmed to

limit or exclude access to information in a way that is consistent with all relevant

statutes.



Conditions that limit information disclosure as described in the consent form

may vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Drug courts in neighboring

communities may also differ. For example, the drug court team in one

jurisdiction might include as one team member a liaison officer from a local law

enforcement agency who needs access to certain confidential information.

Similarly, practices and policies vary widely and may be changed by

administrative fiat without affected entities and individuals being consulted. Staff

changes necessitate training, and new hires require immediate training, if the

opportunity for inappropriate disclosure is to be minimized. All of these factors

pose a risk that confidentiality statutes will unintentionally be violated through

misinformation or ignorance.



Perhaps the best way to minimize this risk, and the attendant possible

detrimental effect on drug court participation, is to design a drug court MIS that

limits the availability of personal information to authorized persons for purposes

as addressed in the consent form and where appropriate as described in the

MOU. Although the MOU is signed by the court and executives of the agencies

and departments that constitute the drug court team, staff should not be

expected to sign it, as this document may encompass policy shifts within

agencies that only apply to the drug court program. The MIS applies the access

rules and can be updated easily to reflect changes in law, policy, or procedure

without the need to reeducate all those who would otherwise have to alter their

methods of operation.



Typically, the drug court process begins shortly after arrest, when an individual

undergoes initial screening for program eligibility. Often this involves a

standardized questionnaire that is used to determine the type and severity of

dependency and suitability for the drug court program. 



Questions could include the following: Is the nature of the problem within the

scope of the target population that the court intends to serve? Are there

treatment resources obtainable that are able to address the problem(s)? The

MIS could include the screening instrument. However, even if the questionnaire,

responses, and interviewer observations are not entered in the MIS, the

conclusions drawn may still be recorded. Inclusion of this information does not

ensure that an apparently eligible individual will be offered admission to the drug

court program, or that the individual will accept such an offer if it is made.

Dependency screening is but one facet of determining program eligibility.



In addition to AOD screening, the second element at this stage is justice system

screening. Here, the prospective participant's criminal history and current

charges are viewed against predetermined eligibility criteria. For example, many

drug court programs target populations that exclude individuals with criminal

convictions for violent offenses or limit enrollment to individuals whose current

charges are strictly drug related. In some jurisdictions, the authority of the court

is limited to handling only persons accused of misdemeanors. Some drug court

information systems record both an offense history and current charges. In

addition, the system may note pending cases; this can be another factor in

determining program eligibility. If an individual has multiple pending cases, it

must be decided how the cases will be handled if the individual is enrolled in the

drug court program.



The assessment phase of the process identifies both specific psychosocial

problems and treatment services. An assessment instrument is often employed,

which the MIS may or may not include. The MIS may also be employed to

match a diagnosis with available and appropriate treatment resources.



Following admission to the drug court program, the participant can expect

frequent, regular, and random drug testing. Positive and negative results, as well

as missed appointments and apparent efforts to "beat the test," are recorded in

the MIS. A positive drug test result is just one of many developments that may

be the basis for sanctions. The MIS records any imposed sanction so that there

is a clearly documented history of negative events and responses. Similarly, a

participant's positive actions and noteworthy progress are also recorded. Some

systems also record rewards given in recognition of achievements.



The staffing conference that precedes the calling of the day's drug court

calendar often relies on the MIS for status information on all persons scheduled

to appear before the court. Some systems, in addition to providing various

preformatted information fields, allow the judge, and perhaps other team

members, to enter notes into the system. These may serve as reminders of

things to be discussed at a later date with other team members, a program

participant, a participant's relative, or someone with whom the participant has a

close relationship.



The MIS is of fundamental importance to the day-to-day decisionmaking of the

court; however, its significance does not end there. The drug court monitors its

activities by collecting day-to-day statistical data. This administrative

management tool is also associated with the process evaluation conducted by

many drug courts. Regardless of whether a drug court performs process

evaluations routinely or infrequently, the objectives are the same. A process

evaluation could ask the following questions:



o Is the drug court operating in a manner that remains true to its original plan?



o Is it serving the intended target population?



o Is it reaching/maintaining its capacity?



o Are eligibility determinations being made in a consistent, unbiased fashion?



o Is the interrelationship between the judicial, legal, and treatment communities

operating as envisioned?



o Where are terminations occurring?



o Has the substance of choice changed within the community being served?



MIS documentation helps to answer these questions and to weigh the need for

changes to original plans based on the findings of the process evaluation.



Many operational information systems lack a design focus and, consequently,

critical information for determining the drug court's impact and effectiveness on

individual participants, the local justice system, and the community. A U.S.

General Accounting Office report noted that many questions about the

effectiveness of drug court programs could not be answered because critical

data were unavailable.[11] What is needed, but often lacking, is a

comprehensive MIS that provides the foundation for program monitoring and

the closely associated task of evaluation research.



In recent years, university-based researchers and professional evaluators have

increasingly become involved with drug courts earlier in the process, sometimes

even becoming members of the planning team. Others are working with

individual drug courts or State court administrative offices to design statewide

information systems. These efforts lead to implementation of information

systems that support both the court's day-to-day operational needs and various

short- and long-term forms of evaluation. Two prominent examples of these

dual-purpose systems are the Self-Evaluation Manual and Case Management

System for Adult Drug Courts developed by the Justice Research Center[12]

and the system being developed by the University of Kentucky's Center on

Drug and Alcohol Research under contract with the Commonwealth of

Kentucky's Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC). The former is intended

to support smaller drug courts that do not exchange information electronically.

The Kentucky initiative will enable uniformity of information collection across

the State and reporting of information to the AOC.



In many communities, various stakeholders--beyond those who are directly

involved as team members--have a keen interest in the drug court. Certainly,

elected and appointed officials who control the budgetary purse strings need to

be kept informed, as do political and legislative leaders who steer public policy.

The constituency that has the largest stake in, and is most intensely affected by,

the success of a drug court program is the community that it serves. What

information is available to inform stakeholders? The evaluation plan is the key.

Whether looking at individual participant results or broad-based program

impacts, the MIS is of critical importance. It provides the drug court team and

program evaluator baseline data and other information essential for determining

program effectiveness.



Although release of participant information must be strictly controlled,[13] such

restrictions do not extend to reporting on the drug court's effectiveness in

serving the community. Federal laws and regulations--and, in many instances,

State statutes and policies--protect information about persons receiving alcohol

and drug abuse prevention and treatment services.[14] However, Federal

regulations allow for the disclosure of patient-identifying information to

researchers, auditors, and evaluators without patient consent when certain

safeguards are met.[15] Hence, collection of sensitive information is clearly

permissible, although use of the information is subject to restrictions.



Clearly, the MIS provides essential documentation of the drug court process.

This information is a critical resource for guiding virtually every key decision

associated with the drug court and for determining the drug court's impact on

individuals, the justice system, and the community.



Purpose of This Document



Supporting the Drug Court Process intends to assist both existing adult drug

courts and those that are in the early planning or implementation stages.

Although the report does not focus on the informational needs of juvenile and

family drug courts, those who are concerned with their operation will find a

starting point here for thinking about the requirements of an MIS suitable for

those court environments. Operational drug courts may use Supporting the

Drug Court Process as a basis for appraising the quality and completeness of

their current or envisioned MIS. Is information available in a timely manner? Is

it made known to the appropriate drug court team members? Is comprehensive

information gathered? In addition to the information that is collected, is there

other information that would strengthen operations, program monitoring, or

evaluation? It is hoped that Supporting the Drug Court Process will help drug

courts identify needs, strengths, and weaknesses with regard to the way

information is currently being handled.



Jurisdictions looking to serve their communities through a judicially supervised

alcohol or drug treatment program will find Supporting the Drug Court Process

useful in determining the requirements of an MIS appropriate to their size,

scope, resources, and unique needs. Checklists provided in this report identify

data associated with the stages and major functions of the drug court process.

Checklists also point out attributes and features of effective drug court

information systems. Some jurisdictions may opt to use Supporting the Drug

Court Process as the basis for going into the marketplace with a request for

proposal for an MIS or a request for information to gain additional insights from

vendors about implementation.



Supporting the Drug Court Process does not set a standard for adult drug court

management information systems. Drug court operations and emphases vary

from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and State to State. Courts that meet daily and

courts that are in session for only a few hours each week have different

requirements regarding information timeliness. Most courts focus primarily on

drug abusers, but some target alcohol abusers. Supporting the Drug Court

Process is most helpful when shaped to fit the circumstances and needs of the

individual court. In addition, although it is not designed to address all the needs

of juvenile and family drug courts, this report provides a useful starting point for

identifying MIS requirements suitable for those courts.



Organization of This Document



Supporting the Drug Court Process is organized into five chapters, a

bibliography, and appendixes: 



o I: Introduction. Relates selected key components of drug courts to the

context of Supporting the Drug Court Process. Discusses the importance of an

MIS to the day-to-day operations and evaluation functions of a drug court.

Addresses confidentiality statutes and regulations that influence the MIS.

Describes this report's utility to courts that are planning for an MIS, as well as

those that already have an operational MIS.



o II: Characteristics of an Effective Drug Court Management Information

System. Provides structural principles for building an MIS or weighing the

strengths and weaknesses of an existing MIS. Includes a section with frequently

asked questions about drug court information technology.



o III: Preadmission. Discusses the collection and use of information needed to

make program eligibility determinations, including the functional activities of

criminal justice screening, alcohol or other drug dependency screening, and

screening for mental health disorders, medical conditions, and the candidate's

motivation for contemplating enrollment in the program.



o IV: Operational Drug Court. Describes the role of assessment, its

documentation in the MIS, and its relationship to development of a treatment

plan. Discusses several facets of ongoing case management, including

infractions, sanctions, and rewards; appointments and outcomes; and program

monitoring.



o V: Evaluation. Describes three kinds of evaluations--process evaluation,

impact evaluation, and cost analysis--commonly used to assess the

effectiveness of drug courts in meeting program goals, affecting the lives of

participants, and benefiting both the justice system and the community. Explores

the role of the evaluator in shaping the MIS to ensure that it collects information

that facilitates evaluation activities.



o Appendix 1. Provides a sample consent form for disclosure of confidential

substance abuse information; a sample qualified service organization agreement,

as listed in the DCPO Fiscal Year 2002 Program Application Kit; and a

sample intergovernmental agreement and MOU.[16]



o Appendix 2. Provides a copy of the MIS, process evaluation, and outcome

evaluation requirements, as listed in the DCPO Fiscal Year 2002 Program

Application Kit.[17]



o Appendix 3. Provides a copy of the instructions and semiannual survey

previously required of DCPO grantees, as listed in the DCPO Fiscal Year

2002 Program Application Kit.18 This survey instrument expired on March 15,

2002; therefore, grant recipients are no longer required to submit this data

collection survey to DCPO. It is included here as an example of a minimum

data set that may be useful to drug court programs.



o Notes.





o Bibliography. Presents a list of reference materials consulted in developing

this report. The reference documents and other materials identified in the

bibliography address all aspects of drug court processes and information

systems.



Chapters II, III, and IV include checklists that represent data appropriate for

collection and inclusion in an adult drug court MIS. For the most part, these

checklists provide suggested, rather than required, information and are not

meant to be exhaustive. The exception is information required to be periodically

submitted by DCPO and grantees and other information that may be required

of drug courts by State court administrators, local legislatures, or other elected

or appointed officials as a condition of funding.



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



II. Characteristics of an Effective Drug Court Management Information System



This chapter describes the planning and implementation characteristics of an

ideal drug court MIS, which should be weighed in designing a system or in

looking at the strengths and weaknesses of an existing system. The focus here is

on structural principles upon which to build an MIS. More specific issues, such

as functional requirements and the information appropriate for collection, are

addressed in later chapters.



The most important reason to establish an MIS is the contribution it makes to

decisionmaking and administration of the drug court's day-to-day activities. The

essence of a high-quality MIS is the ability to collect comprehensive and

accurate information about program candidates and participants. Another

critical element is the ability to enter and transmit information in a timely manner

so that it is available to those who have an operational interest and those who

are responsible for reacting to it. In planning a system, it is helpful to continually

ask the following: Who needs to know each piece of information? How quickly 

do they need it?



Assembly of information about prospective program participants begins at the

earliest stages of a court case. Although screening and assessment eliminate

prospective participants who fail to meet eligibility criteria or who bump up

against program capacity constraints, it is important to chronicle data on these

individuals for evaluation purposes. Information collected and retained early in

the justice process may benefit the treatment case manager. Even after

graduation, initial information may still be of value. For example, the identity and

telephone numbers of relatives, collected through pretrial services bond

recommendation interviews, are recorded in the system. This information can

prove helpful later on to a researcher investigating issues such as postgraduation

relapse rates, recidivism, or lifestyle changes.



System Design



The design of the MIS should facilitate rapid decisionmaking at all stages of the

process. Users should understand the features and functionality of the MIS and

be comfortable with the system. User-friendliness is enhanced by color coding

that enables quick visual differentiation of status or other flagged key

information. Data entry and retrieval screens are easy to navigate with the aid of

drop-down menus, online help, and other tools. Overall, the intuitive nature of

the system minimizes the amount of training necessary to develop sufficient

mastery.



Often, information that is manually entered into a drug court MIS duplicates

data collected in another system. Arrest charges are typically recorded in a

booking system. Literal charge codes (i.e., numeric statutory citations) do not

provide the facts and circumstances that lead to accusations and formal

charging--information that can be essential for determining program eligibility.

To inform pretrial release and bond-setting decisions, criminal history

information is accessed and retrieved from the State agency records repository

proximate to the defendant's first court appearance. Pretrial services agencies

collect data about residency, employment, education, and family relations.

Other information, especially records relevant to assessment of a prospective

drug court participant, may reside in the databases of treatment providers or

public health and social services agencies. As courts and agencies at all levels of

government move toward information sharing and integration of databases, they

are gaining access to more information, faster and at less cost than previously

possible.



An underlying strategy of the most effective drug court MIS follows this trend

by electronically linking systems to leverage the information available in each

while minimizing repetitive data entry and storage. A beneficial byproduct of

lessening the amount of manual data entry is the reduction in faulty information

that arises from keying errors. 



There is a cost for collecting and processing information. Given the volume and

variety of data necessary to support the drug court, that cost is proportionately

higher for drug courts than other courts. One means of addressing cost issues is

through a systems integration strategy that avoids institutionalizing staff

expenses. Instead, the strategy favors technology expenditures that, at a

minimum, place a premium on sharing information electronically within and

outside of the drug court team. 



The system's design is dictated not by limitations of existing computer hardware

or software but rather by a thorough assessment of the information needs of the

drug court, its team members, and other stakeholders. Similarly, the design is

not limited to automated forms and procedures. Acquiring an MIS provides an

opportunity to reengineer the workflow, not merely to automate it.



The MIS provides significant analytical and management capabilities for all

members of the drug court team. Although programmed to produce

management reports, it can also be easily programmed to provide ad hoc

reports to answer unforeseen questions. The skill and knowledge necessary to

use the ad hoc report feature can be easily acquired if staff competencies are

sufficient to master the complexities of the software involved.



The MIS can expand to accommodate changes in population size, number of

authorized users, program capabilities, amount of accumulated data, or types of

data collected. Flexibility to modify the system is the foundation for meeting

unforeseen requirements that may arise from internal decisions or from reporting

mandates imposed by external entities such as central court administrative

offices, legislatures, and county commissioners. The hardware and software

components are widely available, and the system design allows for the easy

addition or replacement of components from various manufacturers or

developers. Such open systems typically offer maintenance and expansion cost

advantages over proprietary systems, in which all hardware and software are

supplied by a single vendor or must conform to rigid standards set by the

hardware manufacturer.



The system's range of capabilities and its acquisition and maintenance costs

should be appropriate to the size and scope of the drug court. Systems

intended to be repositories for a large amount of data could prove frustrating

for staff if the data communications infrastructure or database access operates

too slowly. Some jurisdictions may find it appropriate to weigh the costs of a

local system versus the costs of a networked system shared by two or more

jurisdictions or statewide. This is an issue not only of economies of scale, but

also of the staff and expertise required to operate and maintain the system.



When drug courts were just an experiment, systems based on stand-alone

personal computers (PCs) were adequate. As the drug court is institutionalized

in the judicial branch, automated support also must be institutionalized. Many

States have reacted by trying to expand their current case management systems

(CMSs) to include drug court functions. In almost every instance, court leaders

and technologists have been surprised by the magnitude of the differences

between CMSs and the drug court MIS.



CMSs focus on managing case flow and clerical operations, with minimal

judicial support. The drug court MIS, however, focuses on judicial

decisionmaking, with recordkeeping functions as a side benefit. To support

judicial decisionmaking, drug court systems require much more detailed

information about the case than is typically captured in a court's CMS. In

addition, a number of drug court functions require automation that the CMS

would not address. Evaluation and statistical reporting in a court CMS is a

byproduct of operational work; in a drug court MIS, however, a tremendous

amount of information is captured solely to support the evaluation function. In a

sense, a drug court MIS is also an integrated system, much like criminal justice

integrated systems, except that criminal justice integration is sequential and drug

court integration is concurrent. With criminal justice integration, data can be

dumped electronically from system to system as a series of onetime events. In

the drug court, everyone actively exchanges information on the participant's

status weekly, rather than passing it along to another agency when internal work

is finished. Data exchange is continuous through the life of the case. This

requires much more sophisticated interfaces between the involved agencies.



As States move to address drug court automation at the institutional level, the

stand-alone PC applications will, in most cases, be replaced by new modules in

the court CMS. This means that drug courts must standardize the way they

conduct business and must conform to data definitions and formats that exist in

the justice system. Although this will be inconvenient in the short term, it will

ultimately be worthwhile. It also means that the State infrastructure and support

mechanisms will be available to help drug courts address MIS design issues and

problems.



An internal network (i.e., intranet) built with Internet-based technology19 can

connect drug court team members to the MIS, connect the drug court to other

local data systems such as the general criminal court MIS, connect individual

drug courts to a centralized State-level database such as an MIS operated by

the OCA, or provide the data communications network for information sharing

between its contributors and the MIS. The internal network requires that all

devices be physically connected with equipment and lines under the control of

the sponsoring organization. Intranets can include "firewalls" that allow staff to

reach out to the Internet while barring others from looking in, or, if necessary

for security reasons, the intranet need not be connected to the Internet at all.

The size and scope of drug courts, together with the availability of an intranet,

determine whether a jurisdiction should consider this sort of internal network,

which can be a very cost-effective means of moving information.



There is no practical limit to the size of an intranet. As with the Internet, the

number of servers and Web pages that can be added to support additional

information providers, systems users, courts, services, or information demands

is not constrained by technology, although cost and maintenance issues may

pose some practical limitations. All in all, if the organizations involved are

connected to the city, county, court, or State network, an intranet strategy may

be more affordable and easier for users to become familiar with than

alternatives because they are already accustomed in most instances to using the

Internet. When the reduced learning curve and ease-of-use aspect are factored

in, the intranet approach is very attractive.



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

Internet-based technology can still be used to enter and access information.

Browsers--software familiar to anyone who has used the World Wide Web--

link persons and organizations and allow them to exchange information between

different computer operating systems over the Internet. "Virtual private

network" protocols offer an alternative to using the Internet by allowing different

systems to function as though they were part of the same private network.



The checklist at the end of this chapter can help drug courts determine what

they need in an MIS and/or evaluate their existing system.



Frequently Asked Questions



How do I get a drug court MIS?



The first step is to assemble the stakeholders of the drug court process (the

management team) and reach consensus on direction for the drug court and its

MIS.



The second step is to develop a list of functional requirements for the desired

system. What functions should the system perform? Functional requirements

can be related to operations (processing individual cases and participants),

management (keeping case processing effective, productive, and economical),

and evaluation (determining whether a drug court is meeting its goals and is

helping program participants). This list of functions might include communicating

the results of drug tests to the drug court, capturing the results of the many

assessments and screenings that are performed, and sharing these results.



Once a list of functional requirements has been prepared and approved, the

next step is to analyze what information is needed to perform those functions,

when and where it becomes available in the process, and how it is to be

captured and entered into the system. This is an analysis of the administrative

processes that will support the drug court MIS and is added to the functional

requirements document.



Once there is agreement as to what the drug court MIS should do, it is a

relatively simple matter to evaluate available public-sector packages and

commercial systems that have been designed to support the drug court.

Because none of these packages will fit the requirements of the court exactly, it

is important to consider the time and cost of modifying the software. The

requirements document also can be used to extend the functionality of an

existing court CMS or to design a new drug court MIS to be created by court

or government technologists or private contractors.



How much does a drug court MIS cost?



A drug court can acquire a public-domain MIS at no cost and, if it has the

necessary computer hardware and expertise, can expect to pay nothing to

customize the software, except for staff time to get the system working. A drug

court can also spend hundreds of thousands of dollars creating a

state-of-the-art customized system. The amount of available resources is key in

considering how much to spend.



What software packages are available in the public sector?



Three packages are available for evaluation at www.drugcourttech.org: the

Brooklyn Treatment Court System, the Buffalo Drug Court System, and the

South Florida High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area System. These three

packages and the Washington/ Baltimore Automated Treatment and Tracking

System are featured in Public Domain Drug Court Software: Functions and

Utility, a companion piece to this report produced by SEARCH and

DCPO.[20] Another software package, Case Management System 2000, was

developed by the Justice Research Center with funding from the State Justice

Institute.[21]



What kind of support is required for a drug court MIS?



A major weakness of most software development efforts in courts is lack of

support for the user. Drug court administrators must ensure that software

products are adequately tested, training programs are scheduled to prepare

court staff to use new tools, documentation for systems is comprehensive and

accessible, and data quality assurance processes are in place. In addition, staff

must ensure that users receive quick attention when components of the system

fail.



Even the best information systems require work to maintain them. System

backups must be performed, database compaction utilities must be run, disks

must be defragmented, and printer ink and toner cartridges must be replaced.

Drug court leaders must consider who will perform these functions, how much

of their time it will require, and how to provide the training they will need.



In addition, all software packages require periodic modification. Reporting

requirements may change, new laws may be implemented, or the drug court

management team may want to try new approaches. Drug court administrators

must select a technology that is simple and inexpensive to modify.



A drug court that is part of a larger system of automation may depend on court

resources to perform these functions. If drug court technology is isolated from

the rest of the judicial branch, staff and tools should be viewed as a part of the

expense of acquiring automation. In the real world, however, resources too

often are limited, and system users must learn to deal with some of these issues

without the assistance of technologists.



Drug Court MIS Requirements Checklist



o The range of capabilities and cost of the MIS (both initial acquisition and

ongoing maintenance) are appropriate to the size and scope of the drug court.



o The design of the MIS facilitates rapid operational decisionmaking at all

stages of the drug court process.



o Information is recorded in a timely fashion and is available to users quickly

enough to meet operational needs. 



o The MIS captures all necessary information:



--Program eligibility information--including residency data; criminal justice,

alcohol/drug dependency, and mental health disorder screenings; and medical

conditions--and screening information to determine the individual's motivation 

for participating in the program.



--Postadmission information, including assessment data and ongoing case

management information such as infractions, sanctions, incentives,

appointments, and outcomes.



o The MIS supports the informational and decisionmaking needs of all

members of the drug court team.



o The MIS collects information to support program monitoring and process

evaluation and to provide the foundation for long-term program outcome

evaluation.



o Users understand the system's features and functionality.



o Users are comfortable with the system.



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

tools to aid data entry and retrieval of information.



o The system is designed to minimize data entry. (The MIS shares information

electronically with other systems.)



o The system is designed to provide significant analytical and management

capabilities for all members of the drug court team.



o The system allows judges, prosecutors, public defenders, case specialists,

and treatment providers to enter notes.



--Notes are searchable by keyword and are protected from unauthorized

access and disclosure.



o The system produces preformatted management reports on a daily, weekly,

monthly, and cumulative basis and can also create ad hoc reports using any

data that are in the database.



o Systems reports are accurate and timely.



o The MIS enables compliance with statistical data gathering, evaluation, and

other reporting requirements of Federal agencies that provide grant funds in

support of the drug court (e.g., Bureau of Justice Assistance and DCPO),

courts administration, and State and local authorities.



o Sufficient technical support for hardware, software, and application programs

is available to maintain the MIS.



o Technical support and ongoing system maintenance are recognized as a

distinct budget requirement. 



o Access to treatment information (including detailed screening and assessment

instruments) held within the MIS is restricted in a manner consistent with the

consent form signed by program participants. 





o Access to treatment information (including detailed screening and assessment

instruments) held within the MIS complies with Federal and State laws and

regulations. 



o Access to criminal history information held within the MIS is restricted in a

manner consistent with the laws and regulations that govern dissemination of

that information, based on its source.[22]



o To facilitate the design and conduct of process and impact evaluations, the

system records limited identifying and statistical data on persons screened and

found ineligible, persons declining an offer of admission after being found

eligible, and participants who do not successfully complete the program.



o An evaluator provides recommendations on the MIS design and information

to be collected and gives ongoing advice to the drug court team.



o The drug court team employs the Internet, an intranet, or an internal data

communications network to facilitate data collection, access to information, and

information sharing and exchange.



o The system relies on Internet-based technology--or browsers--for entering

and accessing data.



o The system is designed with appropriate security safeguards (e.g., firewalls)

to protect the confidentiality of information sent over the Internet.



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



III. Preadmission



Assessing whether a candidate is eligible for drug court typically encompasses

findings in three types of screening: residency, criminal justice, and clinical. The

clinical screening helps determine a candidate's alcohol or other drug

dependency problems for which treatment resources are available. The

presence of other clinical problems, such as serious mental health disorders

(including suicidal behavior) or medical conditions (including infectious

diseases) can also be determined.



Eligibility criteria are sometimes expanded to consider motivation if a candidate

has a meaningful choice to make between participation in the drug court

program and an alternative criminal justice process. In many jurisdictions,

drug-dependent defendants with misdemeanor convictions face far less onerous

penalties than having to go through a drug court program. In other instances, a

criminal defendant may not get any benefit in terms of having a charge dismissed

or sentence reduced. He or she may simply be ready--emotionally,

psychologically, and physically--to sustain a clean and sober lifestyle, even

while continuing to serve a sentence of incarceration. In these circumstances, it

is reasonable to consider motivation when examining eligibility.



Established and documented eligibility criteria may be limited to the three most

common areas noted above. Jurisdictions vary widely in their treatment of

residency rules, prior arrests, and the extent and nature of substance abuse. The

actual criteria applied filter out candidates who fall outside the drug court's

defined target population.



Screening Eligibility With the MIS



Information systems that collect program eligibility data typically do not

produce an eligibility score or yes/no decision. Although an MIS could be

designed with an eligibility-scoring algorithm tailored to each jurisdiction's

admission criteria, this approach is of uncertain value. On the plus side, an

automated decision strategy may be less labor intensive. In addition, having

automated data on eligibility decisions greatly facilitates program process

evaluation, which should be conducted periodically. However, several factors

limit the utility of automated systems.



First, a key part of the screening process is often based on observations during

an interview. The trained interviewer, even at this early stage, may start

collecting information for designing a treatment program. These impressions do

not easily lead to the kinds of definitive statements amenable to assignment of a

predetermined weighted value.



Second, certain information requires research beyond the initial source data.

For example, the facts and circumstances surrounding an arrest need to be

reviewed if it is not evident from the charges on the criminal history report

whether the arrest involved violence and/or a weapon. Therefore, the original

source data--a "rap sheet" from a local law enforcement department or the

State agency that serves as the criminal records repository, which in many

jurisdictions could be automatically transmitted to the MIS--may be inadequate

for decisionmaking.



Third, approval of enrollment often is a drug court team decision. A byproduct

of this decision is the team's collective commitment to each program participant. 



Finally, before attempting to automate the admittedly labor-intensive process of

determining eligibility, a drug court should carefully analyze whether an 

automated decision device truly reduces the time and effort involved or merely

presents a summary of staff and drug court team activities that will not diminish

if the device is implemented.



Some jurisdictions combine substance abuse screening with an initial

assessment to aid in the development of a treatment or case management plan

tailored to individual needs. Here, recommendations concerning formulation and

access to an appropriate treatment program may occur even before formal

enrollment in a drug court program. More commonly, assessment takes place

later in the drug court process. Assessment is addressed in chapter IV of this

report as a postadmission function.



Personal Descriptive Information



Although background and demographic information recorded during initial

processing and screening is not strictly part of the eligibility determination, it

clearly may influence who is admitted to a program. For instance, initial

processing and screening identify whether a prospective participant can read,

write, speak, and understand English or whether an interpreter is required.

Courts and treatment providers without access to an interpreter may be

severely hampered when conducting status hearings and treatment. Background

and demographic information is also essential for activities that happen much

later in the drug court process (e.g., constructing process and outcome

evaluations).



A sample checklist for collecting a defendant's personal descriptive information

is provided at the back of this chapter.



Financial Information



Detailed financial information is grouped with other background information.

Verification of these data determines eligibility for assignment of defense

counsel and also establishes the ability to pay fees and the capacity to pay for

treatment. In self-supporting programs, the inability to pay for treatment through

personal resources or insurance is likely to exclude an individual from the

program. 



A sample checklist for collecting a defendant's financial information is provided

at the back of this chapter.



Insurance Information



Insurance information is gathered because the drug court program's ability to

collect treatment costs may affect a candidate's eligibility. This is especially

important if the treatment component of the program is self-supporting or if the

program design includes an assessment of fees payable by the participant as

partial recovery of court costs.



An insurance checklist is included at the back of this chapter.



Contact Information



Contact information identifies the candidate's legal counsel, spouse, and other

people likely to know his or her whereabouts. These contacts are also likely to

be in frequent touch with the candidate and are potential resources for

monitoring and locating the candidate, should that become necessary. In

addition, contacts can help programs validate information collected during

postgraduation interviews and for impact evaluations.



A contact information checklist is included at the back of this chapter.



Residency Screening



Program enrollment may be restricted to U.S. citizens and legal aliens residing

or incarcerated in the geographic area served by the court. Some courts admit

residents of nearby towns and cities or adjoining counties if not excluded by

local funding authorities and if frequent travel to the court and treatment facilities

is manageable. Because drug courts vary in their target populations and

eligibility criteria, their residency information needs also vary. Much of the

residency information is also useful for program process and outcome

evaluations.



A residency checklist is available at the end of this chapter.



Criminal Justice Screening



Three types of criminal justice screening are essential for deciding whether a

candidate meets program eligibility criteria: (1) an assessment of current

criminal charges, (2) a determination of the candidate's criminal justice status

(e.g., on parole, on probation, the subject of a warrant), and (3) a review of the

candidate's criminal history record. Unfortunately, relatively few drug courts

have quick access to the most comprehensive set of criminal records (i.e., one

that includes national, State, and local entries linked together by the positive

identification provided by fingerprints taken at the time of arrest). Jurisdictions

that have received or will seek funds from DCPO cannot include violent

offenders in the program's population,[23] although violent offenders may be

placed in a separate drug court track not funded by DCPO.[24]



A drug court can access criminal justice information through its MIS by

interfacing it with other databases, such as the State central criminal records

repository, the court information system, or the local law enforcement agency

records management or booking systems. This approach offers timely access to

the most up-to-date information and is the least labor intensive of any

alternative method. Most often, however, drug courts obtain criminal history

record information by independently searching one or more systems, extracting

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



Keeping information on the criminal history records and current charges of

program enrollees, individuals found to be ineligible, and those who elect not to

participate has value beyond its use in determining admission. Comparing

program enrollees with those deemed ineligible or those declining to participate

is a highly useful aspect of process evaluation. Is the planned target population

being admitted to the program? Are eligible defendants being excluded?

Similarly, this information is important in understanding the nature of the

population served and the ultimate impact the program has on the recidivism of

participants--even those who undergo intensive judicial supervision and

treatment but fail to graduate from the program. Consequently, it is useful to

collect information on criminal activity, both from documented sources and as

self-reported by program candidates.



A sample checklist for screening the criminal justice background of a defendant

is provided at the back of this chapter.



Alcohol or Other Drug Dependency Screening



"Screening"--a broad term that encompasses a range of evaluative procedures

and techniques--is a preliminary assessment or evaluation that attempts to

uncover in an individual the presence of critical features of the target population.

This step often consists of a drug test and an interview conducted by pretrial

services, probation, Treatment Alternatives for Safe Communities, or treatment

personnel or by another entity specifically responsible for overseeing the

completion or administration of a standardized evaluative instrument. Some

jurisdictions blur the distinction between screening and the more detailed

assessment by combining both functions. (See chapter IV for further discussion

of assessment.)



Typically, screening and assessment use one or more standardized substance

abuse questionnaires and additional instruments designed to reveal information

about other factors. Depending on the skills required to observe candidates and

complete the questionnaires, trained professionals may be needed to administer

the questionnaires. Screening and assessment are two parts of an ongoing

process that identifies suitability for treatment, defines a treatment strategy, and

tracks progress. The extent to which a drug court MIS provides automated

support for administering a clinical instrument depends on several

considerations. Is automation beneficial to the system's primary user--the

treatment community? Is the system sufficiently secure to ensure that

unauthorized persons cannot access highly confidential information? Can the

system maintain appropriate security while allowing more than one treatment

provider to access and "own" a record on a common client? 



A sample checklist for screening the alcohol or other drug dependency of a

defendant is provided at the back of this chapter.



Mental Health Disorders



Mental health screening serves several purposes. Identifying a candidate's

mental health disorder enables the drug court to judge the appropriateness of

available treatment services. Mental health screening may also reveal symptoms

or a preliminary mental health diagnosis that suggests the likelihood that a

candidate would have severe difficulty functioning effectively in the drug court

program. It may also reveal a significant risk of suicide. Jurisdictions that can

access mental health databases need to be aware of relevant confidentiality

statutes and regulations before introducing this information into the drug court

MIS. Drug court enrollees typically undergo an indepth mental health

assessment as part of the development of a treatment plan. 



Medical Conditions



The rates of Human Immunodeficiency Virus/Autoimmune Deficiency

Syndrome (HIV/AIDS), sexually transmitted diseases, and other infectious

diseases are far greater among substance abusers than in the general

population. Certain conditions may be readily observable during the screening

interview, indicating a need for medical attention. Individuals are unlikely to

self-report infectious diseases at this early juncture but may reveal symptoms in

their responses to a screening instrument. Information on infectious disease is

frequently subject to confidentiality laws above and beyond those that regulate

disclosure of treatment information and criminal history records. The Personal

Descriptive Information Checklist on the next page suggests medical data that

should be sought from every candidate to record it in the MIS and to address

the candidate's medical needs.



Motivation



Research data have suggested that coerced treatment can be as effective as

voluntary treatment, if not more so.[25] Readiness for treatment "can be

prompted in two ways: by circumstances or extrinsic pressures such as loss (of

job, family support, money, etc.) or fear (of incarceration, violence, health risks

including overdose, or even suicide). . . . Readiness can be measured both by

subjective impression and objective quantification."[26] Although motivation

can be difficult to measure, comparing outcomes with degree of motivation can

be worthwhile. Screening instruments are available that address motivation, and

they can be incorporated into the drug court MIS.



Admission Decision and Client Outcome Record



For program monitoring and evaluation purposes, the MIS should record

several pieces of information associated with the admission decision, whether

the candidate subsequently enters the program, and client outcomes.



See the admission decision and client outcome checklists following this chapter.



--------



Personal Descriptive Information Checklist



o Name of program candidate or participant (name used at booking).



o Digital photograph.



o Resides within the area served by the drug court.



o Does not reside within the area served by the drug court.



--Residence:



--Owned by candidate.



--Rented by candidate.



--Relative's home.



--Friend's home.



--Homeless.





--Unknown.



o Address.



o Telephone number:



--Residence.



--Cell phone.



--Pager.



--Phone number of contact likely to know whereabouts of candidate.



o Birth information:



--Date of birth.



--Place of birth.



o Documentation presented for verification of name and date of birth:



--Birth certificate.



--Driver's license.



--Military identification.



--Other _____.



o Gender/Sexual orientation:



--Male.



--Female.



--Heterosexual.



--Homosexual.



o Ethnicity/Race:



--African-American.



--Hispanic/Latino.



--Asian/Pacific Islander.



--Native American. 



--Alaska Native.



--Caucasian.



--Other_________.



o Country of citizenship/Alien status:



--United States.



--Other__________.



--Resident alien.



--Visa status:



----Expiration date of current immigration status.



----Immigration and Naturalization Service number.



o Identifying numbers used by the court or the treatment provider:



--Arrest number.



--Booking number.



--Court case numbers.



--MIS-generated identification number.



--Driver's license number.



--Social Security number.



--Medicaid number.





--Other_________.



o Family information:



--Marital status.



--Significant other:



----Is pregnant?



------Expected date of delivery.



----Is a drug user?



------Primary drug of choice.



------Other drugs used.



------Frequency of use.



------Method partner uses in taking drugs.



------Average cost of daily use.



------How is habit supported?



--Number of children residing with candidate/participant:



----Name of each child.



----Age of each child.



----Date of birth of each child.



----Gender of each child.



----Who has legal custody of each child in the residence?



----Who will care for each child if the program participant is incarcerated?



--Number of children born to/fathered by the candidate/participant for whom

he or she has continuing financial responsibilities:





----Name of each child.



----Age of each child.



----Date of birth of each child.



----Gender of each child.



----Who has legal custody for each child born to/fathered by the candidate?



--Currently pregnant:



----Expected delivery date.



----Date of last childbirth.



----Number of abortions.



----Number of drug-free babies.



----Number of miscarriages.



----Number of babies who are not drug free.



--Other dependents residing in household:



----Age.



----Relationship.



o Currently attending school:



--Name of school.



--Type of school.



--Address.



--Hours of attendance.



--How long in attendance.



o Education/Achievement/Status:



--Completed elementary school (6th grade).



--Completed middle school (8th grade).



--Completed high school (12th grade).



--Completed the general equivalency diploma (GED) program.



--Completed vocational training.



--Completed some college.



--Completed college.



--Pursuing GED.



--Enrolled in high school.



--Enrolled in vocational school.



--Enrolled in college.



o English proficiency/Interpreter requirement:



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



--English is a secondary language.



--An interpreter is required who is proficient in __________ (e.g., signing,

Spanish).



o Employment status:



--Currently employed.



--Nature of employment_________:



----Employment start date.



----Type of certificate/license required to perform job function:



------Licensing agency.



----Special skills required?



------Needs to develop special skills to be qualified for position.



--Company name.



--Employer's address.



--Employer's telephone number.



--Worksite address.



--Worksite telephone number.



--Full time or part time.



--Date last worked.



--Unemployed:



----Last date of employment.



----How long?



----Last occupation.



----Months employed in past 12 months.



----Other previous occupations.



o Military experience:



--Branch.



--Start date.



--Currently in military service.



--End date.



--How long?





--Highest grade/rank.



--Nature of discharge (e.g., N/A, honorable, dishonorable, unknown).



--Grade/Rank at time of discharge.



--Location at time of discharge.



--Military honors.



--Assignments.



o Drug of choice:

     

--Frequency of use.



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



--Length of use.



o Secondary drug of choice:



--Frequency of use.



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



--Length of use.



o Tuberculosis status:



--Positive.



--Negative.



--Unknown.



o Health issues currently under treatment:



--Description of health issues.



--Prescribed medications.



--Prescribing physician.



--Date a physician was last seen.



--Physician's telephone number.



o Health issues recently treated:



--Description of health issues.



--Prescribed medications.



--Prescribing physician.



--Date a physician was last seen.



--Physician's telephone number.



o Current health issues not being treated.



o Physical impairments:



--Expected date of recovery (if temporary).



--Special requirements (special needs that must be addressed to facilitate the

treatment process).



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



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



Financial Information Checklist



Personal financial information



o Social Security number.



o No source of income.



o Weekly or monthly earnings.



o Commissions.



o Bonuses/Tips.



o Other income.



o Support payments.



o Unemployed.



o Federal, State, or county assistance:



--Food stamps.



--Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (previously Aid to Families With

Dependent Children). 



--Supplemental Security Income.



--Social Security.



--Unemployment insurance.



--Worker's compensation.



--Veteran's disability.



--Other ______.



o Total weekly or monthly income.



o Value of liquid assets:



--Cash on hand.



--Checking account.



----Name of bank.



--Savings account.



----Name of bank.



--Stocks/Bonds.



--Cash value of life insurance policy.



o Owns home:



--Purchase price.



--Current value.



--Date of purchase.



o Owns automobile:



--Year.



--Make.



--Model.



--Loan balance.



--Value.



o Other property or assets.



--Value of other property or assets.



o Total value of assets.



Spouse's personal financial information



o Social Security number.



o Mailing address.



o Employer.



o Position.



o Employer's address.



o Employer's telephone number.



o Employment start date.





o Full time or part time.



o Weekly or monthly earnings.



o Commissions.



o Bonuses/Tips.



o Other income.



o Support payments.



o Unemployed.



o Federal, State, or county assistance:



--Food stamps.



--Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (previously Aid to Families With

Dependent Children). 



--Supplemental Security Income. 



--Social Security.



--Unemployment insurance.



--Worker's compensation.



--Veteran's disability.



--Other ______.



o Total weekly or monthly income.



o Value of liquid assets.



Expenses and financial liability information



o Monthly expenses:



--Mortgage/Rent.





--Food.



--Power.



--Water/Sewer.



--Telephone (basic).



--Electricity.



--Heating.



--Clothing.



--Education/Tuition.



--Transportation.



--Total.



o Monthly liabilities:



--Home mortgage.



--Other mortgage.



--Auto loan.



--Auto insurance.



--Personal loan.



--Other loans.



--Credit card payments.



--Health insurance payments.



--Total.



o Other liabilities:



--Court-ordered payments:



----Child support.



----Divorce settlement.



----Restitution.



----Fines.



----Other _____.



--Medical bills.



--Other debts.



--Total.



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



Insurance Information Checklist



o No insurance available.



o Private insurance information:



--Name of carrier.



--Policy number.



--Telephone number.



--State insurance?



--Federal insurance?



o VA benefits available.



o Medicaid recipient.



o Other insurance information.



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





Contact Information Checklist



o Private counsel:



--Name.



--Address.



--Telephone number.



o Public defender:



--Name.



--Address.



--Telephone number.



o Employer:



--Name of employer/supervisor.



--Address.



--Telephone number.



--Notes.



o Client lives with:



--Name.



--Relationship.



--Is a substance abuser?



--Notes.



o Family and references (up to three):



--Name.



--Relationship.



--Frequency of contact.



--Length of relationship.



--Address:



----Home.



----Work.



----Other.



--Telephone.



--Notes.



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



Residency Screening Checklist



o Geographic information:



--Resides within the target area served by the drug court.



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



--Presently incarcerated? 



--ZIP Code.



--Census tract.



--Other geographic search parameter__________.



--Immigration status:



----Expiration date of current immigration status.



o Length of time at current residence.



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





Criminal Justice Screening Checklist



o The MIS records current charge information.



o The MIS records criminal justice status information (e.g., parole, probation,

warrants).



o The MIS records the court(s), docket numbers, and charges for other

pending cases. This includes contact information for court staff with whom court

appearances and other activities might need to be coordinated.



o The MIS retains the State Identification Number (a unique fingerprint-based

identification number assigned by the State criminal records repository agency

that can be used to retrieve criminal records information from the State

repository and the national criminal records system administered by the FBI).



--The MIS retains another local identification number that can be used to link

with Federal and State criminal records identification numbers.



o The MIS is programmed to screen criminal history records for eligibility

consistent with criteria established by the jurisdiction and, if appropriate, that

conforms to Federal guidelines. 



o The MIS categorizes criminal history information by arrests and convictions

within the past year and since age 18 by number of:



--Violent offenses.



--Nondrug crime felonies.



--Nondrug crime misdemeanors.



--Drug crime felonies.



--Drug crime misdemeanors.



--Traffic and other offenses.



o There is provision for recording self-reported crimes committed within the

past year and since age 18 by estimated number of:



--Violent offenses.





--Drug crime felonies.



--Other felonies.



--Other crimes.



o The MIS retains criminal history information on all persons screened for

eligibility, including reason(s) for being disqualified or declining to participate. 



o Incorporation of State and national criminal history information:



--The MIS automatically receives and retains the criminal history record for

each prospective participant from the State criminal records repository agency.

This transmission includes State-based information and all associated

information available from the FBI-administered Interstate Identification Index

within the National Crime Information Center.



--The MIS electronically receives only State-based criminal history information

from the State repository.



--The court, or an agency member of the drug court team, retrieves State and

national criminal history information via computer and manually enters the

record into the MIS.



--The court, or an agency member of the drug court team, receives State and

national criminal history information from another department (e.g., the booking

agency) and manually enters the record into the MIS.



o Eligibility determinations and participant criminal profiles are based on:



--A statewide, court-based information system.



--County- or municipal-level booking records that are entered into the MIS.



--Local court records.



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



Alcohol or Other Drug Dependency Screening Checklist



o The MIS records results of drug tests administered as part of the screening

process.





o The MIS records responses from screening instruments/interviews:



--Drugs of primary, secondary, third, and fourth choice are identified and

recorded:



----Alcohol.



----Marijuana.



----Inhalants.



----Hallucinogens.



----Pills (downers).



----Pills (uppers).



----Amphetamines.



----Phencyclidine (PCP).



----Opiates.



----Cocaine.



----Crack.



----Heroin.



----Speed.



----Cocaine/Heroin.



----Illegal methadone.



----Legal methadone.



----Prescription drugs.



----Other__________.



--Frequency of use over the past 30 days:



----Daily.



----Three to five times per week.



----Twice weekly.



----Weekly.



----Other__________.



--Frequency of use over the past year:



----Daily.



----Three to five times per week.



----Twice weekly.



----Weekly.



----Other_________.



--Number of years since first use.



--Date of last use.



--Longest period of time that primary drug of choice was not used.



--Most recent length of sobriety.



--Average amount of money spent daily on alcohol and/or drugs.



o The MIS allows for the recording of interviewer observations.



o Prior treatment:



--Name of agency or provider.



--Address of agency or provider.



--Contact name.



--For what drug/substance?





--Telephone number of agency or provider.



--Approximate start date.



--Approximate end date.



--Reason for ending rehabilitation.



--Details of the candidate's performance pertaining to his or her prior

rehabilitation.



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



Admission Decision Checklist



o Admitted to drug court.



o Date found eligible.



o Date offered enrollment.



o Not admitted to program due to:



--Current violent offense.



--Prior violent offense.



--Prior criminal history.



--Not an alcohol or drug abuser.



--Contagious health risk or other medical condition.



--Not suitable.



--Declined admission.



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



Client Outcome Checklist



o The MIS records the date of program enrollment.





o The MIS records the date the client exited the program:



--Voluntary separation:



----Reason ___________.



--Discharge:



----Reason ___________.



--Graduation.



--Death.



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



IV. Operational Drug Court



Drug courts continuously collect and analyze extensive information throughout

the course of the program. This broad mix of information supports treatment

decisions, ongoing case management, and judicial supervision. In addition,

appointments and their outcomes are carefully tracked. Detailed clinical case

management information is not usually recorded in the drug court MIS.

However, the system should document counseling appointments,

treatment-imposed sanctions, and other information that needs to be

coordinated with the court or that may affect how the court supervises the

client. 



Assessment



A formal assessment usually takes place soon after a participant is screened

and admitted to the drug court program. It is the first stage of a process that

continues while an individual remains under the drug court's supervision. The

assessment is a detailed exploration of areas addressed in the screening process

(such as family and social relationships, employment and education history, and

status information) and new areas. Assessment is the basis for developing a

treatment plan, including the timing and provision of specific services.[27]

Treatment frequently includes at least some of the following services: individual

and group counseling, behavioral therapies, peer counseling, culturally and

gender-competent providers, job skills training, psychotherapy, and drug

testing.



The MIS should include at least one comprehensive standardized assessment

instrument that is appropriate for the target population and available treatment

resources. Additional assessment instruments may be included to refine the

decisionmaking process. Many evaluative tools can be acquired without cost

because they are in the public domain. However, there may be costs associated

with bringing in a trainer. The cost of administering an instrument and scoring

the results varies considerably. The lengthier and more complex the instrument

(particularly those that call for qualitative judgments on the part of the

interviewer), the more expensive it is to administer and score. In some

instances, costs decline when scoring is automated.



The MIS should identify any instrument(s) used in either pre- or postadmission

processing, even those that are not automated as part of the MIS. This

information is useful for studies of the effectiveness of screening and evaluation

tools undertaken to assist local drug court decisionmaking and for 

cross-jurisdictional research within States and throughout the Nation. If entire

assessment or screening documents are not recorded in the MIS, consideration

should be given to selectively including information relevant to various

evaluation tasks. For example, participants with coexisting disorders are an

exceptionally challenging population.[28] Fluctuations over time in the number

of program participants with coexisting mental disorders and substance abuse

problems may help to explain changes in program retention and graduation

rates.



Assessment determines a candidate's suitability for substance abuse treatment

and placement in a specific treatment modality/setting. A comprehensive

assessment evaluation includes information regarding current and past use/abuse

of drugs; justice system involvement; medical, familial, social, educational,

military, employment, and treatment histories; and risk for infectious diseases

(e.g., sexually transmitted diseases, tuberculosis, HIV/AIDS, hepatitis).[29]



Many assessment instruments, typically scored questionnaires, are available in

the public domain and from the private sector.[30] Some instruments require

considerable skill on the part of the interviewer; some do not. Others are

self-administered questionnaires. The selection of assessment tools is largely

based on budget (cost of acquisition plus cost of administration and scoring),

target population, and the range of available treatment services. The objective is

to optimize the match between need and treatment resources. Typically, the

questionnaire and its scoring methodology can be stored, accessed, and

completed as part of the MIS database. Full access to assessment information

is often restricted to treatment case managers and other diagnostic or clinical

personnel.



Supporting the Drug Court Process treats assessment as a postadmission

process. However, as previously noted, some drug court programs have

blurred the distinction between screening and assessment by combining these

activities. (See chapter III for a detailed discussion of screening.)



The following section identifies some of the many screening and assessment

instruments available to drug courts. It also lists background information items

the MIS should record if they are not included in the instruments chosen.



A sample checklist for screening and assessment instruments is provided at the

back of this chapter.



Background Information



The MIS should capture the background information given in the checklist at

the end of this chapter, if it is not recorded as a byproduct of screening and

assessment.



Ongoing Case Management



The drug court team reviews each program participant's status information

continuously. The judge and the drug court team require a wide-ranging set of

information to effectively conduct the "staffings"[31] and status hearings that are

fundamental to the drug court process. Given the frequency of these hearings,

which are often held weekly, it is essential that information be collected,

disseminated, and weighed in a timely fashion. Some events, such as a positive

drug test, an arrest, or a failure to appear for a scheduled hearing, may call for

team members to take immediate action, rather than waiting until the next

scheduled status hearing.



Infractions, Sanctions, Incentives, and Rewards



Accountability is a central theme of drug court judicial supervision. Strategies

for inducing program compliance include carefully tracking and weighing the

severity of infractions, imposing sanctions commensurate with inappropriate or

unacceptable behavior, and providing incentives that reward overall progress

and specific accomplishments. A chronicle of why, how, and when sanctions

and incentives are applied is part of the overall treatment record and is also a

foundation for understanding the effectiveness of various alternatives. By

comprehensively recording infractions and the resultant sanctions, the drug

court can determine what works while also ensuring that sanctions are applied

in a bias-free manner. 



Recording all punishments facilitates overall case management and imposition of

incremental sanctions; this comprehensive approach, however, does not fully

apply to the recording of incentives. Typically, the court will verbally commend

small accomplishments. Announcement of a major achievement is often

accompanied by applause and a handshake. These common practices, serving

as positive reinforcement, need not be recorded in the MIS.



Some drug courts have opted to employ a team-approved schedule of

sanctions that sets out point values for various infractions and defines

corresponding penalties. Often, participants who remain sanction-free for a

specified period advance to another program phase. Conversely, participants

are demoted if they accumulate a predetermined number of points. Many drug

courts that use a schedule of sanctions tell participants about the schedule when

they enter the program.



The Infractions, Sanctions, Incentives, and Rewards checklist at the back of

this chapter suggests MIS data items relating to infractions, sanctions,

incentives, and rewards. Included are illustrative infractions and sanctions of

varying severity. Consequently, the section provides both a framework for

including an existing sanctions schedule in an MIS design and a starting point for

implementing a sanctions schedule to assist in case management. A sample list

of incentives and rewards is provided both as a design tool for drug court

planners and as an assessment tool for operational drug courts that want to

evaluate the ways in which they are providing encouragement and recognizing

accomplishments.



Appointments and Outcomes



Drug court clients lead complex lives. They must appear for frequent status

hearings and drug tests, meet a schedule of fee payments, and keep myriad

other appointments that are set by the court, case managers, program

coordinators, probation officers, and treatment counselors. The drug court

team's scheduling requirements encompass not only clients' appointments but

also certain events planned by drug court team members without the client's

prior knowledge, such as random drug tests, field-administered drug tests, and

planned visits to verify employment, attendance at school, or compliance with

curfew restrictions.



In addition to client-specific appointments, the drug court administers other

schedules related to the management and operation of the drug court program.

In this category fall the court's calendar, NA and/or AA meetings, and group

sessions that may precede or follow the status hearing calendar, staffings, and

other activities. The MIS can help drug courts effectively manage these

scheduling tasks. 



The drug court may opt to accommodate another set of commitments in the

MIS design: client obligations external to the direct supervision of the court. For

example, the client may have a hearing scheduled on an unrelated case in

another court or jurisdiction that could interfere with a drug court obligation, or

the client may request that a certain time be left open for personal reasons (e.g.,

to attend a child's school event).



The value of adding an appointment and outcome component to the MIS

depends on the extent to which the drug court team uses the system to plan

schedules and coordinate appointments. Scheduling conflicts are minimized

when all team members can access and immediately update client appointments

and their own diaries. Jurisdictions that opt to implement a comprehensive

appointment and outcome system enhance operational efficiency. Such a

system also enables team members to provide clients with a periodically

updated calendar of appointments and outstanding obligations (e.g., community

service hours owed, fee payments in arrears, date and amount of next

scheduled fee payment).



Schedule commitments in a drug court program are many and varied.

Frequently, they correspond to activities that are at the heart of judicial

supervision and treatment. Failure to keep an appointment is often considered

an infraction of the program rules, and imposition of a sanction may ensue.

Therefore, it is important that the MIS record the disposition of all scheduled

events. For example, it should provide an at-a-glance compilation of data on

drug tests, including the date of each urine test, whether the test was positive or

negative, and, when appropriate, the level of the substance determined to be

present.



A sample checklist for appointments and outcomes is provided at the back of

this chapter.



Program Monitoring



Effective management requires continual and aggressive collection and

assessment of programwide statistical data about day-to-day operations. The

intention here is to build a process for continually improving the program and to

provide a mechanism for alerting the drug court team to changes that are

occurring broadly within the program. Unlike other drug court activities

discussed thus far, program monitoring focuses on aggregate data rather than

information about individual candidates and participants. A solid monitoring

apparatus enables program administrators to describe in quantitative terms what

is going on in the program, assess operations, review operating data within the

context of program goals, identify shortcomings or potential problems, and

implement changes while ensuring that resources are adequate and

appropriately used across the breadth of the program. The generation of

monitoring reports must be routine and frequent enough that their extensive

status information is both reasonably current and truly reflective of operations.



The Program Monitoring Checklist at the back of this chapter includes

questions and answers illustrative of program status and achievement

information. Topics will vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and those

suggested here should be modified to fit each drug court's goals, objectives,

and concerns.



A Word About Computer Mapping



Government agencies at every level are increasingly using mapping technology

to enhance service delivery. It is inevitable that drug courts will adopt this

technology as an adjunct to or a module within the MIS. For many drug court

clients, the cost or inconvenience of transportation to the court, treatment

sessions, AA and NA meetings, and other appointments sometimes leads to

sanctions or, worse yet, compels a client to drop out of the program. Mapping

can help to minimize travel issues for drug court clients.



Mapping also provides an easy way to identify the neighborhoods where clients

reside, work, go to school, or socialize. This sort of information often

contradicts expectations and assumptions about where services and supervision

are most needed. By recognizing clusters on a virtual pin map, probation

officers can perform more efficiently, and law enforcement liaisons can be more

effective as the eyes and ears of the court. Other, more creative uses of this

technology will become evident as drug courts begin to move in this direction.



Exit Interviews and Postprogram Activities



The MIS should record reasons and impressions gleaned from exit interviews

conducted with both dropouts and graduates to inform drug court team

members' perception of the program and to influence future decisions. The MIS

should also document several postprogram activities. Many jurisdictions have

founded alumni groups that provide continued support to program graduates.

Participation in such groups and frequency of attendance should be recorded.

The MIS database is often a source of referrals for various services offered to

active clients. Similar information may be of value when alumni seek aftercare.

The outcome or impact evaluation, discussed in the next chapter, strongly

benefits when postprogram tracking information--such as recidivism, continued

education, job history, and other data about graduates--is captured in the MIS.



--------



Screening and Assessment Instrument Checklist



o The MIS includes at least one screening instrument that attempts to identify

candidates who meet the substance abuse criteria defined for the program's

target population.



o The MIS includes at least one comprehensive standardized assessment

instrument that is appropriate for the target population and available treatment

resources.



Comprehensive assessment instruments



o Addiction Severity Index (public domain).



o Other__________.



Alcohol screening questionnaires



o CAGE (four questions, public domain).



o Short Michigan Alcohol Screening Test (public domain).



o Michigan Alcohol Screening Test.



o Manson Evaluation. 



o Alcohol Dependence Scale.



o Other__________.



Substance abuse screening



o Substance Abuse Screening Instrument (public domain).



o Offender Profile Index (public domain).



o Drug Abuse Screening Test.



o Chemical Dependency Assessment Profile.





o The Structured Clinical Interview for Diagnosis.



o Quantitative Cocaine Inventory.



o TCU (Texas Christian University) Drug Dependence Screen (public domain).



o Simple Screening Instrument (public domain).



o Other__________.



Medical/Physical health (status and problems)



o General Health Rating Index.



o Other__________.



Psychological/Psychiatric problems (mental health status, diagnosis)



o Symptom Check List (SCL-90-R).



o Maudsley Neuroticism Scale.



o Beck Depression Inventory.



o Brief Symptom Inventory.



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



o Structured Clinical Interview (SCID) for DSM-III-R (Diagnostic and

Statistical Manual of Mental Health Disorders III-R).



o The Mini-SCID.



o Referral Decision Scale.



o Other__________.



Motivation



o Circumstances, Motivation, Readiness and Suitability Scale.



o Stages of Change Readiness and Treatment Eagerness Scale.





o University of Rhode Island Change Assessment Scale.



Academic skills



o The Wide Range Achievement Test. 



o Other__________.



Employment



o Index of Job Satisfaction. 



o Other__________.



Social/Lifestyle



o Social Life Feelings Scale. 



o Social Intelligence Test.



o Other__________.



Family and marital relationships



o Family Environment Scale.



o Family Assessment Measure.



o Self-Report Family Inventory of the Family Satisfaction Scale. 



o Family Crisis-Oriented Personal Evaluation Scales. 



o The ENRICH Inventory. 



o Dynamic Adjustment Scale. 



o Other__________.



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



Background Information Checklist



o History of physical/sexual/mental abuse.



--Age of client when abuse began.



--Is client still around abuser?



--Date of last abuse.



--Frequency of abuse.



--Relationship of client to the person who is/was the abuser.



--Approximate date of first abuse.



--Is abuse still occurring?



--Type of abuse client received/is receiving.



--Notes.



o History of suicide attempts:



--Approximate date of last suicide attempt.



--Reason why the client attempted to commit suicide.



--Approximate number of total suicide attempts.



o In-program pregnancy and child delivery:



--Number of previous pregnancies.



--Number of previous childbirths.



--Infant's date of birth.



--Infant's birth weight.



--Infant's toxicology screen at birth.



--Where and with whom the infant will live.



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





Infractions, Sanctions, Incentives, and Rewards Checklist



o The MIS records the dates of all infractions.



o The MIS automatically calculates the number of days/weeks/months elapsed

between program enrollment and each infraction.



o The MIS automatically calculates the number of days/weeks/months elapsed

between infraction occurrences.



o The MIS records dates when incentives or rewards are given.



o The MIS automatically calculates the number of days/weeks/months elapsed

between program enrollment and each incentive or reward.



o The MIS automatically calculates the number of days/weeks/months elapsed

between each incentive or reward.



o The MIS records all levels of infractions. Sample infractions follow:



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



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



--Arrived late for scheduled drug test.



--Arrived late for treatment session.



--Did not complete homework.



--Did not provide a sponsor letter.



--Failed to appear for work and did not have an excuse.



--Unemployed.



--Failed to seek employment as directed by the court.



--Failed to enroll in an education or job training program as directed by the

court. 



--Failed to pay scheduled fees.





--Partially paid fees without authorization of the court.



--Missed probation office visit.



--Violated home detention.



--Violated electronic monitoring.



--Missed status hearing--notified case manager/court coordinator beforehand

(first occurrence).



--Fulfilled partial community service requirement within allowed time (first

community service sanction).



--Discourteous to court or other drug court team member (first occurrence).



--Wore inappropriate attire to status hearing (first occurrence).



--Forged AA or NA meeting attendance slip.



--Admitted use prior to failing drug test.



--Admitted use prior to failing alcohol test.



--Missed treatment session without prior excuse.



--Missed scheduled drug test.



--Violated curfew.



--Fired from job.



--Left employment without a replacement job.



--Observed in a known drug-trafficking area.



--Observed in a premises that serves alcohol; presence was not job related and

was without prior approval.



--Positive drug test (without prior admission; first occurrence).



--Positive alcohol test (without prior admission; first occurrence).





--Delayed taking drug test.



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



--Admitted use prior to second failed drug test.



--Admitted use prior to second failed alcohol test.



--Missed status hearing--notified case manager/court coordinator beforehand

(second occurrence).



--Failed to perform any community service within allowed time (first community

service sanction).



--Fulfilled partial community service requirement within allowed time (second

or subsequent community service sanction).



--Discourteous to court or other drug court team member (second or

subsequent occurrence).



--Wore inappropriate attire to status hearing (second or subsequent

occurrence).



--Attempted to falsify drug test sample.



--Substituted or tampered with urine sample.



--Missed scheduled drug test (second or subsequent occurrence).



--Positive drug test (without prior admission; second occurrence).



--Positive alcohol test (without prior admission; second occurrence).



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



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



--Absent from program for more than 5 days. 



--Failed to complete inpatient or halfway house program.



--Arrested (nonviolent misdemeanor or lesser offense).





--Arrested (nonviolent felony).



--Arrested for a violent offense.



o The MIS records all judicially imposed sanctions. Sample sanctions follow:



--Verbal reprimand.



--Written report (e.g., explain why action or behavior was inappropriate or

irresponsible).



--Loss of a privilege.



--Community service (8 or fewer hours).



--Increase in NA meetings.



--Increase in AA meetings.



--Increase in outpatient individual and/or group sessions.



--Increase in drug testing.



--Placement in jury box for duration of day's calendar.



--Placement in holding cell for duration of day's calendar.



--Electronic monitoring.



--Home detention.



--Jail (less than 24 hours).



--Extension of time before client can advance to another phase or graduate.



--Community service (up to 24 hours).



--Increase in NA/AA meetings and submission of a written report following

each meeting.



--Increase in status hearings.



--Jail (up to 10 days).



--Community service (up to 60 hours).



--Phase demotion.



--Jail (up to 30 days).



--Inpatient placement.



--Participant required to enter guilty plea (in pre-plea courts, acceptance of

plea may be held in abeyance or participant may be allowed to withdraw plea).



--Discharged from program.



o The MIS has a provision for noting punitive action taken by outpatient

treatment providers.



o The MIS has a provision for noting punitive action taken by residential

treatment providers.



o The MIS has a provision for noting punitive action taken by probation staff

supervising client.



o The MIS has a provision for noting punitive action taken by case manager

supervising client.



o The MIS selectively records incentives or rewards given to program

participants. Sample incentives and rewards follow:



--Less restrictive curfew.



--Removal of curfew.



--Reduction in required AA meetings.



--Reduction in required NA meetings.



--Immediate release after status hearing (not required to sit through whole drug

court calendar).



--Placement in a group whose status hearings are called early in the day's

calendar.





--Less frequent scheduled drug tests.



--Participant can serve as a program representative speaker.



--Participant can participate in a court-sponsored recreational event.



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



--Certificates for restaurants, for participant's own use or for a family event.



--Certificates for clothing.



--Financial support for education, job training, or other activity consistent with

objectives of the program but not affordable for the client.



--Permission to temporarily leave jurisdiction for cause at the request of the

participant.



--Advancement in a multiphase program.



--Invitation to join alumni group.



--Graduation.



o The MIS documents when each requirement for advancement to another

phase or level is met.



o The MIS records dates of advancement in multiphase programs.



o The MIS documents when each graduation requirement is met.



o The MIS records the date the drug court team certifies that all graduation

requirements have been met, as well as the reason for any decision to defer

graduation.



o The MIS records the date of graduation.



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



Appointments and Outcomes Checklist



o The MIS automatically generates the case calendar for staffings.





o The MIS automatically generates the status hearing calendar.



o The MIS can be used to generate lists of scheduled attendees for group

activities:



--Group meetings.



--Other _____.



o The MIS records drug test appointments and dispositional information:



--Date and time of test/sample taken:



----Scheduled.



----Random.



----Confirmation.



--Location of test:



----Court.



----Treatment.



----Jail.



----Field.



--Missed appointment--not excused.



--Missed appointment--excused.



--Late for appointment--not excused.



--Late for appointment--excused.



--Refused to provide sample.



--Attempted to submit fraudulent sample or tamper with test process.



--Screening panel/drugs tested:





----Alcohol.



----Amphetamines (e.g., methamphetamine, MDA, MDMA).



----Barbiturates.



----Benzodiazepine.



----Cocaine.



----Marijuana (THC).



----Methadone.



----Methaqualone.



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



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



----Propoxyphene (e.g., Darvon).



--Date and time the test results were determined.



--Date and time the test results were entered in the MIS.



--Test results:



----Positive:



------Level.



----Negative.



--Notes _____.



o The MIS records status hearing appointments and dispositions:



--Date and time scheduled.



--Failure to appear--excused.



--Failure to appear--not excused.



----Warrant issued.



o The MIS records fees assessed and payable to the court:



--Frequency and amount of scheduled payments.



--Payment dates and amounts.



--Current with payments, or amount in arrears?



--Total amount of payments to date.



--Court-ordered change in frequency or amount of payments is logged.



o The MIS records fees payable to treatment providers:



--Frequency and amount of scheduled payments.



--Current with payments, or amount in arrears?



o The MIS records schedule and dispositional information about other pending

nondrug court cases:



--Date, time, court of scheduled appearance.



--Judge.



--Purpose of appearance.



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



--Disposition of appearance.



--Date and disposition of case information.



o The MIS records treatment appointments and dispositions:



--Date and time scheduled.



--Failure to appear--excused.



--Failure to appear--not excused.



o The MIS records scheduled community service:



--Total number of hours required.



--Date by which community service requirement must be satisfied.



--Date, time, number of hours scheduled.



--Entity and location.



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



--Appointment kept.



--Number of hours completed.



--Cumulative number of community service hours completed.



--Failed to appear.



o The MIS records supervisory case management contacts (e.g., probation

supervision):



--Date, time, location of scheduled supervision.



--Failed to appear--excused.



--Failed to appear--not excused.



--Could not be located.



o The MIS records drug court law enforcement liaison contacts:



--Date, time, location of contact.



--Could not be located.



o The MIS records client's personal commitments to avoid conflicts with

scheduled drug court events and to provide an incentive for complying with

drug court appointments.



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



Program Monitoring Checklist



o The MIS provides aggregate data and generates summary reports about 

program participants.



o The MIS provides aggregate data and generates summary reports about 

program performance.



o The MIS periodically generates reports that answer the following questions:



--What attributes of the drug court participant population correspond to

characteristics of the court's planned target population?



--How many clients are enrolled?



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



--How many males and females are enrolled?



--What is the ethnic breakdown of the client population?



----African-American.



----Hispanic/Latino.



----Asian/Pacific Islander.



----Native American.



----Alaska Native.



----Caucasian.



----Other_________.



--How many clients had felony charges when referred to the drug court?



--How many clients had misdemeanor charges when referred to the drug court?





--What is the criminal history profile of the client population (number of clients

categorized by number of prior felony convictions, prior felony arrests, prior

misdemeanor convictions, and prior misdemeanor arrests)?



--Is drug testing being performed as envisioned in the plan for the court?



----Frequency of testing.



----Cumulative and average number of tests of the client population.



----Types of tests conducted.



--To what extent is the combination of judicial supervision and treatment

successfully retaining participants in the program?



----Percentage and number of eligible clients enrolled in the program.



----Number of graduates.



----Number of clients voluntarily separated from the program since its

inception.



----Average duration of program participation before voluntary separation from

the program.



----Number of voluntary program separations by program phase.



----Number of clients involuntarily separated from the program since its

inception.



--Have active program participants been arrested on new charges?



--What is the total number of arrests since program inception? 



----Number of drug offenses.



----Number of nondrug felony arrests.



----Number of nondrug misdemeanor arrests.



----Number of domestic abuse arrests.



--What is the total number of arrests of the current program population?



----Number of drug offenses.



----Number of nondrug felony arrests.



----Number of nondrug misdemeanor arrests.



----Number of domestic abuse arrests.



--Is the drug court having a beneficial impact on the life circumstances of

participants?



----Percentage of clients employed.



----Percentage of clients enrolled in school.



----Percentage of clients enrolled in job training.



----Number of drug-free babies born to clients since program inception.



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



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



V. Evaluation



Evaluation is an essential tool for developing, managing, modifying, sustaining,

and justifying a drug court program. An objective evaluation that addresses

stakeholder questions and concerns will help secure funds, win community

support, and facilitate the passage of legislation. Several types of evaluations

are commonly employed to assess the operational effectiveness and success of

drug court programs. These include process and outcome evaluations.

Comprehensive quality evaluations are frequently beyond the expertise of the

drug team. An outside evaluator familiar with the evaluation process, criminal

justice, and treatment can be an invaluable asset. Although the cost of

evaluation depends on many factors and varies widely, costs generally are

minimized when



o The evaluator is identified and consulted early enough to participate in the

planning of the drug court. The sooner the evaluator is engaged, the more likely

it is that key questions will be identified and answers will be understood.



o Data collection within the MIS not only supports day-to-day operations, but

also is designed with evaluation utility in mind. 





o Data are collected in a format the evaluator can use; the data do not have to

be converted to another format or manually manipulated.



DCPO Implementation Grants



DCPO implementation grant recipients are required to conduct both a process

evaluation and an outcome evaluation and to collect and maintain the key data

necessary to support both types of evaluations.[32] In their applications, grant

applicants must include an MIS plan that, among other things, encompasses

methods for collecting, storing, and maintaining adequate data to support the

drug court's operations and its process and outcome evaluations.[33]



Process or Operations Evaluation



The process or operations evaluation, which typically builds on program

monitoring, carefully documents how the program is currently operating and

contrasts that with how it was intended to operate. This assessment chronicles

the history of program development and changes over time and identifies the

specific elements of the program, including participant characteristics, program

services, and the extent to which services are matched with and used by

participants. Questions answered by the process evaluation include



o Is the drug court program meeting its planned operational and administrative

goals?



o Is the program serving the intended target population?



o Do screening and assessment procedures yield the optimal number of

candidates without introducing unfair or inappropriate exclusions?



o Is the provision of services consistent with the needs of program participants?



A process evaluation may be broader in scope and answer many other

questions. For example, one of the underlying goals established early in the

planning process might be that creating a drug court will benefit calendars in

other court areas and facilitate better use of courtroom space. A primary

objective of the process evaluation is to look at whether the drug court program

is meeting its goals--the very goals that determine the framework for the

process evaluation. Program records, as recorded in the MIS, play an

important role in the process evaluation. However, the evaluation may include

other components, such as direct observation of program services, surveys, and

interviews of stakeholders, clients, and staff.





Outcome or Impact Evaluation



The outcome or impact evaluation primarily assesses the effect of the drug court

program on the lives of participants after they leave the program, as compared

with outcomes associated with more traditional justice processing. (Lifestyle

changes of active clients may also be considered in an evaluation.) At the core

of these evaluations are changes in criminal involvement, recidivism, and

substance abuse and progress toward a positive lifestyle. This evaluation

process allows drug courts to determine and report the extent to which

graduates--and often offenders who are still active in the program--have

progressed toward program goals and objectives and also to judge the

effectiveness of various services for the population served. This type of

evaluation takes a long-term view, as compared with the relatively short-term

view of a process evaluation or ongoing program monitoring. 



Much of the information that is critical for conducting both process and impact

evaluations is collected and routinely entered into the MIS as part of

documenting tasks and decisions in the areas of program eligibility, screening,

assessment, ongoing case management, and, most importantly, program

monitoring. In short, nothing may be out of bounds when trying to draw

conclusions about how things are working and how well they are working.

Policymakers, legislators, funding sources, court administrators, drug court

team members, and community advisory and other interested public groups

may all have questions about the effectiveness of the drug court program. As

these concerns are identified, it may be appropriate to lay the foundation for a

response through the design or subsequent modification of the MIS.



As with process evaluation, early identification and involvement of the evaluator

are important for outcome evaluations. The evaluator can help to ensure that the

MIS is optimized for the planned evaluation and can also focus on the source of

information that will be needed. For instance, there are various definitions of

recidivism and multiple sources of data relevant to recidivism. If the research

design intends to use FBI reports to track participants' arrest activities during

and after program enrollment, the MIS database should include each offender's

FBI identification number. If this research is to be limited to or supplemented by

information from the agency that houses the State's criminal records repository,

the fingerprint-based State identification number should be included in the

database.



Cost Analysis



Perhaps the most fundamental consideration in determining whether a drug

court program merits sustained or increased funding is an economic analysis

that contrasts costs and benefits. What is the monetary cost per program

participant per year? How does this compare with the presumed costs for

probation or incarceration and the societal costs associated with crime, poor

health, and other consequences of continued drug use? Key to effective

cost-benefit analysis is a clear understanding of the question or questions to be

answered. For example, the information needed to analyze a drug court

program's overall costs and benefits for a local jurisdiction is quite different

from the information needed when the analysis is limited to the perspective of

the judicial branch. 



The drug court MIS, because it documents an array of activities, is especially

useful in identifying program elements amenable to cost analysis and determining

whether their costs are above those usually experienced when defendants are

processed without a drug court option. In this way, analysts can identify costs

that are unique to the drug court program and that, when added together,

constitute the program's total price. The MIS provides documentation of

arrests, improved job skills, employment, enhanced education, and improved

health and family circumstances. From this information, analysts can extrapolate

diverse sources of fiscal savings or revenue generation. For example, reduced

use of health care services, increased legal earnings and tax revenues,

decreased need for public support, and reduced use of child welfare and foster

care services all imply quantifiable fiscal benefits for the community.



Drug Court Grantee Data Collection Survey



Prior to March 15, 2002, all recipients of grants awarded by DCPO were

required to submit the grantee data collection survey on a semiannual basis "to

ensure that grantees are collecting critical information about their drug court

programs for evaluation purposes and to assist in the national evaluation of drug

courts."[34] The survey instrument expired in March 2002; therefore, grantees

no longer need to submit this data collection survey to DCPO. The latest survey

is presented in appendix 3 as an example of a minimum data set that may be

useful to drug court programs.



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



Appendix 1



Sample Consent Form for Disclosure of Confidential Substance Abuse

Information*



Sample Qualified Service Organization Agreement*





Sample Intergovernmental Agreement and Memorandum of Understanding 

Between Drug Court Team Partners*



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

     

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



SAMPLE



CONSENT FOR DISCLOSURE OF CONFIDENTIAL SUBSTANCE

ABUSE INFORMATION: DRUG COURT REFERRAL



I, defendant's name, hereby consent to communication between treatment

program's name and Judge name of presiding judge, name of prosecuting

attorney or prosecutor's office, name of defense attorney, the probation

department of jurisdiction, (and/or other referring agency), (other).



The purpose of and need for this disclosure is to inform the court and other

above-named parties of my eligibility and/or acceptability for substance abuse

treatment services and my treatment attendance, prognosis, compliance, and

progress in accordance with the drug court monitoring criteria. 



Disclosure of this confidential information may be made only as necessary for

and pertinent to hearings and/or reports concerning charges, docket number,

indictment number.



I understand that this consent will remain in effect and cannot be revoked by me

until there has been a formal and effective termination of my involvement with

the drug court for the case named above, such as the discontinuation of all court

(and/or, where relevant, probation) supervision upon my successful completion

of the drug court requirements or upon sentencing for violating the terms of my

drug court involvement (and/or, where relevant, probation). 



I understand that any disclosure made is bound by Part 2 of Title 42 of the

Code of Federal Regulations, which governs the confidentiality of substance

abuse patient (or client) records, and that recipients of this information may

redisclose it only in connection with their official duties. 



Date



Signature of Defendant



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



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



QUALIFIED SERVICE ORGANIZATION AGREEMENT



Between



PIONEER CLAIM MANAGEMENT and OSBORNE TREATMENT

SERVICES, INC.



PIONEER CLAIM MANAGEMENT (PIONEER) and OSBORNE

TREATMENT SERVICES, INC. (OSBORNE) hereby enter into a Qualified

Service Organization Agreement whereby PIONEER agrees to provide liability

insurance representation, including contracting for legal services, to OSBORNE

in the matter of Luis Martinez vs. 809 Realty Corp. and Osborne Treatment

Services, Inc. Furthermore, PIONEER



1) acknowledges that in receiving, storing, processing, or otherwise dealing with

any information from OSBORNE about any client of OSBORNE, past or

present, PIONEER and all of its agents and assigns are fully bound by the

provisions of the Federal laws and regulations governing the confidentiality of

Drug and Alcohol Abuse Patient Records (42 United States Code Section

290dd-2 and 42 Code of Federal Regulations Part 2); and



2) undertakes to resist, in judicial proceedings if necessary, any efforts to obtain

access to information pertaining to any OSBORNE client otherwise than as

expressly provided for in the Federal confidentiality regulations (42 CFR Part

2).



Executed this day of _____________________, 1998



Signature of PIONEER Officer



Print Name of Signing Officer



Title of Signing Officer

PIONEER CLAIM MANAGEMENT

195 Lake Louise Marie Road

Rock Hill, NY 12775



Signature of OSBORNE Officer



Print Name of Signing Officer



Title of Signing Officer

OSBORNE TREATMENT SERVICES, INC. 

809 Westchester Avenue

Bronx, NY 10455



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



PARISH OF RAPIDES, STATE OF LOUISIANA

INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT



This Intergovernmental Agreement is entered into between the following parties: 



(1) The RAPIDES PARISH POLICE JURY, a constitutional political

subdivision of the State of Louisiana, domiciled in Alexandria, Rapides Parish,

Louisiana (hereinafter referred to as "PARISH"), acting through Donald

Wilmore, duly elected President of the Rapides Parish Police Jury; and



(2) The NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, a constitutional political

subdivision of the State of Louisiana, domiciled in the Parish of Rapides

(hereinafter referred to as "DISTRICT COURT"), acting by and through B.

Dexter Ryland, Chief District Judge; and



(3) The NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT ATTORNEY, a constitutional political

subdivision of the State of Louisiana, domiciled in the Parish of Rapides

(hereinafter referred to as "DISTRICT ATTORNEY") acting by and through

the duly elected Ninth Judicial District Attorney, Charles F. Wagner.



RECITALS



WHEREAS, all of the above parties are concerned about the frequency of

illegal drug use and the related criminal activity which is occurring in our local

community; 



WHEREAS, all of the above parties have declared that pro-active intervention

is an appropriate recognized means of curtailing the problem of drug abuse in

our community; 



WHEREAS, a Drug Treatment Court (hereinafter referred to as the "DRUG

COURT") has been established by the DISTRICT COURT to address the

problem; 



WHEREAS, the POLICE JURY has requested and received $379,228.00 for

the operation of the DRUG COURT pursuant to Grant number 98-DC-VX-

0113 from the U.S. Department of Justice; 



WHEREAS, the DISTRICT ATTORNEY and the DISTRICT COURT have

agreed to participate in the operation of the DRUG COURT and to provide

in-kind services for the above named grant, along with in-kind services from the

Rapides Parish Clerk of Court, Rapides Parish Public Defender's Office and

the Department of Public Safety and Corrections, Division of Probation and

Parole and the State of Louisiana, Department of Health and Hospitals, Office

for Addictive Disorders, for the above named grant; 



NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that all parties named above, in

conformity with La. R. S. 33:1321, et seq., hereby enter into the following

intergovernmental agreement:



I. 



The DISTRICT COURT agrees to operate and supervise DRUG COURT

pursuant to written rules and regulations promulgated by the DISTRICT

COURT.



II.



With the exception of those personnel provided by the DISTRICT COURT,

DISTRICT ATTORNEY, Clerk of Court, Public Defender's Office,

Department of Public Safety and Corrections, Division of Probation and Parole

and the State of Louisiana, Department of Health and Hospitals, Office for

Addictive Disorders, all other employees hired to provide services under this

agreement and pursuant to grant funds shall be employees of the PARISH.



III.



The PARISH agrees to act as fiscal agent for the DISTRICT COURT's

DRUG COURT for all monies received from the U.S. Department of Justice

Grant # 98-DC-VX-0113 and to manage, operate and expend said funds

according to the rules and regulations of the U.S. Department of Justice Grant #

98-DC-VX-0113, including but not limited to all necessary reports,

documents, and records of any kind so required thereby. The DRUG COURT,

prior to seeking reimbursement from the PARISH for funds the PARISH acts

as fiscal agent, shall certify that all of its operational expenditures are in

compliance with the rules and regulations of the above named grant.



IV.



The parties agree that each DRUG COURT participant in Phase I, II, and III

(and Phase IV misdemeanor cases only) shall be assessed $30.00 per month

for probation supervision/drug screening fees that will be collected by the

DRUG COURT administrator who will tender these funds to the PARISH who

will then deposit them in a separate account. Expenditures from this account

shall only be legitimate expenditures for the use and benefit of the DRUG

COURT, including but not limited to office expenses, educational and training

materials, training expenses, drug testing expenses, counselor certification, etc.

In seeking payment, the DISTRICT COURT shall certify in writing that the

requested expense is a legitimate expense for the use and/or benefit of the

DRUG COURT. 



V.



Should the DISTRICT COURT decide to terminate the DRUG COURT, any

funds remaining on deposit in the probation supervision/drug screening fund

shall be continued to be maintained in this separate account and used solely for

the psychiatric/psychological/family counseling diagnosis or testing of substance

abuse or mental illness/disorders requested by any civil, criminal, or juvenile

division of the Ninth Judicial District Court. The District Court sitting en blanc,

shall decide the policy and procedures on how these funds will be administered

and expended.



THUS DONE AND SIGNED on this _________ day of

_________________, 1999, in Alexandria, Rapides Parish, Louisiana, before

the undersigned witnesses after due reading of the whole.



WITNESSES: _________________________

_________________________



RAPIDES PARISH POLICE JURY



BY:_________________________



DONALD WILMORE

President, Rapides Parish

Police Jury



_________________________ NOTARY PUBLIC



WITNESSES: _________________________

_________________________



STATE OF LOUISIANA



BY:_________________________



CHARLES F. WAGNER

District Attorney, Rapides Parish



_________________________ NOTARY PUBLIC



WITNESSES: _________________________

_________________________



NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT



BY:_________________________



B. DEXTER RYLAND

Chief District Judge, Ninth District Court



_________________________NOTARY PUBLIC



PARISH OF RAPIDES



STATE OF LOUISIANA



MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING 

NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT 

DRUG COURT DIVISION



This Memorandum of Understanding is entered into between the State of

Louisiana, through Charles F. Wagner, District Attorney (DA); the Rapides

Parish Public Defender's Office (PD), through Kenneth Rodenbeck, Director,

and the Ninth Judicial District Court, through B. Dexter Ryland, Chief Judge,

who agree that the following procedures will apply to all cases allotted to

Division "X", the Drug Court division of the Ninth Judicial District Court:



(1) Except as provided in paragraph (4) below, the DA shall provide to the PD

at arraignment a copy of the defendant's (a) bill of information/indictment, (b)

complete case file submitted to the DA [excluding any attorney work product

or privileged information, especially that privileged by La. C.E. article 514], (c)

"report of arrest and prosecution (RAP) sheet," (d) original completed pretrial

memorandum as required by Rule XXIV of the Ninth Judicial District Court,

and in appropriate cases (e) the Notice of Intent to Introduce Scientific

Evidence as provided by La. R. S. 15:499.1, with attached lab report.



(2) Upon receipt of the above, the arraigning PD shall sign a joint stipulation on

a form approved by the Court which states that this information will satisfy the

defendant's Motion for Discovery and Inspection under C.Cr.P. articles 716-

723, the Motion for Bill of Particulars under La. C.Cr.P. article 484-485 and

the Motion for Preliminary Examination as provided by Louisiana Constitution

Article I, Section 14 and La. C.Cr.P. articles 291-298. However, the PD

reserves the right to file motions for the Court to determine the sufficiency of the

State's response and any other motions provided by law.



(3) After the State of Louisiana has complied with the above discovery

requirements at arraignment, the following delays will apply: 



(a) The PD shall file all pretrial motions within the delays provided by La.

C.Cr.P. article 521; 



(b) The State of Louisiana shall file all pretrial motions within fifteen days after

the expiration of delays in paragraph 3(a) above; 



(c) All pretrial motions shall be set for hearing on the motion date [Monday] for

Division "X" cases closest to the defendant's trial date; 



(d) The pretrial conference shall be set on the Division "X" pretrial date

[Wednesday] closest to the defendant's trial date. Unless excused by the Court,

the defendant shall be present at the pretrial conference and after the pretrial,

the public defender shall discuss with the defendant the matters discussed at the

pretrial conference, the sentence the defendant will receive upon a plea of guilty

to the charge, and determine if the defendant desires to enter a plea of guilty or

proceed to trial. The Public Defender's appearance before the Court will not be

excused until he informs the Court of the defendant's choice. If the defendant

desires to enter a plea of guilty, he may do so on the date of the pretrial

conference or on the appropriate plea date discussed in (e) below; 



(e) The plea date for the defendant shall be set on the Division "X" plea date

[Friday] closest to the defendant's trial date. The PD shall notify the Court of

the defendant's desire to enter a plea of guilty prior to the plea date. The

defendant is only required to be present if (s)he desires to enter a plea of guilty

to the pretrial sentence which will expire if the defendant does not plead guilty

on his/her plea date. 



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

months after arraignment.



(4) The DA and PD agree that "open file" discovery as outlined above is the

preferred method of discovery in Division "X" cases and that the DA will

comply with the procedure in all cases except in limited situations where trial

strategy would dictate otherwise. In those cases, the DA shall provide to the

PD at arraignment a written notice of: (a) the DA's refusal to enter into informal

discovery as outlined above and (b) a request for the defendant to file formal

discovery motions as provided by law.



(5) The Court shall adopt a Division "X" calendar in compliance with this

Memorandum of Understanding and distribute it to the State of Louisiana, the

Clerk of Court, and all members of the PD.



(6) The District Attorney recognizes the importance of those who are

convicted, on bond or being detained without bond, being candid with Drug

Court personnel regarding their alcohol/drug usage as well as their participation/

treatment in other programs. Therefore, the District Attorney agrees to the

following policy concerning statements by any person being screened for Drug

Court eligibility or any person who has entered a plea of guilty to a criminal

charge and is being treated in the Drug Court treatment program: 



(a) Any information obtained by a Drug Court counselor during the screening

process shall be confidential, shall not be revealed to any person or as evidence

in a pending case against the client being screened; however, the screening

counselor shall inform the Court, the defense attorney, and the District Attorney

of the results of their examination as to whether the defendant has a substance

abuse addiction and any treatment recommendation(s); 



(b) Admissions of alcohol/drug usage or a positive screen for alcohol or drug

usage will not be used by the DA to file new charges of possession of a

controlled dangerous substance but can be used by the Court in imposing

sanctions or revoking the defendant's probation.



(7) This Memorandum of Understanding shall be effective on October 1, 1999,

and filed with the Clerk of Court, maintained with all other Drug Court

documents and available for inspection during regular business hours.



(8) Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of this policy by any

member of the District Attorney's Office or the Rapides Parish Public Defense

Office may subject the attorney to the penalties as provided by La. C.Cr.P.

article 16, et seq or La. C.Cr.P. article 729.5.



Alexandria, Louisiana, this_________day of__________________, 1999.



STATE OF LOUISIANA



BY:_________________________

CHARLES F. WAGNER

District Attorney



RAPIDES PARISH PUBLIC DEFENDER



BY:_________________________



KENNETH RODENBECK

Director



NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT



BY:_________________________



B. DEXTER RYLAND

Chief District Judge



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



Appendix 2



Drug Courts Program Office Implementation Grant Management Information

System, Process Evaluation, and Outcome Evaluation Requirements*



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



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



Evaluation and Management Information System Plan 

(8-12 pages)



Grant recipients are required to conduct both a process and an outcome

evaluation, and to collect and maintain the key data necessary to support both

types of evaluations. Grant recipients are required to submit a final evaluation

and/or MIS plan prior to accessing funding for these activities. See page 60 [of

DCPO's Fiscal Year 2002 Program Application Kit] regarding Human Subject

Testing and Information Technology requirements. 



Applicants must identify the independent evaluator who will assist the drug

court in conducting the process and outcome evaluations. If the evaluator has

not been identified, describe the steps the drug court will take to solicit and

select the evaluator, and how the drug court will work with the evaluator to

design the data collection process, collect and maintain the data, analyze the

data, and prepare evaluation reports. Following is some specific guidance

regarding information which must be included in this section of your application. 



MIS Plan



1. Describe the methods planned for collecting, storing, and maintaining

adequate data to support the drug court's operations as well as the process and

outcome evaluations. 



2. Describe the nature of the planned MIS, including staffing, hardware and

software, standardized data collection forms, schedules of data entry, routine

reports, quality assurance procedures, and statistical analysis capabilities. 



3. Discuss how data related to court operations, individual participant

characteristics and behaviors, and treatment services will be collected,

maintained, and integrated into existing automated systems. 



4. Discuss plans for data sharing agreements with treatment service providers

and other agencies. Please note that all applicants are expected to adhere to

applicable local, State, and Federal confidentiality guidelines and requirements

regarding treatment program records. 



Process Evaluation 



The data collection plan must enable the drug court to summarize its basic

operations and services delivery, client characteristics, and treatment outcomes. 



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

information. 



2. Describe the minimum data set that will be used (see appendix D for

suggestions [in DCPO's Fiscal Year 2002 Program Application Kit]) and how

it will allow the drug court to describe the target population, the screening and

assessment process, intake flow, sanctions and incentives, drug test results,

in-program rearrests, number of status hearings, failure and completion rates,

services delivered, and referrals made. 



3. Provide information on how the MIS will be flexible enough to allow the

evaluator to analyze the following by participant characteristics and other

factors: program services received, drug test results, in-program rearrests,

length of time in the program, sanctions and rewards, number of court hearings,

and completion rates. 



4. Describe the specific data elements to be collected and analyzed for the

process evaluation, and how these data will be used for program operation and

management. The Drug Court Grantee Data Collection Survey (see appendix

3) can be used as a starting point to identify these data elements. Appendix D

(Process Evaluations and MIS)(see DCPO's Fiscal Year 2002 Program

Application Kit), also contains useful information to guide the development of a

proposed data collection plan.



5. Describe how the process evaluation will assist the drug court in assessing

the effectiveness of its operations and ability to meet its goals and objectives,

and how the findings could be used to change and improve the court's

operations. 



The process plan should incorporate measurable program goals and objectives.

Examples include number and type of target population screened and admitted,

program completion rates, average time in program (or 1-year retention rates,

cohort-based), percentage of drug tests that are negative, percentage of

participants rearrested during program participation, amount and type of

services received, and percentage of participants employed after 1 year. 



Outcome Evaluation 



A feasible plan for collecting and analyzing the impact of the drug court on

1-year post- program recidivism outcomes is required. 



1. Describe the plan for collecting data on rearrests, reconviction, and/or

reincarceration for a period of 1 year following drug court completion (or

dropout). Applicants are encouraged to consider the collection of recidivism

data for longer than a 1-year postprogram period. In addition, the identification

of sources of data for other postprogram outcomes (such as drug use,

employment and earnings, health care, drug treatment participation, etc.) is

strongly encouraged (but not required) and should be described if available.



2. Describe the sources of data on rearrests and other outcome measures, and

how these measures will be defined. It is recommended that individual rather

than aggregate outcome data be collected and maintained. The Drug Court

Grantee Data Collection Survey (see appendix 3) can be used as a starting

point to identify these data elements. 





3. Identify and justify a comparison group for measuring the relative change in

post-program recidivism outcome measures. The comparison group should be

as similar as possible to the drug court participants. 



4. Describe the procedures for collecting comparison group data on court

processing, individual characteristics, rearrests, and other outcome measures if

available. 



5. Describe the specific data elements to be collected and analyzed for the

outcome evaluation, and how these data will be used for program operation

and management. 



6. Describe how the outcome evaluation will assist the drug court in assessing

the effectiveness of its operations, and how the findings could be used to

change and improve the court's operations. 



7. Describe the products expected from the evaluation.



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



Appendix 3



Drug Court Grantee Reporting Requirements and Data Collection Survey*



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

survey instrument expired in March 2002; therefore, grantees no longer need to

submit this data collection survey to DCPO. The latest survey is presented here

as an example of a minimum data set that may be useful to drug court

programs.



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



Drug Court Grantee Reporting Requirements 



All recipients of Drug Courts Program Office grants are required to submit the

following reports:



Financial Status Reports (SF 269A) 





Financial status reports (SF 269A) are due quarterly on the 45th day following

the end of each calendar quarter. A report must be submitted every quarter the

award is active, even if there has been no financial activity during the reporting

period. The final report is due 120 days after the end date of the award. The

Office of the Comptroller will provide a copy of this form in the initial award

package. Future awards and fund drawdowns will be withheld if financial status

reports are delinquent. 



Categorical Assistance Progress Reports 



Recipients of funding are required to submit an initial and then semiannual

progress report. The progress reports describe activities during the reporting

period and the status or accomplishment of objectives as set forth in the

approved application for funding. Progress reports must be submitted within 30

days after the end of the reporting periods, which are January 1 through June

30 and July 1 through December 31 for the life of the award. A final report,

which provides a summary of progress toward achieving the goals and

objectives of the award, significant results, and any products developed under

the award, is due 120 days after the end date of the award. The Office of the

Comptroller will provide a copy of this form in the initial award package. 



Drug Court Grantee Data Collection Survey 



To ensure that grant recipients are collecting critical information about their drug

court programs for evaluation purposes and to assist in the national evaluation

of drug courts, grant recipients that receive funds to implement or enhance a

drug court are required to submit the Drug Court Grantee Data Collection

Survey on a semiannual basis. The survey periods run January 1 through June

30 and July 1 through December 31. The surveys are due 60 days after the end

of the report period; that is, no later than August 31 and February 28,

respectively. These data will capture baseline information on both drug courts

and defendants. NOTE: This is no longer a requirement for DCPO; however,

the form is attached for reference by jurisdictions interested in using it as a

starting point to identify data elements.



Single Audit Report 



Recipients who expend $300,000 or more of Federal funds during their fiscal

year are required to submit an organizationwide financial and compliance audit

report. The audit must be performed in accordance with the U.S. General

Accounting Office Government Auditing Standards. The audit report currently

is due to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse no later than 9 months after the end

of the recipient's fiscal year.



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





The Drug Court Grantee Data Collection Survey 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.



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



Notes



1. Drug Courts Program Office, Defining Drug Courts: The Key Components.

(See bibliography for full citations of most reports listed in footnotes.)



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



3. Barry Mahoney, Drug Court Monitoring, Evaluation, and Management

Information Systems, p. 12. This DCPO report documents the outcomes of

focus group meetings on drug court MIS issues held in March 1997 in New

York, NY, and September 1997 in Washington, DC, which were convened by

The Justice Management Institute in cooperation with DCPO.



4. A May 2001 report by the Office of Justice Programs' Drug Court

Clearinghouse and Technical Assistance Project at The American University,

titled Background Information on State Court Administrative Office Activities in

Support of Local Drug Court Programs, noted that at least 10 States are

developing State-level drug court information systems and at least 5 States are

developing information systems for local drug court programs.



5. For example, California's Drug Court Partnership Act of 1998 (Cal Health

& Safety Codes  11970) and the Comprehensive Drug Court Implementation

Act of 1999 (Cal Health & Safety Codes  11970.1-11970.4) require the

State Judicial Council to develop an evaluation design and provide the statutory

authority for a reporting requirement in furtherance of the evaluation design.

California's much publicized proposition 36, more properly known as the

Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act of 2000, requires an annual study

"of the implementation process, a review of lower incarceration costs,

reductions in crime, reduced prison and jail construction, reduced welfare

costs, the adequacy of funds appropriated, and any other impacts of issues the

department can identify" (Cal Health & Safety Codes  11999.9). Funding is

also provided for a long-term study to evaluate the effectiveness and financial

impact of drug courts (Cal Health & Safety Codes  11999.10).



6. The report cited in supra note 4 reveals that in 17 States, the OCA has

oversight of drug court evaluation activities, and in 7 States, the OCA has direct

responsibility for the conduct of drug court evaluations.



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



8. 42 U.S.C.  290dd-2 applies to any drug court that "holds itself out as

providing, and provides, alcohol or drug abuse diagnosis, treatment or referral

for treatment."



9. 42 C.F.R.  2.31(a) specifies nine elements that must be included in a

written consent (all of which are applicable to criminal drug courts):



(1) The specific name or general designation of the program or person

permitted to make the disclosure.



(2) The name or title of the individual or the name of the organization to which

disclosure is to be made.



(3) The name of the patient.



(4) The purpose of the disclosure.



(5) How much and what kind of information is to be disclosed.



(6) The signature of the patient or, when required for a patient who is a minor,

the signature of a person authorized to give consent.



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



(8) A statement that the consent is subject to revocation at any time except to

the extent that the program or person who is to make the disclosure has already

acted in reliance on it. (Note: This element should not be included in consent

forms in criminal drug courts, but it must be included in juvenile and family drug

court waivers. See 42 C.F.R.  2.35.)



(9) The date, event, or condition upon which the consent will expire if not

revoked. This date or condition must ensure that the consent will last no longer

than reasonably necessary to serve the purpose for which it is given.



For more information on Federal consent requirements, see Jeffrey Tauber et

al., Federal Confidentiality Laws and How They Affect Drug Court

Practitioners, p. 9. See also Rebecca Holland, Practical Guide for Applying

Federal Confidentiality Laws to Drug Court Operations.



10. The consent form and qualified service organization agreement are from

DCPO's Fiscal Year 2002 Program Application Kit, pp. 62-63. The sample

intergovernmental agreement and MOU are available through the Office of

Justice Programs' Drug Court Clearinghouse and Technical Assistance Project

at The American University Web site at www.american.edu/spa/justice/

publications/intgov_agr_jun.htm and www.american.edu/academic.depts/spa/

justice/publications/memo_under_jun.htm.



11. U.S. General Accounting Office, Drug Courts: Overview of Growth,

Characteristics, and Results.



12. The Justice Research Center developed A Self-Evaluation Manual and

Case Management System for Adult Drug Courts under Grant No. SJI-98-N-

128 from the State Justice Institute. The manual accompanies a CD containing

the Case Management System 2000 software, which is available from the

Justice Research Center, 591 Lighthouse Avenue, Suite 24, Pacific Grove, CA

93950.



13. Felix Lopez, Confidentiality of Patient Records for Alcohol and Other Drug 

Treatment.



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



15. 42 C.F.R.  2.52, 2.53.



16. See supra note 10.



17. Drug Courts Program Office, Fiscal Year 2002 Program Application Kit, 

pp. 38-40.



18. Ibid., pp. 111-115.



19. For example, TCP/IP (Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol)

communications protocols and browser user interfaces.



20. Robert Gibson and Owen M. Greenspan, Public Domain Drug Court

Software: Functions and Utility.



21. See supra note 12.



22. Information from the FBI-administered Interstate Identification Index is

subject to strict controls of access and secondary dissemination--even between

justice agencies. Each State has a designated official, typically within the State

police, known as the National Crime Information Center Control Terminal

Officer, who should be consulted on issues involving access and dissemination

of information from the national system. Every State has an agency that serves

as a central repository for criminal records information and can assist in

resolving questions associated with access and dissemination of information

from the State's criminal records database. Both the Interstate Identification

Index and State central repository are based on fingerprint-based arrest

information. Some jurisdictions will choose to rely on a statewide

court-administered database. On the local level, police and court records may

be the primary source of criminal information about a program candidate or

participant.



23. Page 107 of DCPO's Fiscal Year 2002 Program Application Kit describes

the term "violent offender" as a person who either (1) is charged with or

convicted of an offense, during the course of which offense or conduct (A) the

person carried, possessed, or used a firearm or dangerous weapon, (B) there

occurred the death of, or serious bodily injury to, any person, or (C) there

occurred the use of force against the person of another, without regard to

whether any of the circumstances described in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) is

an element of the offense or conduct of which or for which the person is

charged or convicted; or (2) has one or more prior convictions of a felony

crime of violence involving the use or attempted use of force against a person

with the intent to cause death or serious bodily harm.



24. Ibid., p. 109.



25. James A. Inciardi, Screening and Assessment for Alcohol and Other Drug

Abuse Among Adults in the Criminal Justice System, p. 19.



26. Ibid., p. 18.



27. For a more complete discussion of the assessment process and the various

techniques and instruments that may be employed, see Roger H. Peters and

Elizabeth Peyton, Guideline for Drug Courts on Screening and Assessment, and

the following reports published by the Center for Substance Abuse Treatment:

James A. Inciardi, Screening and Assessment for Alcohol and Other Drug

Abuse Among Adults in the Criminal Justice System, and Ken C. Winters and

Jonathan M. Zenilman, Simple Screening Instruments for Outreach for Alcohol

and Other Drug Abuse and Infectious Diseases.



28. For a detailed discussion of the relationship between psychiatric disorders

and alcohol and other drug use problems, see Richard K. Reis, Assessment

and Treatment of Patients with Coexisting Mental Illness and Alcohol and

Other Drug Abuse.



29. See supra note 25.



30. Ibid.



31. Staffings are drug court team meetings at which individual participant

progress is reviewed and possible sanctions, incentives, and rewards are

discussed.



32. Drug Courts Program Office, Fiscal Year 2002 Program Application Kit,

p. 38.



33. See appendix 2 for additional information on application requirements

relating to evaluation.



34. Drug Courts Program Office, Fiscal Year 2002 Program Application Kit,

p. 111.



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



Bibliography



Published Materials



Steven Belenko. "Research on Drug Courts: A Critical Review." National Drug

Court Institute Review, Volume I, Issue I. Alexandria, VA: National Drug

Court Institute, Summer 1998.



Steven Belenko. Research on Drug Courts: A Critical Review, 2001 Update.

New York, NY: National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at

Columbia University, June 2001.



Drug Courts Program Office, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of

Justice. Defining Drug Courts: The Key Components. Prepared in collaboration

with the National Association of Drug Court Professionals, Drug Court

Standards Committee. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, January

1997.



Drug Courts Program Office, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of

Justice. Fiscal Year 2002 Program Application Kit. SL 000495. Washington,

DC: U.S. Department of Justice. (Note: Grant solicitations and application kits

are available each fiscal year at the DCPO Web site at www.ojp.

usdoj.gov/dcpo/applicationkits.htm.)



Robert Gibson and Owen M. Greenspan. Public Domain Drug Court Software:

Functions and Utility. Sacramento, CA: SEARCH, The National Consortium

for Justice Information and Statistics, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Drug Courts Program Office, 2002.



Rebecca Holland. Practical Guide for Applying Federal Confidentiality Laws to

Drug Court Operations. NCJ 176977. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Drug Courts Program Office, June 1999.



James A. Inciardi, Consensus Panel Chair. Screening and Assessment for

Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse Among Adults in the Criminal Justice System.

Treatment Improvement Protocol (TIP) Series, #7. DHHS Pub. No. (SMA)

94B2076. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,

Center for Substance Abuse Treatment, 1994.



Susan M. Jennen. Privacy and Public Access to Electronic Court Information:

A Guide to Policy Decisions for State Courts. Williamsburg, VA: National

Center for State Courts, 1995.



Robert A. Kirchner, Ph.D. A Realistic Approach to Drug Court Evaluation.

Presentation given at the National Association of Drug Court Professionals'

Fifth Annual Training Conference, June 3-5, 1999, in Miami, FL. Dr. Kirchner

is Senior Advisor for Evaluation, Bureau of Justice Assistance, U.S.

Department of Justice.



Felix Lopez. Confidentiality of Patient Records for Alcohol and Other Drug

Treatment. Technical Assistance Publication Series, #13. DHHS Pub. No.

(SMA) 95-3018. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human

Services, Center for Substance Abuse Treatment, 1994.



Barry Mahoney. Drug Court Monitoring, Evaluation, and Management

Information Systems. Prepared by The Justice Management Institute.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Drug

Courts Program Office, May 1998.



National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of

Justice. 1999 Annual Report on Drug Use Among Adult and Juvenile

Arrestees. A report of the Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring Program. NCJ

181426. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, June 2000.



Roger H. Peters. Evaluating Drug Court Programs: An Overview of Issues and

Alternative Strategies. Washington DC: The American University, School of

Public Affairs, Justice Programs Office, March 1996.



Roger H. Peters and Elizabeth Peyton. Guideline for Drug Courts on Screening

and Assessment. Prepared for the Justice Programs Office, School of Public

Affairs, The American University, in association with the Drug Courts Program

Office, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Washington,

DC: U.S. Department of Justice, May 1998.



Richard K. Reis, Consensus Panel Chair. Assessment and Treatment of

Patients with Coexisting Mental Illness and Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse.

TIP Series, #9. DHHS Pub. No. (SMA) 95-3061. Rockville, MD: U.S.

Department of Health and Human Services, Center for Substance Abuse

Treatment, 1994.



John Roman, Jennifer Woodard, Adele Harrell, and Stacia Riggs. A

Methodology for Measuring Costs and Benefits of Court-Based Drug

Intervention Programs Using Findings from Experimental and

Quasi-Experimental Evaluations. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute,

December 1998.



Kevin M. Sherin and Barry Mahoney, Consensus Panel Cochairs. Treatment

Drug Courts: Integrating Substance Abuse Treatment with Legal Case

Processing. TIP Series, #23. DHHS Pub. No. (SMA) 96-3113. Rockville,

MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Center for Substance

Abuse Treatment, 1996.



Jeffrey Tauber, Susan Weinstein, and David Taube. Federal Confidentiality

Laws and How They Affect Drug Court Practitioners. Alexandria, VA:

National Drug Court Institute, April 1999.



U.S. General Accounting Office. Drug Courts: Overview of Growth,

Characteristics, and Results. GAO/GGD-07-106. Washington, DC: U.S.

General Accounting Office, July 1997.



Gerald L. Vigdal. Planning for Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse Treatment for

Adults in the Criminal Justice System. TIP Series, #17. DHHS Pub. No.

(SMA) 95-3039. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human

Services, Center for Substance Abuse Treatment, 1995.



Ken C. Winters and Jonathan M. Zenilman, Consensus Panel Cochairs. Simple

Screening Instruments for Outreach for Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse and

Infectious Diseases. TIP Series, #11. DHHS Pub. No. (SMA) 95-3058.

Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Center for

Substance Abuse Treatment, 1994.



Unpublished Materials



Brooklyn (NY) Treatment Court. "Treatment and Supervision Structure"

(revised January 5, 1998).



Buffalo (NY) Drug Treatment Court. "Policy and Procedures Manual" (draft,

1998).



Buffalo (NY) Drug Treatment Court. "Process Evaluation" (interim report, 

February 1999).



Escambia County (FL) Family Focused Juvenile Drug Court. "Program

Description."



Jacksonville (FL) Juvenile Drug Court. "Program Description."



Justice Programs Office, School of Public Affairs, The American University.

"Guideline for Compiling Information Relevant to Drug Court Program

Management and Evaluation."



Los Angeles County (CA) Criminal Justice Coordination Committee, Drug

Court Oversight Subcommittee. "Drug Court Program Standards & Practices"

(version 4.1, February 17, 1998).



Jan Roehl and Kristin Guertin. "A Self-Evaluation Manual and Case

Management System for Adult Drug Courts." Justice Research Center (March

2000).



San Bernardino County (CA) Drug Court. "Participant Handbook" (revised

November 4, 1997).



San Diego (CA) Municipal Court Drug Court. "Program Data Sheet."



Washington/Baltimore High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area HATTS. "HIDTA

Automated Treatment Tracking System Training Guide."



Electronic and Online Sources



Buffalo/Jacksonville Drug Courts. "Drug Court Data Management Information 

System-99."





Center for Court Innovation. "Brooklyn Treatment Court System." 1999.

www.drugcourttech.org.



Justice Research Center. "Case Management System 2000."



Office of Justice Programs Drug Court Clearinghouse and Technical Assistance

Project at the Justice Programs Office, School of Public Affairs, The American

University. "Parish of Rapides, State of Louisiana, Intergovernmental

Agreement" and "Memorandum of Understanding-Ninth Judicial District Court

Drug Court Division: Parish of Rapides, Louisiana."

www.american.edu/spa/justice/publications.



"South Florida High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area: Treatment Automated

Referral System (TARS) and Judicial Access Management System (JAMS)."

www.drugcourttech.org.



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



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]