U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Bureau of Justice Assistance

MONOGRAPH

Drug Court Monitoring,

Evaluation, and Management

Information Systems: National

Scope Needs Assessment

F EBRUARY 2003

SEARCH, The National

Consortium for Justice

Information and Statistics
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.

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

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.

NCJ 195077
i

Notice

n 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 

I
ii

Acknowledgments

his report was prepared by SEARCH,

The National Consortium for Justice Information and Statistics, Gerald E. Wethington,

Chair, and Gary R. Cooper, Executive Director. The project director was Francis L.

Bremson, Courts Program Director. The

report was written by Victoria S. Cashman,

Cashman & Associates, Inc. Twyla R. Cunningham, Manager, and Juliet S. Farmer,

Writer/Researcher, Corporate Communications, edited this report. The Federal project

monitor was Jill Beres, Policy Specialist,

Drug Courts Program Office (DCPO), U.S.

Department of Justice.

In the preparation of the study design and

questionnaire, a number of individuals in

particular contributed their time and talents to ensure the success of this project,

and were all invaluable to the production

of this report, including Marilyn Roberts

and Jennifer Columbel, DCPO; David

Roberts, Francis Bremson, and Owen

Greenspan, SEARCH; Dr. Barry Mahoney,

Richard Hoffman, and Karen Booth, The

Justice Management Institute; Caroline

Cooper, American University; and Eric Lee,

Center for Court Innovation.

Many drug court practitioners contributed

their time and effort to make this study

possible. We are indebted to the many drug

court judges and court coordinators who

responded to the survey. We are especially

grateful to the following drug court judges

and their teams who participated in the

pilot test phase of this survey: Hon. Russell

Canan, Washington, D.C.; Hon. Rudy Diaz,

El Monte, California; Hon. Bonnie Dumanis, San Diego, California; Hon. Michael

Kavanaugh, Albuquerque, New Mexico;

Hon. Stephen Marcus, Los Angeles, California; Hon. Leslie Miller, Tucson, Arizona;

Hon. Robert Russell, Buffalo, New York;

and Hon. Jorge Simon, New Haven, Connecticut. It is because of the selfless efforts

and dedication of these drug court professionals that courts nationwide will benefit

from their experience and expertise.

Our special thanks to Shelley Johnson,

Ph.D. candidate at the University of

Cincinnati Division of Criminal Justice,

who was responsible for all data analysis

and who helped draft the final report sections on the data. Johnson was assisted by

graduate student researchers Lisa Growette

and Kate Andriacco.

We are grateful to all who have helped illuminate this issue and to those whose

efforts will contribute to the continuing

improvement of drug courts.

T
iii

Foreword

his report provides the

results of an assessment conducted as

part of the National

Drug Court Training and Technical Assistance Program, which supports the Drug

Court Grant Program. Both programs are

administered by the Drug Courts Program

Office (DCPO), Office of Justice Programs,

U.S. Department of Justice. The Drug Court

Grant Program addresses both the increasing

number of nonviolent, substance-abusing

adult and juvenile offenders who contribute

to the pervasive problems of prison overcrowding, and the high recidivism rate for

those offenders. Drug treatment courts leverage the coercive power of the criminal justice system to enforce abstinence among and

alter the behavior of drug-involved offenders.

Drug courts are a growing phenomenon, and

the number of jurisdictions establishing drug

courts has grown significantly over the past

10 years. Although numerous drug courts

throughout the Nation report success stories,

many experts point out that rigorous evidence to document their impact is lacking,

especially with regard to longer term outcomes. For the most part, the successes

have not been rigorously documented because drug courts lacked both process and

impact evaluation data, because most programs began and continue without the benefit of rigorous evaluation plans or automated

management information systems (MIS).

In recognition of this gap in resources and

methodology, DCPO established initiatives

to quantify the courts’ needs for information

technology and evaluation training and technical assistance, and to develop training and

technical assistance solutions to address

drug court priority needs. This report documents that quantification—the results of the

first national survey of drug court MIS/evaluation requirements—and identifies a series

of proposed DCPO initiatives to address the

highest priority training and technical assistance requirements, as identified by the drug

courts themselves.

SEARCH, The National Consortium for

Justice Information and Statistics, commissioned Cashman & Associates, Inc., to conduct this study on behalf of DCPO. Special

thanks go to the organizations that worked

in partnership with SEARCH to conduct

this study: The Justice Management Institute (JMI), the Drug Court Clearinghouse

and the Technical Assistance Project at

American University, the Center for Court

Innovation, and the National Association of

Drug Court Professionals.

T
iv

Contents

I. Introduction and Executive Summary............................................................................1

Drug Court Approach ....................................................................................................1

Monitoring and Evaluation Needs of Drug Courts ........................................................2

Needs Assessment Survey: A Component of the National 

Training and Technical Assistance Program ............................................................3

Summary of Major Survey Findings ..............................................................................4

Recommendations ........................................................................................................5

II. Research Methodology ....................................................................................................9

Research Design ............................................................................................................9

Sample ........................................................................................................................10

Assessment Areas ........................................................................................................10

Drug Court Characteristics ........................................................................................11

Statistical Analysis ......................................................................................................11

Scope ..........................................................................................................................12

III. Detailed Survey Results by Assessment Area ..............................................................13

Management and Evaluation Information Capabilities: 

Supporting Decisionmaking ....................................................................................13

Automation: Enhancing Effectiveness and Efficiency ................................................22

Technical Assistance: Overwhelming Appeal for Support ..........................................38

Education and Training: Sharing and Expanding Successes ......................................43

Background and Other Characteristics ......................................................................47

IV. Summary of Findings ....................................................................................................55

Major Findings ............................................................................................................55

Other Results ..............................................................................................................56

V. Recommendations ........................................................................................................59

Appendixes 

1. Drug Court Needs Assessment of Evaluation and 

Management Information Systems, May 1999 ........................................................63

2. Write-In Comments ................................................................................................71
v

Notes ....................................................................................................................................87

List of Tables and Figures

Table 1a. Drug Court Assessment by Jurisdiction Size/Management Information..15

Table 1b. ..................................................................................................................17

Table 1c. ..................................................................................................................18

Table 1d. ..................................................................................................................19

Table 1e. ..................................................................................................................21

Table 1f. ..................................................................................................................22

Table 2a. Drug Court Assessment by Jurisdiction Size/Automation........................23

Table 2b. ..................................................................................................................25

Table 2c. ..................................................................................................................27

Table 2d. ..................................................................................................................29

Table 2e. ..................................................................................................................31

Table 2f. ..................................................................................................................33

Table 2g. ..................................................................................................................35

Table 2h. ..................................................................................................................36

Table 2i. ..................................................................................................................39

Table 3a. Drug Court Assessment by Jurisdiction Size/Technical Assistance ........41

Table 3b. ..................................................................................................................42

Table 4a. Drug Court Assessment by Jurisdiction Size/Education and Training ....45

Table 4b. ..................................................................................................................46

Table 5. Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Drug Court

Background Characteristics......................................................................50

Table 6. Drug Court Description by Number of Active Participants......................51

Table 7a. Drug Court Description by Efficiency of Test Results to Judge ..............52

Table 7b. ..................................................................................................................53

Figure 1. Level of Automation of Screening Information ........................................24

Figure 2. Level of Automation of Court Case Management Data ............................26

Figure 3. Level of Laptop Availability for Travel Use ..............................................30

Figure 4. Level of Drug Court Team Linkage via Computer Network ....................32

Figure 5. Level Linked to Pretrial Services..............................................................34

Figure 6. Level of Access to Main Trial Court Management Program ....................34

Figure 7. Level of Training in General Office Applications ....................................37

Figure 8. Level of Training in Drug Court Software ................................................37

Figure 9a. Usefulness of Technical Assistance ..........................................................43

Figure 9b. ..................................................................................................................44

Figure 10a. Usefulness of Education and Training ......................................................48

Figure 10b. ..................................................................................................................48
1

s of June 2001, more

than 697 drug courts

were operating in the

United States, and

427 more were in the planning phases.

Currently, all 50 States, including major

Native American Tribal Courts, the District

of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and 2

U.S. Federal Courts have operational adult

drug court programs. Thirty States have

enacted legislation related to planning and

operating drug courts.1

More than 75 percent of the drug courts in

the United States participated in a national survey in mid-1999 designed to help

those dealing with large drug caseloads

assess their needs for enhanced informationgathering tools.2 This phenomenal response rate confirms that drug courts

place a high value on information. As the

Honorable Jo Ann Ferdinand, who presides over the Brooklyn Treatment Court

in New York, noted:

“Computers allow judges to draw the

big picture—to browse quickly and

to spot connections, like the link

between missed appearances and failed

drug tests. Speed is imperative when

handling so many cases, but the real

value of automation is that it keeps

appropriate team members apprised

on all relevant client details—the facts

needed to make the best decisions—

while at the same time, [it] prevents

unauthorized access to confidential

data, such as judge’s notes.”3

Drug Court Approach

Drug courts represent a unique, informationintensive approach to managing drug-related

cases. This approach is a fairly recent phenomenon for the justice system. It grew out

of problems created for the justice system,

and the communities it serves, when the

growth of drug-related arrests threatened to

overwhelm the system in the early 1980s.4

Faced with drained resources and a lack of

I. 

Introduction and 

Executive Summary

A
Drug Court Monitoring, Evaluation, and Management Information Systems

2

effective options to reduce recidivism, many

jurisdictions began searching for alternatives, which led to the movement toward

specialized courts in the late 1980s.5 Drug

courts were developed to reduce substance

abuse and recidivism through techniques

such as treatment, judicial supervision, and

graduated sanctions.

Typically, each drug court team—judge,

drug-treatment providers, court coordinator,

prosecutor, defense attorney, and other integral players such as probation and pretrial

services—carefully monitors and continually

reports on the nonviolent defendant’s journey to a drug-free life. For example, almost

all drug courts require participants to obtain

a General Educational Development (GED)

diploma, to keep a job, and to pay current

financial obligations, including drug court

fees and child support (where applicable).

As team members track participants’ compliance with program requirements, the

“total progress picture” must be available

quickly and accurately so drug court team

members can manage the participants effectively. The drug court team must be able to

analyze and summarize these “progress pictures” to provide the data that drug courts

need to monitor their day-to-day operations,

evaluate their processes and impact, and

demonstrate the costs and benefits of their

programs to their communities.

National research charting the drug courts’

first decade of progress shows that the drug

court approach is working. For example,

close to 230,000 defendants have participated in more than 500 drug court programs nationwide since the early 1990s.

Almost 70 percent of these defendants are

still enrolled in or have graduated from

drug court programs, nearly double the

expected retention rate from traditional

treatment programs.6

But what of the costs of these programs?

The average cost of the treatment portion

of drug court programs is $1,200 to $3,000

per participant. Contrast that with a recent

estimate of savings in jail-bed days of at

least $5,000 per defendant, which does not

include savings in reduced police overtime,

witness costs, and grand jury and indictment expenses.7

Monitoring and Evaluation

Needs of Drug Courts

Some drug courts, such as the Buffalo Drug

Court in New York, have made great strides

in developing management information systems (MIS) that meet the specific needs

of the drug court. Others, such as the Los

Angeles County Drug Court Program, are

pioneering ways to use systems for even

greater effectiveness and efficiency, including use of a secured intranet to make the

system available to authorized users whose

locations are widely dispersed.8

Yet, study results show that most drug

courts see major barriers to achieving their

goals of managing their programs and evaluating their results. For example, drug

courts surveyed clearly indicated that they

lack funding for essential equipment and

software. Another major barrier is the difficulty in linking diverse program information sources.

Drug courts want help to strengthen their

ability to collect and manage important

program details. They are looking for training and technical assistance to take advantage of available technologies that are

capable of boosting productivity in their

vital information-gathering and evaluationproducing processes.

This is known because of prior work in this

area. In 1997, The Justice Management

Institute, in cooperation with the Drug

Courts Program Office (DCPO), Office of

Justice Programs (OJP), U.S. Department of

Justice (DOJ), convened two focus groups of
Introduction and Executive Summary

3

drug court practitioners, public health officials, researchers, court managers, and MIS

experts. The first meeting topic was “Monitoring and Evaluating Drug Courts,” and the

second was “Drug Court Management Information Systems.” The topic areas, although

distinct, are “. . . closely interrelated, since

sound monitoring and evaluation are heavily dependent on the availability of relevant

and reliable information about program

operations and participant outcomes.”9

The focus group participants took a position of strong consensus on several key

points. Included among these was that

“Monitoring and evaluation of

drug courts are critically important

functions. Drug court practitioners

recognize the importance of these

functions, but many drug courts need

help—through education and training,

technical assistance, and resource

augmentation—to make effective monitoring and evaluation a reality.”10

Obviously, drug courts are at a critical

juncture. Stakeholders are rightfully

encouraged by the successes of the drug

court model. But more information is needed. In its report to the U.S. Congress issued

in 1997 (the same year the focus groups

convened), the U.S. General Accounting

Office (GAO) concluded that “Existing

evaluations provided some limited information but do not permit firm conclusions

regarding drug court impact.”11 GAO further explained:

“We note in this report that many of

the studies we reviewed provide positive evidence of the merits of drug

court programs. We do not believe,

however, that all of these studies are

equally sophisticated in their design

and methods, or that the results of

these studies can be simply summed

to provide firm conclusions.”12

GAO went on to recommend more rigorous

impact evaluations “To better ensure that

conclusions about the impact of drug court

programs on participants’ criminal recidivism and/or drug use relapse can be drawn

. . . .”13

Although there is general agreement on the

desirability of improving the monitoring

and evaluation functions in drug courts,

there is also recognition that this is a particularly difficult area and that it would

take a concerted effort to implement this

goal. Even GAO acknowledged:

“We recognize the difficulties inherent

in collecting follow-up data. . . . We

also recognize that the need for and

benefits of having data must be balanced against the cost of collecting

and maintaining it . . . .”14

Needs Assessment Survey:

A Component of the National

Training and Technical

Assistance Program

DCPO’s national strategy for addressing

these issues included the establishment of

a national training and technical assistance

program that included an initiative to provide the training and technical assistance

for jurisdictions to develop effective MIS

and evaluations for all drug courts.15 In

other words, the objective is to help drug

court practitioners and stakeholders capture the best practices of the current programs and share them nationwide to

ensure that future drug courts achieve

the same success rates.

This survey is an important step in that

initiative, identifying the technical assistance and educational needs of existing 

drug courts and pinpointing the barriers

that keep courts from fulfilling those

needs.16 To bolster drug court capabilities,

this survey identified the specific resources
Drug Court Monitoring, Evaluation, and Management Information Systems

4

and knowledge required to collect the data

needed to effectively manage, monitor, and

evaluate drug courts.

The survey queried the entire population of

known drug courts in the United States to

develop an assessment that is nationwide

in scope and broadly reflective of all drug

courts regardless of background or other

characteristics. (The research methodology

undertaken in this survey—including

research design, assessment areas, drug

court characteristics, statistical analysis,

and scope—is detailed in section II.)

Survey responses were received from 257

of the 340 drug courts that were operational as of mid-1999, for a response rate of

75.59 percent. This response rate increases

our confidence in the significance of the

results as accurately representing the state

of drug court evaluation and management

information systems and the preferred

approaches for continuing improvements.

(Detailed survey results by assessment area

are provided in section III. Section III also

includes a general profile of drug courts

based on background and other characteristics, such as population of the jurisdiction

served and number of active participants,

and an overview of issues that need further

discussion and research.)

Summary of Major

Survey Findings

In general, many drug court processes are

not automated. Although there is widespread use of computers in the drug court

environment, this survey showed that the

automated support being provided to drug

courts by existing computer systems is

inadequate. This hampers drug court

operations in many ways, such that

■ Drug courts cannot take advantage of

productivity gains and success sharing

that computer automation offers.

■ Drug courts cannot serve larger numbers of participants unless they are

more fully automated.

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

as in section IV:

1. Although there is widespread access to

personal computers, vital data are not

generally entered into automated systems, and there is not widespread,

appropriately shared access to data

among drug court team members. In

fact, less than one-quarter of courts

surveyed use automation to help 

judges interact with their caseload of

defendants.

2. A strong correlation exists between

automation and the time it takes for

the judge to get failed drug test results.

Because some of the less automated

courts also have rapid test reporting, it

seems that those courts that place a

high value on the importance of information in the drug court environment

are the same courts that establish the

processes that will get them the crucial

data in a timely fashion. The critical

factor is the importance that the 

drug court places on the value of

information.

3. An overwhelming majority of the drug

courts surveyed expressed their willingness to use every technical assistance

option offered to acquire the proper

automation, maintain the technology,

and obtain the education needed to

generate regular productivity reports.

4. A lack of funding was the number one

reason drug courts did not acquire the

additional automation needed and the

training and technical assistance to

improve the administration of drug

court justice.
Introduction and Executive Summary

5

5. In addition to funding barriers, drug

courts also listed difficulty with linking

to other systems as a prime barrier to

automation.

6. Even though most serve large jurisdictions, the majority of drug courts have

100 active participants or fewer. The

largest drug courts—those with 200 or

more participants—are highly automated with good MIS support. This and

other survey results suggest that the

lack of automation is hindering drug

court programs from serving larger

numbers of participants and providing the resultant benefits to their

communities.

7. Drug courts clearly specified that they

need technical assistance with all

aspects of automation—including help

with initial “getting started” steps, such

as developing needs assessments and

technology plans and preparing funding

proposals for stakeholders.

8. Surveyed drug courts overwhelmingly

expressed a desire for additional education and training to deal specifically

with evaluation and management information systems. Targeted workshops

and videotaped training sessions dedicated to monitoring, evaluation, and

MIS development rated highly among

surveyed courts.

9. Difficulty with data entry and sharing

are not a result of drug court indifference to the need to provide regular

evaluation information. Indeed, fewer

than half of the drug courts surveyed

rated their current systems as good or

very good at providing information for

evaluations.

10. Less than 15 percent of all surveyed

courts report that they have completed

the necessary automation required to

produce reports needed for overall program evaluation. It is telling that this is

about the same percentage of drug

courts that have the largest number of

active participants (200 or more).

Recommendations

The results of this survey clearly show that

the automated support being provided to

the drug courts by existing computer systems is inadequate.17 The respondents also

identified several initiatives that, if adopted, would be useful in improving the monitoring, evaluation, and MIS capabilities of

drug courts. Although the data were collected in summer 1999, the findings are as

important today as when the survey was

initially conducted and provide the only

empirical evidence of user training and

technical assistance needs.

Although DCPO and training and technical

assistance providers have continued to

develop and present programs and solutions responsive to the needs described in

this report, those programs and solutions

to some extent reflect the fact that training

and technical assistance project staff have

worked collaboratively throughout the project with DCPO staff, project partners, and

other technical assistance providers and

experts in the field to address the requirements of the drug court community. It

would have been surprising if survey findings and recommended responses to the

findings were contrary to DCPO’s understanding of the field’s needs and requirements, because the field was the same

source for determining resource needs

throughout the grant period. Thus, this

report provides statistical evidence of the

lack of hardware, software, evaluation, and

MIS expertise among drug court staff. It

also offers an agenda for addressing those

needs through many of the same kinds of
Drug Court Monitoring, Evaluation, and Management Information Systems

6

training and technical assistance programs

and content that DCPO and the field had

assumed were needed based on subjective

assessments.

Without technology, it is difficult for drug

courts to link the information about their

results with the goals of the court. It is also

difficult to produce the reports and evaluations needed to persuade stakeholders to

allot more funding for technology. This is

obviously a vicious cycle that should be

addressed to ensure continued and

enhanced court success.

To break this cycle and ensure future information sharing, the drug court field should

consider six broad recommended initiatives, which are detailed below and also

presented in section V.

Recommendation 1

Confront the main barriers to drug court

efforts to gather and maintain information through effective automated means.

The top two barriers to further automation

cited by survey respondents were lack of

funding and difficulty linking with other

systems. Some ways of addressing these

barriers are discussed below.

■ Lack of funding. Although identifying

a complete solution to this barrier is

beyond the scope of any one entity,

this major barrier might be mitigated

in part by providing forms of assistance

that drug courts identified as useful.

■ One such tool identified in this

study is a model presentation on

drug court costs and benefits. By

taking data from available cost/

benefit analyses conducted throughout the country, and by using modern computer graphics software

such as Microsoft PowerPoint® or

Harvard Graphics, assistance can be

provided to turn these facts into

stakeholder presentations that can

help generate vital funding.

■ Another form of assistance would be

to develop an MIS/evaluation listserv

to update the field as developments

occur, to provide a forum for practitioners to discuss issues, and to

pose and answer questions of peers.

■ An online clearinghouse of frequently asked questions about drug

court MIS and evaluation that would

feature answers by leading experts

in the field would also be helpful.

■ Difficulty linking with other systems.

Providing training and technical assistance can also be instrumental in helping drug court personnel deal with the

security, privacy, and access issues that

arise when automating a system with

shared information. Subject matter

trainings could be conducted, including

a workshop on linking drug court information systems to court information

systems. 

Recommendation 2 

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

■ A first workshop should focus on program monitoring and process evaluation and provide illustrations of output

reports from a real MIS to illustrate

what can be accomplished through

awareness and planning.

■ A second workshop should address

using technology to enhance drug court

operations. It should include the application of existing audio, video, data,

and telecommunications products and

tools—including testing, monitoring,

and mapping technologies—to improve
Introduction and Executive Summary

7

the drug court team’s ability to make

the highest quality decisions and to

improve the overall efficiency and

effectiveness of drug courts.

■ A third workshop on linking drug court

information systems to court information systems should explore the barriers to system interface, including the

privacy and security issues inherent in

integrated justice information systems.

Subject matter faculty should include

representatives from jurisdictions in

which the court and drug court systems

are already integrated.

Recommendation 3 

Provide technical assistance that

addresses areas identified as needing

special attention.

Survey respondents identified the following

areas for training.

■ Information technology strategic planning, including staffing issues.

■ Comparing data being collected with

recommended data elements and functional requirements.

■ Conducting information system design

and development and/or acquisition,

including help preparing requests for

proposals (RFPs); selecting consultants,

hardware, and software; and drafting

and negotiating contracts with vendors.

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

■ Making the business case to the funding

agency.

■ Establishing appropriately secure links

to exchange critical information with

other criminal justice agencies and

treatment providers.

■ Developing a drug court evaluation plan

and selecting an evaluator.

Recommendation 4 

Respond to the call for a specially tailored software package for drug courts

by designing programs that help develop intelligent consumers of technology.

There should be a multiple approach to

this recommendation.

■ First, there should be more education

about the use of technology, its acquisition, and the proper role of government

in this process. These issues should be

included in the workshops discussed in

recommendation 2. These workshops

should help drug court members become intelligent consumers of technology by dealing with questions such as

■ What is the role of management visà-vis technology as distinct from the

roles of MIS personnel?

■ What are the appropriate roles of

technology vendors?

■ Why and how do we deal with

private-sector technology vendors?

■ Second, initiatives should be undertaken that illustrate the steps needed to

develop a system and demonstrate best

practices for MIS systems. These initiatives might include a case study documenting the development and operation

of a drug court MIS.

■ Third, building on this case study and

work that has already been done by

SEARCH—including an assessment

report of four public domain drug court

software systems and an “information

audit” report,18 which identify necessary information elements for a drug

court MIS—an initiative should be

undertaken to develop a set of common

requirements for such software packages and/or a model RFP that includes

the specific requirements of such a

package.
Drug Court Monitoring, Evaluation, and Management Information Systems

8

Recommendation 5 

Focus on the role of systems training in

successful automation projects.

Drug courts should explore ways to focus on

the role of systems training in successful

automation projects. Because proper training is so important to the success of these

projects, serious consideration should be

given to various methods of training. Also,

there should be an exploration of the means

of encouraging this training, either by making training mandatory or by rewarding

those who have the training in a timely

manner.

Recommendation 6 

Develop a research agenda for drug

court best practices.

There is a need to identify the best practices that have been developed for drug

courts in particular, and courts in general,

with regard to the use of performance

measures and technology and automation

components.
9

II. 

Research Methodology

o bolster drug court

capabilities, this survey was developed to

identify the specific

resources and knowledge required to collect the data to effectively manage, monitor, and evaluate drug courts. In developing

the survey, we were guided by the results

of the 1997 JMI focus groups on evaluation

and MIS. Among other difficulties, these

focus groups identified six major obstacles

to sound evaluation research on drug

courts. These ranged from difficulty in

obtaining relevant data, to the lack of a

cadre of experienced researchers, to a lack

of resources for evaluation, to inadequate

management information systems.19

We were especially cognizant of the drug

courts’ unique challenge to evaluators,

which has been documented by the work

of the OJP Drug Court Clearinghouse and

Technical Assistance Project at American

University. That is, a drug court evaluation

must rely on many sources, such as intake

assessment results, court dockets, probation

T officer notes, and treatment-provider outcomes. The survey was developed with

questions applicable to each part of the

drug court team and their needs, taking

into account the many different sources

for relevant information.

Research Design

Focusing on the nexus between good information systems and evaluation, the questionnaire was designed to answer questions

in a number of key assessment areas,

including

1. How many courts use computers and to

what extent are data routinely entered

into the system?

2. Are members of the drug court team

able to effectively communicate important information regarding an individual case or progress in treatment

through the current MIS?

3. Is the current system capable of producing useful summary reports for overall

program management and evaluation?
Drug Court Monitoring, Evaluation, and Management Information Systems

10

4. What are the main barriers to further

automating the current system?

5. What are the most common types of

technical assistance needs ranked by

their usefulness to the respondents?

6. What are the most common types of

education and training needs ranked by

their usefulness to the respondents?

Sample

The survey questionnaire was pretested on

a small group of drug courts and, after revision based on the results, the survey was

sent to the remaining drug courts on the

list of 340 drug courts operational as of

mid-1999. The list of drug courts was provided by the Drug Court Clearinghouse and

Technical Assistance Project at American

University.

The survey was sent to the attention of the

presiding drug court judge with a copy to

the court coordinator. These drug court

leaders were asked to meet with their drug

court team before completing the survey

in an effort to capture the capabilities and

needs of all the participating entities that

compose the team. Shortly after the survey

was due, a followup postcard was mailed to

increase the response rate.

Each survey was logged as it was received

and the remaining courts that had not

responded were sent an additional reminder

postcard. This process proved to be very

successful, and 257 surveys were received,

a response rate of 75.59 percent. This

response rate increased confidence in the

significance of the results as accurately representing the current state of drug court

evaluation and MIS, and the preferred

approaches for continuing improvements.

Assessment Areas

The survey mailed to the drug courts consisted of four assessment sections and a

section for write-in comments.20

■ Management and Evaluation Information. Included questions to assess the

use of computers at each site, the type

of information currently entered into

computers, and the ability to automatically produce useful management and

evaluation reports.

■ Automation. Explored the extent to

which each functional area is supported

by automation, the access to computers

by the drug court team, the networking

of computers to improve communication, the availability of specifically relevant applications and capabilities, the

access to technology training programs,

the technology employees themselves,

and the main barriers to further

automation.

■ Technical Assistance. Directed respondents to rate the usefulness of a number

of technical assistance activities that

might be provided to them during the

second phase of this initiative.

■ Education and Training. Asked respondents to rate the usefulness of a number

of education and training programs that

might also be provided to them in the

second phase of this initiative.

■ Comments. Each section of the survey

provided space for additional comments

to allow respondents to express difficulties or needs in areas not included in

the structured portions of the survey.

Many practitioners took added comments and suggestions.
Research Methodology

11

Drug Court Characteristics

A “background” section of the survey also

asked about a number of different courtidentifying and demographic characteristics

to determine where statistical differences

might occur. The characteristics included

■ Type of court. As indicated by the persons eligible to participate, such as

adult, juvenile, family, or tribal.

■ Clients served. As measured by the

number of persons who are currently

active participants in the drug court

program.

■ Time in existence. As measured by the

time since the drug court accepted its

first client.

■ Population. As measured by the size

of the population of the jurisdiction

served.

■ Treatment providers. As indicated by

whether the providers are in-house or

contractual and, if contractual, how

many separate entities are providing

services to the program.

■ Time elapsing before test results

received. As indicated by the amount of

time it usually takes, from minutes to

days, for judges to receive failed drug

testing information. This question was

included because drug testing is such

an integral part of drug courts.

Statistical Analysis

Beginning with frequency and percentages,

various statistical analyses were conducted

to summarize and organize the data. Where

appropriate, measures of association and

bivariate tests of significance were conducted. The data, then, are presented in

this report in several different ways.

1. First, the results of each question of the

survey are presented in tables with percentages by both option and population

served.

2. Second, bivariate analyses were conducted to determine if a statistically

significant relationship exists between

the characteristics of the courts and the

survey responses to any of the evaluation or automation variables. Missing

and skipped categories were excluded

for these analyses due to small cell size.

Chi-square was selected as the test of

significance. The standard significance

level used was 0.05 or less.21 Results of

the significance testing are selectively

reported when any of the results show

a significant correlation.

3. Third, an analysis was done of the

write-in comments. Selected responses

were grouped by section, categorized,

and the results presented in frequency

tables in the appropriate sections of

this report. All of the comments were

assembled in full-text and are presented

in appendix 2.

The population size of the jurisdiction

served by the court was one of the court

characteristics that presented the most significant statistical differences in results.

Therefore, the tables in the body of this

report are categorized based on population

size.22 To present the results in a manageable format, the size of the population of

the jurisdiction was grouped into three

categories:

■ Small jurisdictions: fewer than 100,000

people, n = 59.

■ Medium jurisdictions: between 100,000

and 350,000 people, n = 82.

■ Large jurisdictions: more than 350,000

people, n = 107.
Drug Court Monitoring, Evaluation, and Management Information Systems

12

Obviously, although drug courts share common components, each is unique, and surveying them individually allowed the survey

team to identify unique aspects. The inclusion of write-in comments was especially

helpful to assess how certain perspectives

and practices contribute to the level of MIS

and evaluation competency.

Scope

This survey queried the entire population of

then-known drug courts in the United States

to develop an assessment both nationwide

in scope and broadly reflective of all drug

courts, regardless of background or other

characteristics. Based on time and resources

available, it was not feasible to complete a

detailed analysis of each individual court’s

automated equipment configuration or work

processes. Although these indepth analyses

were beyond the scope of this assessment,

it should be noted that such studies would

provide valuable information for the individual court studied. If such detailed studies

were done on a representative sample of

drug courts, the studies would provide valuable data for extrapolations to the larger

population of drug courts.
13

his section provides

the following detailed

survey results:

■ Four specific assessment areas—

Management and Evaluation Information, Automation, Technical Assistance,

and Education and Training.

■ Background characteristics of responding drug courts.

■ Policy, technology, and tactical issues

that were identified as needing further

discussion and research through analysis of survey responses and write-in

comments.

Management and Evaluation

Information Capabilities:

Supporting Decisionmaking

Drug courts determine their successes

through information about what worked

and what did not. As pointed out in the

DCPO report of the 1997 focus groups

that met to discuss drug court monitoring,

evaluation, and MIS, “Drug courts are

information driven to a very significant

extent, and their needs for information are

significantly greater than existing courtbased management information systems

have been able to provide.”23 Specifically,

focus group participants were concerned

about the lack of information to support

the following types of decisionmaking:

■ Operational decisionmaking in individual drug court cases.

■ Overall management of the drug court

caseload.

■ Sound program monitoring.

■ Useful evaluation.24

But many questions are raised. By automating the routine processes of drug courts

and compiling the vital data they need to

make these decisions, how well are the

current management information systems

serving drug courts? What types of data are

routinely entered into court computers?

III. 

Detailed Survey 

Results by 

Assessment Area

T
Drug Court Monitoring, Evaluation, and Management Information Systems

14

How do the courts rate their abilities to

monitor the entire caseload based on comprehensive, accurate, and current data? Is

the information extensive enough to have

an evaluation conducted and presented to

stakeholders with an accurate picture of

court success? Are the computer databases

that support the data for the drug courts

part of separate or integrated systems capable of sharing?

Use of Computers

Without a doubt, computers are an integral

part of the drug court environment (table

1a). In response to the question “Does your

drug court use any computers?,” a vast

majority of the courts, regardless of the size

of the jurisdiction, use computers—92 percent of the small, 92 percent of the medium,

and 96 percent of the large jurisdiction

courts. Although computers are widespread,

the automated support provided to the drug

courts by these computers is inadequate.

These findings are illustrated by write-in

comments from several different respondents: “We do not have software yet,

although we have computers.” Another

noted, “No MIS system—some computers

for word processing and e-mail only.” Yet

another said, “Information is entered in an

after-the-fact manner. The system is not

used to assist team members or the judge

in their daily duties. The system is merely

storing the information so that it can be

used for evaluation purposes.”25

As expressed in survey respondents’ comments, it is also important to assess the

overall extent of the information being

entered into automated systems.

At this time, it is apparently standard practice to gather drug court statistics “after

the fact.” In some instances, this is handled by clerical personnel who perform

data entry only and in other instances it is

through contracting with outside sources.

These outside contracts are typically with

academic institutions. Graduate students

come in (on an irregular basis) to review

all or selected samples from the reams of

paper reports. Then they match client

information to other data, thereby reconstructing court actions, and they finish by

compiling the statistics.

Although this process may meet the immediate goal of providing a program evaluation report for local, regional, State, or

Federal reporting requirements, it is not

meeting the needs for ongoing management

and long-term planning. This process also

makes it more difficult to compile the

reports that regional stakeholders are comfortable using to answer important policy

and managerial questions. Further, these

processes are at variance with the foundation principles needed for the integration

of the information systems of courts and

other justice agencies.

This move to integrate State court information systems is being driven mainly by the

cost savings associated with increased efficiency.26 Two of the integration principles

that are relevant to this practice follow:

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

capture it.

■ Data should be captured once and

used many times, leveraging existing

resources and improving data quality.27

Obviously, the full benefits of computerization are not being realized. First, because

the routine processes are not automated

and data entry is after the fact, productivity gains that may be realized from automation will remain elusive. Second, important

local progress and success stories are being

lost because information pertinent to drug

court case outcome and processing is not

automatically being captured.
Detailed Survey Results by Assessment Area

15

Automated Information Support

The second question in the Management

Information assessment area probed the

extent to which specific types of information are being routinely entered into the

computer system. The questions about specific drug court functions follow the typical

sequence of handling cases, starting with

an initial screening of an individual for

program eligibility (tables 1b–1d).

■ Screening and assessment outcomes.

Only 51 percent of the small, 56 percent of the medium, and 62 percent of

the large jurisdiction courts routinely

enter information from an initial evaluation of the defendant.

■ Defendant’s criminal history. Only 58

percent of the small, 62 percent of the

medium, and 65 percent of the large

jurisdiction courts routinely enter

information relevant to the defendants’

criminal history, even though this information is extremely relevant to the

defendants’ placement in the drug

court system and to matching them

with appropriate treatment services.

■ Treatment services (type, duration,

intensity, status). Slightly more courts—

54 percent of small, 68 percent of medium, and 68 percent of large jurisdiction

courts—input details on the drug treatment plans prescribed for defendants.

■ Drug testing frequency and outcomes.

This is the most important indicator of

a defendant’s “clean” progress. Here,

results are slightly more encouraging,

with about 64 percent of small, 70 percent of medium, and 74 percent of 

large jurisdiction courts entering this

information.

■ Compliance/Noncompliance information. About 64 percent of small, 68

percent of medium, and 65 percent

of large jurisdiction courts routinely

enter compliance information.

■ Status hearing outcomes. One aspect

that makes drug courts unique is the

relationship between the judge and

offender during treatment. For example, status hearings held throughout

treatment increase accountability, yet

only 53 percent of small, 60 percent of

medium, and 58 percent of large jurisdiction courts record the outcome of

these hearings in an automated system.

■ Sanctions imposed. Can courts assess

the outcomes of sanctions based on statistical records? About 63 percent of

small, 61 percent of medium, and 65

percent of large jurisdiction courts routinely enter information on sanctions

imposed. This process allows for the

effective monitoring of individual

clients and provides the data required

Table 1a. 

Drug Court Assessment by Jurisdiction Size/Management Information

— Jurisdiction Size —

Small Medium Large Total

n = 59 n = 82 n = 107 n = 248

% % %%

1. Does your drug court use any computers?

Yes 91.5 91.5 96.3 93.5

No 8.5 6.1 2.8 5.2

Missing 0.0 2.4 0.9 1.2

Totals 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Note: Totals may not equal 100 due to rounding.
Drug Court Monitoring, Evaluation, and Management Information Systems

16

to monitor the effects of specific sanctions on the overall caseload.

■ Incentives provided. What court-provided

incentives work to promote defendant

success? Few drug courts can find out

via an accurate, automated report. In

fact, only 31 percent of small, 42 percent of medium, and 34 percent of large

jurisdiction courts routinely enter this

information. 

■ Information needed to monitor client

progress. About 61 percent of small, 61

percent of medium, and 52 percent of

large jurisdiction courts make an effort

to enter this information into an automated database.

■ Fees imposed/Bench warrants. Specifically, 51 percent of small, 54 percent of

medium, and 50 percent of large jurisdiction courts input information relevant to fees imposed and collected. A

somewhat higher percentage—61 percent of small, 71 percent of medium,

and 74 percent of large jurisdiction

courts—enter information on bench

warrants issued or executed.

■ Award of GED or vocational certificate/Employment status. Are defendants preparing themselves for financial

responsibility? Only 39 percent of

small, 44 percent of medium, and 40

percent of large jurisdiction courts routinely follow up on GED awards via

automated systems. Slightly more—56

percent of small, 62 percent of medium,

and 64 percent of large jurisdiction

courts—input employment status.

■ Living arrangements. Finally, are

defendants making lifestyle changes;

that is, living in a drug-free environment and maintaining relationships

with “clean” family and friends? Only

51 percent of small, 54 percent of

medium, and 53 percent of large

jurisdiction courts can effectively monitor their defendants’ living arrangements through automated reports. 

■ Rearrest or conviction during program. Another important indicator of

compliance among participants is rearrest or conviction while the defendant

is in drug court services. However, only

a little more than half—51 percent of

small, 61 percent of medium, and 64

percent of large jurisdiction courts—

routinely enter this information into

an automated system.

■ Rearrest or conviction after graduation.

This is a desirable component of any

outcome evaluation; however, it is generally very difficult for courts to obtain

reliable data after the court releases the

defendant. Despite the difficulties, 29

percent of small, 32 percent of medium,

and 35 percent of large jurisdiction

courts input this information into a database. To determine the effectiveness of

drug court programs, a record of how

participants perform after they are

released from the drug court is especially

helpful. If paired with a control or comparison group, this information provides

data to determine whether drug courts

are having an impact on drug use and

subsequent criminal behavior.

■ Drug-free/Employment status after graduation. Ideally, rearrest or measures of

recidivism should also be supplemented

with more detailed measures of behavioral or lifestyle change. Although this

information is very desirable, it is difficult to obtain after people have left the

program. With most drug courts focusing

on operations, it is not surprising that

only 17 percent of small, 17 percent of

medium, and 10 percent of large jurisdiction courts can routinely enter data

relevant to the clients’ drug-free status

postgraduation. Similarly, only 10 percent
Detailed Survey Results by Assessment Area

17

Table 1b. 

Drug Court Assessment by Jurisdiction Size/Management Information

— Jurisdiction Size —

Small Medium Large Total

n = 59 n = 82 n = 107 n = 248

% % %%

2. Type of information routinely entered into your 

computer system:

a. Screening and assessment

Yes 50.8 56.1 61.7 57.3

No 37.3 35.4 33.6 35.1

Do not know 3.4 0.0 0.0 0.8

Skip 8.5 6.1 2.8 5.2

Missing 0.0 2.4 1.9 1.6

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

b. Criminal history

Yes 57.6 62.2 64.5 62.1

No 32.2 28.0 30.8 30.2

Do not know 1.7 1.2 0.0 0.8

Skip 8.5 6.1 2.8 5.2

Missing 0.0 2.4 1.9 1.6

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

c. Treatment services

Yes 54.2 68.3 68.2 64.9

No 35.6 23.2 27.1 27.8

Do not know 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.4

Skip 8.5 6.1 2.8 5.2

Missing 0.0 2.4 1.9 1.6

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

d. Drug testing

Yes 64.4 69.5 73.8 70.2

No 23.7 22.0 21.5 22.2

Do not know 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.4

Skip 8.5 6.1 2.8 5.2

Missing 1.7 2.4 1.9 2.0

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

e. Compliance/noncompliance information

Yes 64.4 68.3 64.5 65.7

No 25.4 22.0 30.8 26.6

Do not know 1.7 1.2 0.0 0.8

Skip 8.5 6.1 2.8 5.2

Missing 0.0 2.4 1.9 1.6

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

f. Status hearing outcomes

Yes 52.5 59.8 57.9 57.3

No 35.6 30.5 37.4 34.7

Do not know 3.4 1.2 0.0 1.2

Skip 8.5 6.1 2.8 5.2

Missing 0.0 2.4 1.9 1.6

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Note: Totals may not equal 100 due to rounding.
Drug Court Monitoring, Evaluation, and Management Information Systems

18

Table 1c. 

Drug Court Assessment by Jurisdiction Size/Management Information

— Jurisdiction Size —

Small Medium Large Total

n = 59 n = 82 n = 107 n = 248

% % %%

2. Information routinely entered into your computer 

system (continued):

g. Sanctions imposed

Yes 62.7 61.0 64.5 62.9

No 27.1 29.3 29.0 28.6

Do not know 1.7 1.2 1.9 1.6

Skip 8.5 6.1 2.8 5.2

Missing 0.0 2.4 1.9 1.6

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

h. Incentives provided

Yes 30.5 41.5 33.6 35.5

No 55.9 47.6 61.7 55.6

Do not know 3.4 2.4 0.0 1.6

Skip 8.5 6.1 2.8 5.2

Missing 1.7 2.4 1.9 2.0

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

i. Information to monitor client progress

Yes 61.0 61.0 52.3 57.3

No 30.5 29.3 42.1 35.1

Do not know 0.0 1.2 0.9 0.8

Skip 8.5 6.1 2.8 5.2

Missing 0.0 2.4 1.9 1.6

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

j. Fees imposed and collected

Yes 50.8 53.7 49.5 51.2

No 39.0 36.6 45.8 41.1

Do not know 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.4

Skip 8.5 6.1 2.8 5.2

Missing 1.7 2.4 1.9 2.0

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

k. Bench warrants issued/executed

Yes 61.0 70.7 73.8 69.8

No 30.5 19.5 20.6 22.6

Do not know 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.4

Skip 8.5 6.1 2.8 5.2

Missing 0.0 2.4 2.8 2.0

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

l. GED or vocational certificate award

Yes 39.0 43.9 40.2 41.1

No 52.5 43.9 55.1 50.8

Do not know 0.0 3.7 0.0 1.2

Skip 8.5 6.1 2.8 5.2

Missing 0.0 2.4 1.9 1.6

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Note: Totals may not equal 100 due to rounding.
Detailed Survey Results by Assessment Area

19

Table 1d. 

Drug Court Assessment by Jurisdiction Size/Management Information

— Jurisdiction Size —

Small Medium Large Total

n = 59 n = 82 n = 107 n = 248

% % %%

2. Information routinely entered into your computer 

system (continued):

m. Employment status

Yes 55.9 62.2 63.6 61.3

No 35.6 28.0 31.8 31.5

Do not know 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.4

Skip 8.5 6.1 2.8 5.2

Missing 0.0 2.4 1.9 1.6

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

n. Living arrangements

Yes 50.8 53.7 53.3 52.8

No 39.0 36.6 42.1 39.5

Do not know 1.7 1.2 0.0 0.8

Skip 8.5 6.1 2.8 5.2

Missing 0.0 2.4 1.9 1.6

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

o. Rearrest or conviction while in the drug court program

Yes 50.8 61.0 63.6 59.7

No 40.7 28.0 31.8 32.7

Do not know 0.0 2.4 0.0 0.8

Skip 8.5 6.1 2.8 5.2

Missing 0.0 2.4 1.9 1.6

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

p. Rearrest or conviction after graduation from the drug 

court program

Yes 28.8 31.7 34.6 32.3

No 59.3 53.7 60.7 58.1

Do not know 1.7 3.7 0.0 1.6

Skip 8.5 6.1 2.8 5.2

Missing 1.7 4.9 1.9 2.8

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

q. Drug-free status after graduation from the drug 

court program

Yes 16.9 17.1 10.3 14.1

No 71.2 68.3 84.1 75.8

Do not know 1.7 3.7 0.9 2.0

Skip 8.5 6.1 2.8 5.2

Missing 1.7 4.9 1.9 2.8

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

r. Employment status after graduation from the drug 

court program

Yes 10.2 13.4 7.5 10.1

No 78.0 72.0 86.9 79.8

Do not know 1.7 3.7 0.9 2.0

Skip 8.5 6.1 2.8 5.2

Missing 1.7 4.9 1.9 2.8

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Note: Totals may not equal 100 due to rounding.
Drug Court Monitoring, Evaluation, and Management Information Systems

20

of small, 13 percent of medium, and 8

percent of large jurisdiction courts collect data with regard to employment

status postgraduation.

These statistics paint a rather bleak picture of the support provided to these

courts regarding automated data available

for various types of indicators, especially

data on postgraduation status. Yet these

results are not surprising. Even GAO

acknowledges the difficulties of collecting

certain types of data and the policy considerations inherent in running these programs. In its 1997 report, GAO stated:

“We recognize the difficulties inherent

in collecting followup data on criminal

recidivism and particularly drug

relapse, as well as comparable data on

nonparticipants . . . . We also recognize that the need for and benefits of

having data must be balanced against

the cost of collecting and maintaining

it, as well as against any logistical and

legal implications, including existing

statutory limitations. Nevertheless, if

meaningful impact evaluations are to

be done in the future on the growing

number of drug courts, more of them

must collect and maintain data on factors affecting program operations and

outcomes, including data on participants after they leave the program.”28

The write-in comments of survey respondents provide insight, as some comments

show progress toward the goals set by GAO.

For example, one drug court official stated,

“For rearrest, drug status, and employment

status postgraduation, we have the capacity

and are just in the beginning stages of data

collection.” Other drug courts show there is

a long way to go to meet the GAO challenge,

as exemplified by comments from several

respondents stating that “most information

is in narrative form only,” and “all information is tracked in a written chart.”

Note: The drug courts that can count

on the fastest automated turnaround for

vital drug test results—within minutes or

hours—are usually the best equipped to

react quickly, because these courts are also

more likely to have computerized information detailing other aspects of defendant

progress, such as sanctions and rewards.

Assembling Data Into

Helpful Reports

Drug courts were also asked to rate their

ability to automatically produce management reports for a number of purposes. It is

no surprise that, since many courts do not

have the time or the equipment to capture

all of the pertinent data needed for reports,

many do not rate their report-generating

capabilities highly. Only 56 percent of

small, 56 percent of medium, and 44 percent of large jurisdiction courts rate their

system for generating automated reports to

support informed decisionmaking on individual cases as either “good” or “very good”

(table 1e).

The courts in the largest jurisdictions, and

with the largest potential caseload, are less

likely to feel their system does a good job

providing information relevant to monitoring overall operations of the court. Only 53

percent of small, 51 percent of medium,

and 39 percent of large jurisdiction courts

rate their information system as either

good or very good.

The qualified concern regarding reportgenerating abilities also transfers to courts

using computerized reports to gauge their

own effectiveness. Only 51 percent of

small, 37 percent of medium, and 37 percent of large jurisdiction courts rate their

current system as good or very good at providing information for evaluations to assess

effectiveness. In addition, only 37 percent

of small, 52 percent of medium, and 44

percent of large jurisdiction courts feel
Detailed Survey Results by Assessment Area

21

Table 1e. 

Drug Court Assessment by Jurisdiction Size/Management Information

— Jurisdiction Size —

Small Medium Large Total

n = 59 n = 82 n = 107 n = 248

% % %%

3. Rate your drug court’s ability to produce management 

reports for

a. Making informed decisions on individual cases

Very good 28.8 18.3 14.0 19.0

Good 27.1 37.8 29.9 31.9

Fair 18.6 25.6 24.3 23.4

Poor 11.9 8.5 15.9 12.5

Very poor 8.5 6.1 7.5 7.3

Skip 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.4

Missing 5.1 3.7 7.5 5.6

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

b. Monitoring overall operations

Very good 18.6 17.1 6.5 12.9

Good 33.9 34.1 32.7 33.5

Fair 23.7 29.3 26.2 27.2

Poor 13.6 12.2 22.4 16.9

Very poor 5.1 4.9 4.7 4.8

Skip 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.4

Missing 5.1 2.4 6.5 4.8

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

c. Evaluating impact to assess effectiveness

Very good 18.6 11.0 4.7 10.1

Good 32.2 25.6 31.8 29.8

Fair 20.3 30.5 19.6 23.4

Poor 16.9 20.7 27.1 22.6

Very poor 6.8 6.1 9.3 7.7

Skip 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.4

Missing 5.1 6.1 6.5 6.0

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

d. Maintaining statistics on target populations served

Very good 13.6 18.3 15.0 15.7

Good 23.7 34.1 29.0 29.4

Fair 28.8 24.4 17.8 22.6

Poor 15.3 13.4 22.4 17.7

Very poor 13.6 4.9 8.4 8.5

Skip 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.4

Missing 5.1 4.9 6.5 5.6

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

e. Analyzing costs and benefits for stakeholders

Very good 10.2 4.9 3.7 5.6

Good 16.9 12.2 14.0 14.1

Fair 18.6 28.0 19.6 22.2

Poor 23.7 25.6 30.8 27.4

Very poor 20.3 20.7 23.4 21.8

Skip 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.4

Missing 10.2 8.5 7.5 8.5

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Note: Totals may not equal 100 due to rounding.
Drug Court Monitoring, Evaluation, and Management Information Systems

22

they can provide statistics proficiently on

target populations served. Only 27 percent

of small, 17 percent of medium, and 18

percent of large jurisdiction courts feel

their system can provide cost and benefit

analyses for stakeholders.

Overall, less than half of the drug courts

believe they have the information needed

to create automated reports for the people

they serve that demonstrate what they do

and how well they are accomplishing their

goals.

On a positive note, drug courts that value

timely drug test turnaround times appear

more likely to capture the data that will

support good management decisions for

the overall program. These courts are more

likely to capture information that will ultimately help the court evaluate its overall

performance, as well as its ability to reach

targeted populations.

Separate or Integrated

Computer System

Compounding the shortage of information

for reports is the nonintegrated nature of

computer systems serving drug courts.

These courts offer a unique continuum of

services that often involve the defendant in

the court system, the treatment providers,

and pretrial and probation services. Therefore, each part of the system needs appropriate access to the defendants’ progress

reports and the ability to chart progress.

However, 58 percent of small, 52 percent of

medium, and 50 percent of large jurisdiction courts have separate or stand-alone

computer systems that are not part of a

larger court or county system (table 1f).

“Currently, we keep information in at least

four separate databases,” reported one drug

court coordinator. It would be helpful to

know why the majority of courts have separate systems and whether or not it would

be feasible to integrate them.

Automation: Enhancing

Effectiveness and Efficiency

Within each drug court, automation offers

the opportunity to enhance productivity, to

serve larger numbers of participants, and to

chart results. A lack of automation creates

a barricade to sharing the information

needed to make a drug court program run

effectively and efficiently. Ultimately, these

Table 1f. 

Drug Court Assessment by Jurisdiction Size/Management Information

— Jurisdiction Size —

Small Medium Large Total

n = 59 n = 82 n = 107 n = 248

% % %%

4. Is the computer database that supports the drug court 

a separate or integrated system?

Separate 57.6 52.4 49.5 52.4

Integrated 22.0 30.5 35.5 30.6

Do not know 8.5 7.3 1.9 5.2

Both 10.2 3.7 10.3 8.1

Skip 0.0 3.7 0.9 1.6

Missing 1.7 2.4 1.9 2.0

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Note: Totals may not equal 100 due to rounding.
Detailed Survey Results by Assessment Area

23

factors will limit both the number of participants served and the benefits that accrue

to the community.

Where are today’s drug court programs in

the continuum between effective, shared

communication and isolated, nonproductive operation? Results from the automation assessment area of the survey show

that drug courts of all sizes are making

definite inroads into automation. In fact,

computers are prevalent in drug court settings. However, computers are not located

in the right places and the right team members do not have enough access to them to

ensure that courts have the ability to gauge

day-to-day and overall program success.

Looking at the activities of the drug court

from a functional perspective—screening,

assessment, docketing, and scheduling—it

is apparent that progress is needed in supporting these processes with automation.

More important, drug courts point to lack

of funding as a formidable foe that keeps

needed court-specific programs, training,

and in-house expertise out of reach.

Screening and Assessment

Table 2a and figure 1 show each size

court’s level of automation with regard to

screening and assessment information on

drug court defendants.

■ Screening information. Although partial automation is prevalent, 48 percent

of small, 44 percent of medium, and

28 percent of large jurisdiction courts

report that screening information on

drug court defendants is not automated.

■ Assessment information. Only 19 percent of small, 21 percent of medium,

and 11 percent of large jurisdiction

courts are fully automated with respect

to assessment information. A full 41 percent of small, 38 percent of medium, and

32 percent of large drug courts report

this function is not automated at all.

Table 2a. 

Drug Court Assessment by Jurisdiction Size/Automation

— Jurisdiction Size —

Small Medium Large Total

n = 59 n = 82 n = 107 n = 248

% % %%

1. Extent to which each function is automated:

a. Screening*

None 47.5 43.9 28.0 37.9

Partial 37.3 29.3 54.2 41.9

Complete 10.2 22.0 8.4 13.3

Missing 5.1 4.9 9.3 6.9

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

b. Assessment

None 41.4 37.8 31.8 36.0

Partial 32.8 35.4 48.6 40.5

Complete 19.0 20.7 11.2 16.2

Missing 6.9 6.1 8.4 7.3

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

*χ2 = 19.09, p = .001.

Note: Results of the chi-square significance testing are selectively reported when any of the results show a significant correlation—that is, there is a very low

likelihood that these results would have occurred by chance. Results are shown if they were at the level of probability of 0.05 or less. Totals may not equal

100 due to rounding.
Drug Court Monitoring, Evaluation, and Management Information Systems

24

Once again, it is obvious that drug courts

of all sizes are grappling with the daunting

task of obtaining current, accurate pictures

of their clients and their potential clients

in their target populations, yet they are not

receiving much automated support from

their MIS. Without this screening and

assessment information, along with criminal histories, it is hard to know if a drug

court is reaching its target population.

Monitoring Day-to-Day

Defendant Progress

Drug courts, especially large jurisdiction

courts, fare only slightly better with regard

to monitoring specific components of their

day-to-day programs. They are also deficient

in terms of having certain information automatically accessible to judges and other

drug court team members. The following

describes, and table 2b illustrates, each size

court’s level of automation with regard to

information on treatment case management,

probation monitoring, court case management, drug court MIS, judicial supervision,

and graduation/program separation.

■ Treatment case management. Only

19 percent of small, 20 percent of

medium, and 16 percent of large jurisdiction courts are fully automated in

terms of the treatment case management function.

■ Probation monitoring. Although

approximately 40 percent of the courts

report having this function partially

automated, only 22 percent of small,

16 percent of medium, and 14 percent

of large jurisdiction courts are fully

automated.

■ Court case management (docketing

and scheduling). Large jurisdiction

Figure 1. 

Level of Automation of Screening Information

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Small Medium Large

None

Partial

Complete
Detailed Survey Results by Assessment Area

25

Table 2b. 

Drug Court Assessment by Jurisdiction Size/Automation

— Jurisdiction Size —

Small Medium Large Total

n = 59 n = 82 n = 107 n = 248

% % %%

1. Extent to which each function is automated (continued):

c. Treatment case management

None 35.6 31.7 25.2 29.8

Partial 40.7 47.6 51.4 47.6

Complete 18.6 19.5 15.9 17.7

Missing 5.1 1.2 7.5 4.8

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

d. Probation monitoring

None 28.8 29.3 33.6 31.0

Partial 42.4 40.2 37.4 39.5

Complete 22.0 15.9 14.0 16.5

Missing 6.8 14.6 15.0 12.9

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

e. Court case management*

None 25.4 17.1 6.5 14.5

Partial 27.1 25.6 38.3 31.5

Complete 44.1 53.7 51.4 50.4

Missing 3.4 3.7 3.7 3.6

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

f. Drug court management information system

None 39.0 26.8 30.8 31.5

Partial 30.5 42.7 47.7 41.9

Complete 25.4 26.8 15.9 21.8

Missing 5.1 3.7 5.6 4.8

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

g. Judicial supervision

None 39.0 31.7 41.1 37.5

Partial 28.8 41.5 37.1 36.7

Complete 27.1 20.7 14.0 19.3

Missing 5.1 6.1 7.5 6.5

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

h. Graduation/program separation

None 27.1 28.0 29.9 28.6

Partial 50.8 35.4 40.2 41.1

Complete 16.9 30.5 23.4 24.2

Missing 5.1 6.1 6.5 6.0

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

*χ2 = 13.39, p = .01.

Note: Totals may not equal 100 due to rounding.
Drug Court Monitoring, Evaluation, and Management Information Systems

26

jurisdiction courts are fully automated

with regard to client graduation and

program separation. 

Tracking Vital Client and

Program Successes

Drug courts of all sizes are clearly struggling

to use technology to capture, maintain, and

provide some of the more important composite data elements used to determine the

success of the total program. Table 2c illustrates that only about 14 percent of small,

15 percent of medium, and 8 percent of

large jurisdiction courts report complete

automation with respect to maintaining

overall program evaluation information.

Obviously, many court successes go unreported, and so too the opportunity to share

the methodology behind those successes

is unreported.

Collecting data on postprogram recidivism

is another challenge for these courts, as

was earlier described by GAO. Significant

courts are more likely to have information partially automated (figure 2).

About half, 44 percent of small, 54

percent of medium, and 51 percent of

large jurisdiction courts, have this function completely automated.

■ Drug court management information

systems (client sanctions and rewards).

Some 25 percent of small, 27 percent

of medium, and 16 percent of large

jurisdiction courts are fully automated

with regard to this function.

■ Judicial supervision. Only 27 percent

of small, 21 percent of medium, and

14 percent of large jurisdiction courts

report being fully automated. In other

words, less than a quarter of the courts

use automation to help judges interact

with their huge caseload of defendants.

■ Graduation/Program separation. Only

17 percent of small, 31 percent of

medium, and 23 percent of large

Figure 2. 

Level of Automation of Court Case Management Data

0

10

20

30

40

50

Small Medium Large

None

Partial

Complete
Detailed Survey Results by Assessment Area

27

expense, logistical, and jurisdictional issues

must be addressed to obtain this information after the defendants are released from

the program. It is not surprising that only

about 10 percent of small, 13 percent of

medium, and 9 percent of large jurisdiction

courts report complete automation with

respect to tracking this vital indicator of

success (table 2c). Almost half the drug

courts report they have no access to

automation that is capable of tracking

which defendants succeed after they leave

the drug court.

These drug courts, like other problemsolving courts, are setting a more ambitious

standard for themselves by seeking to assess

the longer term outcome of court actions on

individual defendants. In this regard, entities like GAO, acting on behalf of Congress,

are ultimately requesting that courts take

more responsibility for the outcomes of

individual case decisions and, in the aggregate, for the quality of justice being dispensed. Such demands from the legislative

branch have policy implications for the

entire judicial branch of government. Although these policy issues are relevant to

this discussion because the demands for

evaluative data drove the need for this

assessment, a full analysis of the policy

implications are beyond the scope of this

report. Nonetheless, these policy issues

need to be kept in mind, because those

responsible for courts in general, and drug

courts in particular, have a long-standing

and bona fide interest in automated systems

to support the management of these courts.

Part of the difficulty in building systems to

track drug court data stems from the fact

that traditional courts have not collected

this type of data. Indeed, the role of

modern court management has only

recently emerged, with most of the development of the role of the court manager

evolving in the last few decades. Before

that, traditional courts left the management of cases to others, most notably to

members of the bar. Although modern principles of case flow management have been

accepted by many legal communities, the

Table 2c. 

Drug Court Assessment by Jurisdiction Size/Automation

— Jurisdiction Size —

Small Medium Large Total

n = 59 n = 82 n = 107 n = 248

% % %%

1. Extent to which each function is automated (continued):

i. Overall program evaluation

None 30.5 26.8 29.0 28.6

Partial 47.5 54.9 56.1 53.6

Complete 13.6 14.6 7.5 11.3

Missing 8.3 3.7 7.5 6.5

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

j. Postprogram recidivism

None 44.1 46.3 49.5 47.2

Partial 35.6 34.1 31.8 33.5

Complete 10.2 13.4 9.3 10.9

Missing 10.2 6.1 9.3 8.5

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Note: Totals may not equal 100 due to rounding.
focus on performance standards and the

measurement of performance in the courts

is a relatively recent phenomenon.29

Although more attention is being paid to

court performance measures, court officials

continue to face a tremendous struggle to

secure the resources necessary for MIS software that tracks information on very basic

court processes. And the goal of tracking

defendants’ activities after their cases have

been disposed seems even more difficult to

achieve.

Access to Computers by

Individual Team Members

The lack of individual access to computers

may be a contributing factor to the lack of

automated information. Most members of

the drug court team do have some access

to computers. For example, 92 percent of

small, 94 percent of medium, and 86 percent of large jurisdiction courts responded

“yes” when asked if team members had

access to computers (table 2d). Yet, when

asked if they had access at their desks

rather than at central or shared areas, the

positive responses dropped noticeably, with

64 percent of small, 71 percent of medium,

and 67 percent of large court teams having

computers on their desks.

Two other questions were used to gauge 

the accessibility of computers, one about

computer availability in the courtroom and

the other about the availability of laptops

for travel. Drug court decisions may be

made in the courtroom, in a different

building across town, or across the county

from team members’ desks. When asked if

the members had access to computers in

the courtroom, the number of affirmative

responses dropped significantly, with only

20 percent of small, 34 percent of medium,

and 36 percent of large jurisdiction courts

having courtroom computer access. Similar percentages—27 percent of small,

46 percent of medium, and 30 percent of

large jurisdiction courts—have laptops

available for travel (figure 3).

Several respondents provided write-in commentary that illustrated the environments

reflected in the statistical results, such as,

“Some team members have computers on

their desks. The computers in the courtrooms are for clerks only.” Another succinctly stated the desktop availability as

“Some do, some don’t.”

Sharing Information Among

Networked Team Members

Added to the lack of timely access to

computers is the diminished ability for

appropriate drug court team members to

share current, accurate information via

computer. It is extremely important for all

drug court team members to be linked and

to share appropriate information on the

defendants’ progress through various drug

court services. As in any court or justice

setting, controlling access to confidential

data is also an important requirement.

Controlled computer networks, with password access to high-speed information

sharing among team members in diverse

locations, are particularly beneficial in settings such as drug courts. Yet not all courts

have network access. Table 2e shows that

39 percent of small, 63 percent of medium,

and 66 percent of large jurisdiction courts

have communication networks that allow

drug court team members to communicate

or share information via computer (also figure 4). It is important to note that small,

more physically dispersed areas fare the

worst with availability of networks. This

distinction between the small jurisdictions

and their colleagues in medium- to largesize jurisdictions was so great that it was

statistically significant at the level of .005.

That is, our statistical tests showed an

Drug Court Monitoring, Evaluation, and Management Information Systems

28
Detailed Survey Results by Assessment Area

29

Table 2d. 

Drug Court Assessment by Jurisdiction Size/Automation

— Jurisdiction Size —

Small Medium Large Total

n = 59 n = 82 n = 107 n = 248

% % %%

2. Access to computers:

a. Do members of the drug court team have

access to computers?

Yes 91.5 93.9 86.0 89.9

No 8.5 3.7 12.1 8.5

Skip 0.0 2.4 0.9 1.2

Missing 0.0 0.0 0.9 1.4

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

b. In central, shared areas?

Yes 30.5 25.6 21.5 25.0

No 57.6 64.6 72.9 66.5

Skip 10.2 9.8 4.7 7.7

Missing 1.7 0.0 0.9 1.8

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

c. On their desks?

Yes 64.4 70.7 67.3 67.7

No 25.4 19.5 27.1 24.2

Skip 10.2 9.8 4.7 7.7

Missing 0.0 0.0 0.9 1.4

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

d. In the courtrooms?

Yes 20.3 34.1 35.5 31.5

No 69.5 56.1 58.9 60.5

Skip 10.2 9.8 4.7 7.7

Missing 0.0 0.0 0.9 1.4

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

e. Are laptops available for travel?*

Yes 27.1 46.3 29.9 34.7

No 62.7 43.9 64.5 57.3

Skip 10.2 9.8 4.7 7.7

Missing 0.0 0.0 0.9 1.4

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

*χ2 = 8.70, p = .013.

Note: Totals may not equal 100 due to rounding.
Drug Court Monitoring, Evaluation, and Management Information Systems

30

extremely high level of confidence that

these results did not occur by chance.

It appears that the judge and the court coordinator are most likely to be linked via a

computer network. Specifically, table 2f

shows that 32 percent of small, 51 percent of

medium, and 57 percent of large jurisdiction

courts have networks that link to the drug

court judge. In addition, 31 percent of small,

52 percent of medium, and 56 percent of

large jurisdiction courts have networks that

are linked to the court coordinator, who

oversees case flow and ensures the efficient

administration of justice.

However, beyond the judge and court

coordinator, network coverage decreases,

especially among the team members

responsible for providing accurate progress

information to the judicial decisionmakers. All of these team members depend 

on current information to adequately 

represent their clients, as well as to guard 

the public welfare, as tables 2e and 2f 

illustrate:

■ Treatment providers. Only 27 percent

of small, 35 percent of medium, and 27

percent of large jurisdiction courts offer

networked systems linked to treatment

providers.

■ Pretrial services. Only 3 percent of

small jurisdiction courts have networks

that are linked to pretrial services, in

comparison to 21 percent of medium

and 22 percent of large court networks

(figure 5). This is an important issue

because pretrial services are often

responsible for collecting relevant

screening and assessment data.

Figure 3. 

Level of Laptop Availability for Travel Use

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Small Medium Large

No

Yes
Detailed Survey Results by Assessment Area

31

■ Probation. Some 20 percent of small,

37 percent of medium, and 42 percent

of large jurisdiction courts have a networked system that includes links to

probation.

■ Prosecutors. Only 15 percent of small,

31 percent of medium, and 39 percent

of large jurisdiction courts have networks with links to prosecutors.

■ Public defenders. About 15 percent of

small, 22 percent of medium, and 36

percent of large jurisdiction courts

extend their network links to the

defense teams.

The write-in comments given in response

to this question provide some details from

specific courts. The comments range 

from respondents whose courts are not

networked, who said, “Drug court members

cannot communicate via computer,” to

other respondents with more progress in

developing networks who stated, “Planned

linkage (for) calendar year 2000.” Other

comments came from drug courts even

further along in the automation process

who have immediate team members and

beyond all linked, such as, “Program

evaluator is also linked.”

Table 2e. 

Drug Court Assessment by Jurisdiction Size/Automation

— Jurisdiction Size —

Small Medium Large Total

n = 59 n = 82 n = 107 n = 248

% % %%

3. Communications network:

a. Are drug court team members linked 

via a computer network?*

Yes 39.0 63.4 66.4 58.9

No 54.2 34.1 32.7 38.3

Missing 6.8 2.4 0.9 2.8

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

b. Are judges linked?

Yes 32.2 51.2 57.0 49.2

No 11.9 14.6 10.3 12.1

Skip 52.5 34.1 31.8 37.5

Missing 3.4 0.0 0.9 1.2

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

c. Is the court coordinator linked?

Yes 30.5 52.4 56.1 48.8

No 13.6 13.4 11.2 12.5

Skip 52.5 34.1 31.8 37.5

Missing 3.4 0.0 0.9 1.2

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

d. Are treatment providers linked?

Yes 27.1 35.4 27.1 29.8

No 16.9 30.5 40.2 31.5

Skip 52.5 34.1 31.8 37.5

Missing 3.4 0.0 0.9 1.2

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

*χ2 = 10.58, p = .005

Note: Totals may not equal 100 due to rounding.
Drug Court Monitoring, Evaluation, and Management Information Systems

32

Gaining Access to Computer

Programs That Support Success

Drug courts clearly have basic computer

programs that help in tasks like letter writing or sending e-mail. For example, 95 percent of small, 98 percent of medium, and

96 percent of large jurisdiction courts have

word-processing programs (table 2g). In

addition, more than 70 percent of drug

courts of all jurisdiction sizes report access

to both e-mail and personal calendar functions (table 2g). As further illustrated by

table 2g, a majority of drug courts have

access to the Internet, database management software, spreadsheet applications,

and antivirus programs.

However, access drops off noticeably when

it comes to programs specifically tailored to court tasks. When asked if there

was software appropriate for their job,

respondents were less positive. For example,

only 49 percent of small, 57 percent of

medium, and 66 percent of large jurisdiction

courts have links to other justice system

databases as appropriate to job function,

such as arrest records, criminal histories,

and court dockets. More important, even

fewer report access to task-relevant software, such as screening programs for intake

or pretrial services officers and case management programs. Only 34 percent of

small, 38 percent of medium, and 36 percent of large jurisdiction courts have access

to task-relevant software.

Finally, only 22 percent of small, 42 percent of medium, and 54 percent of large

jurisdiction courts have access to the

court’s main trial court case management

system. Although large jurisdiction courts

report having this access more often, even

Figure 4. 

Level of Drug Court Team Linkage via Computer Network

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Small Medium Large

No

Yes
Detailed Survey Results by Assessment Area

33

larger systems are not well automated.

Only 54 percent of the large jurisdiction

courts report having this access (figure 6).

The comment of one respondent sums up

the picture of sporadic access to job-specific

capabilities, stating, “E-mail is limited to

the office. We have links to other justice

system databases for arrest records only.

Not all of us have these functions.” Another

commented, “Working on software specific

to drug court.”

Educating Team Members

on Specific Software Programs

and Technologies

Not only do drug courts have limited

access to task-specific computer programs, they also may face a severe shortage of automation training programs.

Many veterans of successful automation

projects consider training on the new

computer systems and software critical 

to ensuring the successful installation and

usefulness of a system. As stated in a 1993

book on court automation, “Millions of

dollars can be spent on hardware and

Table 2f. 

Drug Court Assessment by Jurisdiction Size/Automation

— Jurisdiction Size —

Small Medium Large Total

n = 59 n = 82 n = 107 n = 248

% % %%

3. Communications network (continued):

e. Are pretrial services linked?

Yes 3.4 20.7 21.5 16.9

No 40.7 45.1 45.8 44.4

Skip 52.5 34.1 31.8 37.5

Missing 3.4 0.0 0.9 1.2

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

f. Is probation linked?

Yes 20.3 36.6 42.1 35.1

No 23.7 29.3 25.2 26.2

Skip 52.5 34.1 31.8 37.5

Missing 3.4 0.0 0.9 1.2

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

g. Is the prosecutor linked?

Yes 15.3 30.5 39.3 30.6

No 28.8 35.4 28.0 30.6

Skip 52.5 34.1 31.8 37.5

Missing 3.4 0.0 0.9 1.2

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

h. Is the public defender linked?

Yes 15.3 22.0 35.5 26.2

No 28.8 43.9 31.8 35.1

Skip 52.5 34.1 31.8 37.5

Missing 3.4 0.0 0.9 1.2

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

*χ2 = 9.09, p = .05.

Note: Totals may not equal 100 due to rounding.
Drug Court Monitoring, Evaluation, and Management Information Systems

34

software, yet the ultimate success of the

system depends on the quality of work of

the individuals with the lowest salaries

and the least training in the judicial

branch. Good training and quality control

Figure 5. 

Level Linked to Pretrial Services

0

10

20

30

40

50

Small Medium Large

No

Yes

procedures are perhaps the most important challenges project leaders will face. If

training is not effective, the automation

process cannot be successful.”30

Figure 6. 

Level of Access to Main Trial Court Management Program

0

20

40

60

80

50

Small Medium Large

No

Yes
Detailed Survey Results by Assessment Area

35

Table 2g. 

Drug Court Assessment by Jurisdiction Size/Automation

— Jurisdiction Size —

Small Medium Large Total

n = 59 n = 82 n = 107 n = 248

% % %%

4. Which of the following capabilities do you have?

a. Word processing

Yes 94.9 97.6 96.3 96.4

No 5.1 2.4 3.7 3.6

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

b. Personal calendar

Yes 76.3 70.7 70.1 71.8

No 23.7 29.3 29.9 28.2

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

c. E-mail

Yes 72.9 78.0 80.4 77.8

No 27.1 22.0 19.6 22.2

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

d. Internet access

Yes 67.8 63.4 59.8 62.9

No 32.2 36.6 40.2 37.1

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

e. Database management

Yes 67.8 67.1 62.6 65.3

No 32.2 32.9 37.4 34.7

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

f. Spreadsheet

Yes 67.8 69.5 65.4 67.3

No 32.2 30.5 34.5 32.7

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

g. Antivirus

Yes 71.2 70.7 69.2 70.2

No 28.8 29.3 30.8 29.8

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

h. Links to other justice systems

Yes 49.2 57.3 66.4 59.3

No 50.8 42.7 33.6 40.7

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

i. Task-relevant software

Yes 33.9 37.8 35.5 35.9

No 66.1 62.2 64.5 64.1

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

j. Trial court case management system*

Yes 22.0 41.5 54.2 42.3

No 78.0 58.5 44.9 57.3

Missing 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.4

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

*χ2 = 16.62 p = .005.

Note: Totals may not equal 100 due to rounding.
Drug Court Monitoring, Evaluation, and Management Information Systems

36

To gauge the role training has in computer

systems success in drug courts, the survey

asked respondents about access to formal,

court-supported technology training programs. A slight majority of drug courts

indicated that such programs exist, but

that where they do exist they are generally

not mandatory.

Specifically, only in the medium- to largesize jurisdictions are training programs

available to half or more of the drug courts

(table 2h). When asked about training in

general office applications, only 36 percent

of small, 51 percent of medium, and 67

percent of large jurisdiction courts report

that such training is available (figure 7). A

similar situation is found with training for

drug court-specific software, with 14 percent of small, 33 percent of medium, and 35

percent of large jurisdiction courts having

such training available (figure 8). A statistically significant finding is that, whether for

general or specific training, small jurisdiction courts are less likely to have any formal training programs in place.

Furthermore, programs are mandatory 

in less than 12 percent of these courts,

regardless of court size. Only 9 percent of

small, 4 percent of medium, and 5 percent

of large jurisdiction courts require drug

court team members to participate in training to learn general office applications of

the software. Requirements for training in

drug court-specific software fared little

better, with 12 percent of small, 4 percent

of medium, and 9 percent of large jurisdiction courts requiring these specific training

programs.

Table 2h. 

Drug Court Assessment by Jurisdiction Size/Automation

— Jurisdiction Size —

Small Medium Large Total

n = 59 n = 82 n = 107 n = 248

% % %%

5. Access to formal, court-supported technology training 

programs?

a. General office applications*

Available 35.6 51.2 67.3 54.4

Mandatory 8.5 3.7 4.7 5.2

No training available 6.8 11.0 3.7 6.9

Do not know 3.4 1.2 0.9 1.6

Skip 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.4

Missing 45.8 32.9 22.4 31.5

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

b. Drug court-specific software applications**

Available 13.6 32.9 34.6 29.0

Mandatory 11.9 3.7 9.3 8.1

No training available 10.2 13.4 6.5 9.7

Do not know 3.4 0.0 1.9 1.6

Skip 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Missing 61.0 50.0 47.7 51.6

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

*χ2 = 8.70, p = .013.

**χ2 = 10.88, p = .02.

Note: Totals may not equal 100 due to rounding.
Detailed Survey Results by Assessment Area

37

Figure 7. 

Level of Training in General Office Applications

0

20

40

60

80

Small Medium Large

Mandatory

Available

None

Add these data on education and training

to the details on the lack of court-specific

programs, and it is easy to conclude that,

although computers and basic programs

are available, this hardware and software

cannot be used effectively for drug court

business.

Relying on In-House 

Automation Expertise

Another indicator of automation advancement is the presence of staff technology 

personnel, one or more employees whose

primary responsibilities include data processing, programming, system administration,

Figure 8. 

Level of Training in Drug Court Software 

0

10

20

30

40

Small Medium Large

Mandatory

Available

None
Drug Court Monitoring, Evaluation, and Management Information Systems

38

and computer maintenance. However, only

29 percent of small, 29 percent of medium,

and 40 percent of large jurisdiction courts

have such expertise in-house (table 2i).

Write-in comments like this one indicate

drug courts borrow MIS personnel from

other court functions or use student interns,

even volunteers at times, just to achieve

basic data entry and data processing. “We

just want a good MIS so we can spend as little time as possible on reports and as much

time as we can on treatment of our clients,”

added one understaffed court coordinator.

Facing Automation Barriers

Courts were asked to identify the main barriers to further automating their drug

courts. The barrier overwhelmingly cited

was a lack of funding. In fact, 61 percent

of small, 72 percent of medium, and 66

percent of large jurisdiction courts point to

funding as the number one impediment to

their automation development. In addition,

56 percent of small, 61 percent of medium,

and 47 percent of large jurisdiction courts

indicate difficulty in linking with other systems that support drug court team members as a prime barrier. The vast majority

of the courts do not see the other items

listed on the survey as being “main” barriers to further automating their drug court

(table 2i). These included insufficient

skills, a lack of guidelines specific to drug

courts, a need to educate stakeholders,

ongoing maintenance costs, unfamiliarity

with State and/or national standards, and

appropriate security controls to limit access.

Write-In Comments

The write-in comments for this section

showed a wide range of concerns. Some

respondents mentioned the current demand for technical personnel, noting that

“Programmers are not available because

they are so busy with other projects.”

Other comments, perhaps reflective of a

certain desperation where automation is

concerned, went so far as to suggest that

the government go into the software development business. One respondent suggested that DCPO/American University develop

a software package specific to drug courts.

Although identifying the need for tailored

software is on target, the suggestion that

the government should develop such software seems misguided. Comments such as

these suggest that there may be a greater

need for education, so that those having to

rely on these systems will have a better

understanding of the role of technology

vendors, the use of various aspects of the

procurement process to acquire technology, and how to deal with the private sector.

The write-in comments about additional

barriers were categorized and are presented below.

Additional Barriers Number of

Comments Recorded

Lack of specific drug court software 15

Currently addressing barriers 13

Staffing issues 12

Insufficient or incompatible software 10

Lack of equipment 9

Lack of funding 6

Lack of training 2

Lack of political or administrative support 2

Accessibility of data 1

Population size 1

No existing barriers 1

Drug court is just beginning 1

Technical Assistance:

Overwhelming Appeal 

for Support

As drug courts take on greater roles within

their communities and serve larger client

populations, they obviously take on additional responsibilities with more goals that

must be achieved. The survey asked the

respondents to identify the technical

assistance that the courts need to fulfill
Detailed Survey Results by Assessment Area

39

Table 2i. 

Drug Court Assessment by Jurisdiction Size/Automation

— Jurisdiction Size —

Small Medium Large Total

n = 59 n = 82 n = 107 n = 248

% % %%

6. Does your drug court have any employees whose 

primary responsibilities include data processing,

computer maintenance, etc.?

Yes 28.8 29.3 40.2 33.9

No 71.2 70.7 56.1 64.5

Missing 0.0 0.0 3.7 1.6

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

7. What are the main barriers to further automating your 

drug court?

a. Insufficient skills

Yes 25.4 31.7 25.2 27.4

No 74.6 68.3 74.8 72.6

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

b. Lack of guidelines specific to drug courts

Yes 25.4 28.0 23.4 25.4

No 74.6 72.0 76.6 74.6

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

c. Need to educate stakeholders

Yes 25.4 23.2 17.8 21.4

No 74.6 76.8 82.2 78.6

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

d. Ongoing maintenance costs

Yes 33.9 28.0 35.8 32.8

No 66.1 72.0 64.2 67.2

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

e. Funding

Yes 61.0 72.0 66.4 66.9

No 39.0 28.0 33.6 33.1

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

f. Not familiar with national/State standards

Yes 16.9 12.2 10.3 12.5

No 83.1 87.8 89.7 87.5

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

g. Difficulty linking with other systems

Yes 55.9 61.0 46.7 53.6

No 44.1 39.0 53.3 46.4

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

h. Designing appropriate security controls

Yes 18.6 20.7 17.8 19.0

No 81.4 79.3 82.2 81.0

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Note: Totals may not equal 100 due to rounding.
Drug Court Monitoring, Evaluation, and Management Information Systems

40

those vital goals. In fact, the survey team

culled many technical assistance options

from earlier drug court focus groups. The

report on these focus groups identified

“eight high-priority areas for direct technical assistance to jurisdictions with respect

to development of monitoring, evaluation,

and MIS capabilities.”31 From these areas,

and based on consultation with experts

in the field, a list of specific options was

developed. The respondents were asked to

rate these options from “extremely useful”

to “not useful.”

The drug courts’ responses were forceful

and clear.

Overwhelmingly, drug courts ranked every

offered technical assistance option as useful.

In fact, very few of the hundreds of respondents ranked any technical assistance

option as not useful. As one obviously frustrated court coordinator wrote after answering with a long technical assistance wish

list, “What day will (help) arrive???”

The greatest needs center around the

basics of getting started on long-term automated productivity. The statistical results

are shown in tables 3a and 3b and are 

discussed below.

Information Elements and

Functional Requirements

One option listed on the survey was

“Assistance in doing a comparison of the

information elements being collected in

your drug court with a set of recommended information elements and functional

requirements.” For help with this “actual

versus recommended” approach, 83 percent of small, 79 percent of medium, and

87 percent of large jurisdiction courts feel

this help would be useful, very useful, or

extremely useful.

Needs Assessment

Help in conducting an MIS needs assessment that includes documenting existing

procedures, determining functional

requirements, and developing recommended solutions was also popular. Results show

that 87 percent of small, 79 percent of

medium, and 83 percent of large jurisdiction courts cite this as useful, very useful,

or extremely useful.

Strategic Information 

Technology Plans

The development of a strategic information

technology plan for the drug court would

include an assessment of the staff’s technical capabilities and a plan for acquiring the

technical skill sets that are not available inhouse. Respondents indicated that 70 percent of small, 71 percent of medium, and

70 percent of large jurisdiction courts feel

this activity would be useful, very useful, or

extremely useful.

As tables 3a and 3b further illustrate, there

are other areas where help is needed.

Defining the Scope of Work

When asked about help in defining the

scope of work required to implement a

technology plan, 76 percent of small, 70

percent of medium, and 71 percent of large

jurisdiction courts rated this activity as

useful, very useful, or extremely useful.

Model PowerPoint Presentation

Some 78 percent of small, 94 percent of

medium, and 85 percent of large jurisdiction courts favored the development and

maintenance of a template for a model

Microsoft PowerPoint® presentation on drug

court costs and benefits to use when making

presentations to regional stakeholders.
Detailed Survey Results by Assessment Area

41

Table 3a. 

Drug Court Assessment by Jurisdiction Size/Technical Assistance

— Jurisdiction Size —

Small Medium Large Total

n = 59 n = 82 n = 107 n = 248

% % %%

Rate the usefulness of technical assistance activities in 

these areas:

1. Comparison of your information elements to 

recommended elements

Extremely useful 20.3 22.0 21.5 21.4

Very useful 28.8 34.1 34.6 33.1

Useful 33.9 23.2 30.8 29.0

Minimally useful 10.2 9.8 5.6 8.1

Not useful 3.4 6.1 0.9 3.2

Missing 3.4 4.9 6.5 5.2

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

2. Needs assessment

Extremely useful 11.9 28.0 23.4 22.2

Very useful 35.6 30.5 28.0 30.6

Useful 39.0 20.7 31.8 29.8

Minimally useful 11.9 12.2 7.5 10.1

Not useful 1.7 3.7 5.6 4.0

Missing 0.0 4.9 3.7 3.2

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

3. Development of a strategic information technology plan

Extremely useful 13.6 20.7 13.1 15.7

Very useful 30.5 26.8 30.8 29.4

Useful 25.4 23.2 26.2 25.0

Minimally useful 22.0 17.1 17.8 18.5

Not useful 6.8 6.1 6.5 6.5

Missing 1.7 6.1 5.6 4.8

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

4. Defining the scope of work to implement the 

technology plan

Extremely useful 10.2 20.7 10.3 13.7

Very useful 27.1 22.0 29.0 26.2

Useful 39.0 26.8 31.8 31.9

Minimally useful 11.9 17.1 16.8 15.7

Not useful 11.9 6.1 7.5 8.1

Missing 0.0 7.3 4.7 4.4

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

5. Development and maintenance of a PowerPoint®

presentation on the drug court

Extremely useful 28.8 40.2 32.7 34.3

Very useful 28.8 36.6 24.3 29.4

Useful 20.3 17.1 28.0 22.6

Minimally useful 15.3 2.4 6.5 7.3

Not useful 6.8 1.2 4.7 4.0

Missing 0.0 2.4 3.7 2.4

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Note: Totals may not equal 100 due to rounding.
and products, including help preparing

RFPs; selecting consultants, hardware, and

software; and drafting and negotiating contracts with vendors. Responses indicated

that 64 percent of small, 68 percent of

medium, and 60 percent of large jurisdiction courts cite this activity as useful, very

useful, or extremely useful.

Drug Court Evaluation

Plans/Identifying an Evaluator

When asked about help to develop a drug

court evaluation plan and identify an 

Drug Court Monitoring, Evaluation, and Management Information Systems

42

Security Links To Ensure Privacy

When asked about help and advice on

establishing appropriately secure links to

exchange critical information with other

criminal justice agencies and treatment

providers, 86 percent of small, 85 percent

of medium, and 82 percent of large jurisdiction courts rated this as useful, very

useful, or extremely useful.

Vendors and Products

Respondents were asked to rate the need

for assistance and advice selecting vendors

Table 3b. 

Drug Court Assessment by Jurisdiction Size/Technical Assistance

— Jurisdiction Size —

Small Medium Large Total

n = 59 n = 82 n = 107 n = 248

% % %%

Rate the usefulness of technical assistance activities in 

these areas (continued):

6. Assistance and advice on establishing security

Extremely useful 27.1 28.0 22.4 25.4

Very useful 32.2 35.4 25.2 30.2

Useful 27.1 22.0 34.6 28.6

Minimally useful 5.1 7.3 12.1 8.9

Not useful 8.5 2.4 1.9 3.6

Missing 0.0 4.9 3.7 3.2

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

7. Assistance and advice on selection of vendors 

and products

Extremely useful 10.2 20.7 7.5 12.5

Very useful 20.3 18.3 16.8 18.1

Useful 33.9 29.3 35.5 33.1

Minimally useful 22.0 17.1 22.4 20.6

Not useful 13.6 7.3 11.2 10.5

Missing 0.0 7.3 6.5 5.2

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

8. Assistance in developing a drug court evaluation plan 

and on identifying an evaluator

Extremely useful 16.9 20.7 20.6 19.8

Very useful 18.6 19.5 15.0 17.3

Useful 39.0 20.7 29.0 28.6

Minimally useful 11.9 20.7 15.9 16.5

Not useful 13.6 12.2 15.0 13.7

Missing 0.0 6.1 4.7 4.0

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Note: Totals may not equal 100 due to rounding.
Detailed Survey Results by Assessment Area

43

evaluator, 75 percent of small, 61 percent

of medium, and 65 percent of large jurisdiction courts rate assistance as useful,

very useful, or extremely useful. Small

jurisdiction courts gave this option a

much higher rating than their colleagues in

medium- and large-size jurisdictions. This

differential in ratings was significantly different for small jurisdiction courts than for

the other courts. Stated differently, the statistical analysis indicated that a strong

relationship exists between size of jurisdiction and need for such assistance, and that

this finding is extremely unlikely to have

resulted from chance.

Overall Ranking of Technical

Assistance Options

By assigning a weight to each response

category, and taking an overall average for

each activity, the relative importance of

each activity could be assessed. The results

of this weighting, which show activities

from least useful to most useful overall, are

displayed graphically (figures 9a and 9b).

Write-In Comments

Respondents had the opportunity to write

comments and suggestions for this section.

In response to the question of “Additional

Assistance” the results were as follows:

Assistance Requested Number of

Comments Recorded

Drug court-specific software 7

Funding 4

Evaluation 3

Computer networks 2

Currently addressing problems 2

DCPO-required data elements 1

These write-in comments continue to show

an emphasis on the need for adequate

funding and software that meets the specific needs of drug courts.

Education and Training: Sharing

and Expanding Successes

As with technical assistance, drug courts

overwhelmingly underscored the need for

educational assistance. Only a handful of

the hundreds of respondents ranked any

education and training options as not

Figure 9a. 

Usefulness of Technical Assistance

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

4

3.5

Select Vendors Evaluation Plan Work Plan Technology Plan
Drug Court Monitoring, Evaluation, and Management Information Systems

44

Figure 9b. 

Usefulness of Technical Assistance

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

4

3.5

Needs Plan Compare Information Link to Others Presentations

helpful (tables 4a and 4b). More important,

respondents offered their views on the specific types of training they need most and

the types of training delivery devices, such

as videoconferences, videotapes, and preexisting conferences, that they can access

cost effectively.

Information Management 

“Add-On” Modules

Respondents from 88 percent of small, 87

percent of medium, and 84 percent of large

jurisdiction courts believe an information

management component in future DCPOsponsored workshops on planning and

implementation would be useful, very useful, or extremely useful.

Dedicated Topical Workshops

Even more respondents, 93 percent of

small, 89 percent of medium, and 90 percent of large jurisdiction courts, thought

workshops dedicated to the topics of drug

court monitoring, evaluation, and MIS

development would be useful, very useful,

or extremely useful.

Videoconferences

In recognition of limited travel budgets,

respondents were asked to rate the usefulness of conducting videoconferences, or

State or regional conferences targeted to

specific monitoring, evaluation, and MIS

issues. Respondents from 76 percent of

small, 78 percent of medium, and 83 percent of large jurisdiction courts indicated

that such conferences would be useful,

very useful, or extremely useful.

Software Orientation

Also rated highly was the option of conducting orientation sessions on specific

software programs and their application to

drug court MIS needs, with 83 percent of

small, 91 percent of medium, and 81 percent of large jurisdiction courts reporting

that these would be useful, very useful, or

extremely useful.
Detailed Survey Results by Assessment Area

45

Table 4a. 

Drug Court Assessment by Jurisdiction Size/Education and Training

— Jurisdiction Size —

Small Medium Large Total

n = 59 n = 82 n = 107 n = 248

% % %%

Rate the usefulness of the following education and 

training programs:

1. Information management component in future 

DCPO-sponsored workshops

Extremely useful 20.3 22.0 26.2 23.4

Very useful 40.7 46.3 31.8 38.7

Useful 27.1 18.3 26.2 23.8

Minimally useful 5.1 6.1 8.4 6.9

Not useful 6.8 2.4 5.6 4.8

Missing 0.0 4.9 1.9 2.4

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

2. Drug court monitoring, evaluation, and MIS 

development in a series of workshops

Extremely useful 23.7 24.4 26.2 25.0

Very useful 37.3 48.8 40.2 42.3

Useful 32.2 15.9 23.4 23.0

Minimally useful 6.8 4.9 6.5 6.0

Not useful 0.0 2.4 2.8 2.0

Missing 0.0 3.7 0.9 1.6

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

3. Drug court monitoring, evaluation, and MIS issues 

via videoconference

Extremely useful 22.0 14.6 11.3 15.0

Very useful 20.3 30.5 32.1 28.7

Useful 33.9 32.9 39.6 36.0

Minimally useful 22.0 14.6 14.2 16.2

Not useful 1.7 2.4 2.8 2.4

Missing 0.0 4.9 0.0 1.6

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

4. Orientation on specific software programs and their 

application to drug court needs

Extremely useful 11.9 20.7 25.2 20.6

Very useful 39.0 42.7 26.2 34.7

Useful 32.2 28.0 29.9 29.8

Minimally useful 15.3 3.7 12.1 10.1

Not useful 1.7 1.2 4.7 2.8

Missing 0.0 3.7 1.9 2.0

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Note: Totals may not equal 100 due to rounding.
Drug Court Monitoring, Evaluation, and Management Information Systems

46

Table 4b. 

Drug Court Assessment by Jurisdiction Size/Education and Training

— Jurisdiction Size —

Small Medium Large Total

n = 59 n = 82 n = 107 n = 248

% % %%

Rate the usefulness of the following education and 

training programs (continued):

5. Development and maintenance of a drug court 

request for proposals and contract database

Extremely useful 10.2 14.6 16.8 14.5

Very useful 30.5 25.6 22.4 25.4

Useful 33.9 34.1 38.3 35.9

Minimally useful 16.9 17.1 12.1 14.9

Not useful 8.5 3.7 8.4 6.9

Missing 0.0 4.9 1.9 2.4

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

6. Development and maintenance of frequently asked 

questions about drug court MIS

Extremely useful 18.6 18.3 16.8 17.7

Very useful 42.4 39.0 35.5 38.3

Useful 20.3 26.8 29.0 26.2

Minimally useful 11.9 9.8 15.9 12.9

Not useful 6.8 2.4 1.9 3.2

Missing 0.0 3.7 0.9 1.6

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

7. Development of an Internet listserver to automatically 

send e-mails to the drug court community

Extremely useful 22.0 32.9 26.2 27.4

Very useful 49.2 29.3 31.8 35.1

Useful 22.0 25.6 27.1 25.4

Minimally useful 5.1 8.5 7.5 7.3

Not useful 1.7 2.4 4.7 3.2

Missing 0.0 1.2 2.8 1.6

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

8. Identification, description, and dissemination of 

information about well-functioning drug courts

Extremely useful 23.7 24.4 29.0 26.2

Very useful 33.9 45.1 43.0 41.5

Useful 35.6 23.2 18.7 24.2

Minimally useful 5.1 4.9 5.6 5.2

Not useful 1.7 1.2 2.8 2.0

Missing 0.0 1.2 0.9 1.8

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Note: Totals may not equal 100 due to rounding.
Detailed Survey Results by Assessment Area

47

Drug Court Request for Proposals

and Contract Database

Responses show that 75 percent of small,

74 percent of medium, and 78 percent of

large jurisdiction courts thought the development and maintenance of a drug court

RFP and contract database could benefit

the court by improving the development 

of technology projects.

Frequently Asked Questions

This item focused on whether it would be

useful to develop and maintain a list of frequently asked questions (FAQs) about drug

court MIS, with answers contributed by

leading experts in the field. Of those

responding, 81 percent of small, 84 percent

of medium, and 81 percent of large jurisdiction courts rate this list as useful, very

useful, or extremely useful.

Internet Listserver 

A vast majority of courts would like to see

development of an Internet listserver that

would automatically send copies of e-mail

notes on drug court technology issues and

concerns to subscribers within the drug

court community. Specifically, 93 percent

of the small, 88 percent of the medium,

and 85 percent of the large jurisdiction

courts rated this activity as useful, very

useful, or extremely useful.

Evaluation and Management

Information Systems Best

Practices

Some 93 percent of small, 93 percent of

medium, and 91 percent of large jurisdiction courts noted that it would be beneficial to identify, describe, and disseminate

information about well-functioning drug

court evaluation and management information systems.

Overall Ranking of Education and

Training Options

As was the case with technical assistance,

by weighting categories and taking an overall average for each activity, the relative

importance of each activity could be

assessed. The results of this weighting,

which shows activities from least useful to

most useful overall, are shown in figures

10a and 10b.

Write-In Comments

Respondents had the opportunity to write

comments and suggestions for this section.

In response to the question of “Additional

Assistance” the following were suggested:

Educational Option Number of

Comments Recorded

DCPO-required data elements 3

Miscellaneous 3

Evaluation 2

Software 2

Network/Internet 2

Security 1

These results show that, unlike the technical

assistance options, there was not as much

consensus on additional or alternative

options that would help address education

and training needs.

Background and Other

Characteristics

The general profile of drug courts assembled

through analysis of the survey responses

and write-in comments shows that 69 percent were adult courts (table 5). Of the

more than 250 courts that responded, the

majority of courts serve adults in moderately large cities with populations of

100,000 to 1 million. In looking at the

number of active participants in each drug

court, 58 percent have 100 participants or

fewer. In addition, the modal average, or

the largest percentage programs in a single
Drug Court Monitoring, Evaluation, and Management Information Systems

48

Figure 10a. 

Usefulness of Education and Training

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

4

3.5

RFP Database Videoconference Frequently Asked Questions Software Education

Figure 10b. 

Usefulness of Education and Training

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

4

3.5

MIS Workshop Listserver Technical Workshop Information on Others
Detailed Survey Results by Assessment Area

49

category, had 50 participants or fewer. Yet

the “average,” as measured by the arithmetic mean, was about 200 active participants. This larger average results because

the statistical mean is influenced or

skewed by the 15 percent of programs that

have more than 200 participants.

These findings raise an important issue.

Because most drug courts are serving jurisdictions of 100,000-plus, one might expect

that the majority of the drug courts would

be handling a larger number of participants. But the majority of drug courts have

100 participants or fewer. This begs the

question of why more of the programs 

are not handling larger numbers of

participants. Several explanations come

immediately to mind. Three possibilities

are that

1. Not enough drug defendants are eligible

and/or in need of the programs.

2. Treatment providers or other necessary

services and facilities are not available

to increase the size of these programs.

3. These courts lack the automation that

would allow the teams to handle larger

numbers of participants.

The first seems an unlikely causal explanation, knowing the explosive growth of the

drug-related caseload, but other research

may be in progress to answer this question.

As to the lack of treatment resources, it is

generally acknowledged to be a constant

challenge for these programs. To be sure,

others within most communities and certain Federal programs are seeking ways to

address the availability of treatment. The

third explanation, that the lack of automation is hindering these programs from serving larger numbers of participants, has not

been generally acknowledged. However,

data in this study would tend to support

this explanation.

Significant correlations exist between several measures of the extent of automation

and the number of active participants—

that is, the larger the number of participants, the greater the extent of automation

and the better the MIS support (table 6).

For example, the results of questions about

information elements entered into the

computer show a significant correlation

between the number of participants and

several of these elements. These include

information on screening and assessment,

treatment services, and fees imposed and

collected. Significant correlations also exist

between the number of participants and

other measures of automation, including

how well the various functions are automated, and whether or not there is a court

case and drug court MIS. As illustrated in

table 6, an interesting additional finding is

that a significant correlation also exists

between the number of participants and

whether the public defender is electronically linked to the drug court team. 

More than 77 percent of the drug courts

operating at the time of the survey had

been in operation for at least 2 years.

Almost 73 percent rely exclusively on contractual treatment providers for service,

rather than having in-house treatment

providers (table 5). Another 10 percent

rely on both, bringing the total of programs

that rely in some fashion on contractual

treatment providers to 83 percent. The

number of different providers varied, but

the average or arithmetic mean was seven

and the median, or the response at the

midpoint of the distribution, was two. In

this instance, the median of 2 is a much

more representative indicator of the average number of providers because the arithmetic mean is inflated due to 2 courts with

more than 130 providers each.

The Background section of the survey also

included a question addressing how long
Drug Court Monitoring, Evaluation, and Management Information Systems

50

Table 5. 

Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Drug Court Background Characteristics

n %

Characteristic

Type of court

Adult 176 69.0

Juvenile 48 18.8

Family 24 9.4

Tribal 4 1.6

Missing 3 1.2

Total 255 100.0

Years in operation

One year or less 46 18.0

Two years or less 80 31.4

Three years or less 53 20.8

More than three years 68 26.7

Missing 8 3.1

Total 255 100.0

Population of jurisdiction served

0–50,000 19 7.5

50,001–100,000 40 15.7

100,001–350,000 82 32.2

350,001–500,000 36 14.1

500,001–1,000,000 42 16.5

1,000,001 and above 29 11.4

Missing 7 2.7

Total 255 100.0

Number of active participants

50 or less 90 35.3

51–100 59 23.1

101–200 54 21.2

201 or more 38 14.9

Missing 14 5.5

Total 255 100.0

Treatment provider

In-house 39 15.3

Contractual 186 72.9

Both 25 9.8

Missing 5 2.0

Total 255 100.0

Number of providers, if contractual

Mean 6.79

Median 2.00

Amount of time to elapse until judge received failed 

drug-testing results

Minutes 48 18.8

One day 60 23.5

Two days 29 11.4

Three days 38 14.9

Four or more days 72 28.2

Missing 8 3.1

Total 255 100.0

Note: Percent totals may not equal 100 due to rounding.
Detailed Survey Results by Assessment Area

51

Table 6. 

Drug Court Description by Number of Active Participants

— Number of Active Participants —

0–50 51–100 101–200 201+ Total

n = 90 n = 59 n = 54 n = 38 n = 241*

% % % %%

Question

Screening and assessment information entered 

into computer

Yes 52.6 60.7 76.9 66.7 62.6

No 47.4 39.3 23.1 33.3 37.4

χ2 = 8.25, p = .041 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Treatment service information entered into computer

Yes 61.3 64.3 80.4 86.1 70.4

No 38.8 35.7 19.6 13.9 29.5

χ2 = 10.93, p = .012 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Fees imposed and collected entered into computer

Yes 61.3 38.2 66.7 52.8 55.4

No 38.8 61.8 33.3 47.2 44.6

χ2 = 10.43, p = .015 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Screening information is automated

None 58.0 40.8 21.2 26.5 40.8

Partial 30.7 38.8 65.4 55.9 44.4

Complete 11.4 20.4 13.5 17.6 14.8

χ2 = 25.22, p = .000 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Assessment information is automated

None 51.7 42.6 21.2 28.6 38.9

Partial 35.6 36.2 55.8 54.3 43.5

Complete 12.6 21.3 23.1 17.7 17.6

χ2 = 16.02, p = .014 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Treatment information is automated

None 44.3 30.8 15.4 25.0 31.6

Partial 42.0 51.9 55.8 58.3 50.0

Complete 13.6 17.3 28.8 16.7 18.4

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Court management information is automated

None 21.6 17.0 9.4 10.5 15.9

Partial 28.4 34.0 45.3 18.4 31.9

Complete 50.0 49.1 45.3 71.1 52.2

χ2 = 12.71, p = .048 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Drug court MIS is automated

None 41.4 39.6 17.3 28.9 33.5

Partial 36.8 28.3 61.5 55.3 43.5

Complete 21.8 32.1 21.2 15.8 23.0

χ2 = 18.21, p = .006 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Public defender is linked

Yes 26.1 53.7 48.6 56.5 44.1

No 73.9 46.3 51.4 43.5 55.9

χ2 = 18.21, p = .006 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

* This table includes data from all of the 241 respondents that provided the number of participants.

Note: Totals may not equal 100 due to rounding.
Drug Court Monitoring, Evaluation, and Management Information Systems

52

Table 7a. 

Drug Court Description by Efficiency of Drug Test Results to Judge

— Drug Test Result Efficiency — 

Minutes One day Two+ days Total

n = 48 n = 60 n = 139 n = 247*

% % %%

Information entered into the computer

Sanctions imposed

Yes 60.6 70.3 57.6 62.4

No 39.4 29.7 42.4 37.6

χ2 = 6.43, p = .040 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Incentives provided

Yes 49.5 33.9 27.7 38.9

No 50.5 66.1 72.3 61.1

χ2 = 8.76, p = .012 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

GED or vocational certificate award

Yes 46.5 53.1 30.8 43.9

No 53.5 46.9 69.2 56.1

χ2 = 7.02, p = .030 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Management report capability

Ability to produce reports to monitor overall operations

Very good 18.4 3.1 14.9 13.2

Good 32.0 43.1 32.8 35.3

Fair 27.2 33.8 25.4 28.5

Poor 18.4 18.5 16.4 17.9

Very poor 3.9 1.5 10.4 5.1

χ2 = 15.61, p = .048 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Ability to produce reports for impact evaluations

Very good 11.9 7.6 10.8 10.9

Good 27.7 34.8 33.8 31.5

Fair 23.8 34.8 18.5 25.4

Poor 32.7 16.7 20.0 24.6

Very poor 4.0 6.1 16.9 8.2

χ2 = 18.76, p = .016 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Ability to produce statistics on target populations served

Very good 19.0 12.1 17.9 16.7

Good 32.0 37.9 22.4 30.9

Fair 17.0 37.9 22.4 24.5

Poor 25.0 6.1 22.4 18.9

Very poor 7.0 6.1 14.9 9.0

χ2 = 22.95, p = .003 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

* This table includes data from all of the 247 respondents that provided the test results time.

Note: Totals may not equal 100 due to rounding.

on average it took to get a report to the

judge about a failed drug test. The crosstabulation on this question, done to see

how well reporting test results correlates

with other factors, produced some of the

most interesting findings. The results 

indicate that a high correlation exists

between automation and rapidity of test

results (tables 7a and 7b). There is also a

significant correlation between courts that

get rapid results and those that are characterized by two other factors: those that
Detailed Survey Results by Assessment Area

53

maintain data on rewards and sanctions,

and those that have good management

reporting capabilities.

However, the results of the data on the

time it takes to get test results also show

that some other factor must be at work,

because some of the less automated courts

also have rapid test reporting.32 A likely

explanation is that those courts that put a

high value on the importance of information in the drug court environment are the

Table 7b. 

Drug Court Description by Efficiency of Drug Test Results to Judge

— Drug Test Result Efficiency —

Minutes One day two+ days Total

n = 48 n = 60 n = 139 n = 247*

% % %%

Automation level

Judicial supervision is automated

None 44.0 30.0 43.5 40.2

Partial 29.0 56.7 36.2 38.4

Complete 27.0 13.3 20.3 21.4

χ2 = 13.02, p = .011 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Overall program evaluation is automated

None 34.7 16.4 39.7 31.3

Partial 53.5 73.8 45.6 56.5

Complete 11.9 9.8 14.7 12.2

χ2 = 11.68, p = .020 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Laptops available for member travel

Yes 48.5 32.2 28.8 38.5

No 51.5 67.8 71.2 61.5

χ2 = 7.89, p = .019 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

* This table includes data from all of the 247 respondents that provided the test results time.

Note: Totals may not equal 100 due to rounding.

same courts that establish the processes

that will get them the critical data in a

timely fashion. They seem to establish

these processes whether or not their system is automated. This likely acknowledges

that automation alone is not the answer.

Rather, the issue is whether the drug court

places a high value on information. Even

those drug courts that do a good job now

would be able to do it easier and faster with

a good integrated automation system.
55

generally entered into automated systems, and there is not widespread,

appropriately shared access to data

among drug court team members. In

fact, less than a quarter of the courts

surveyed use automation to help

judges interact with their caseload 

of defendants.

2. A strong correlation exists between

automation and the time it takes for

the judge to get failed drug test results.

Because some of the less automated

courts also have rapid test reporting, it

seems that those courts that place a

high value on the importance of information in the drug court environment

are the same courts that establish the

processes that will get them the crucial

data in a timely fashion. The critical

factor is the importance that the drug

court places on the value of information.

3. An overwhelming majority of the drug

courts surveyed expressed their willingness to use every technical assistance

IV. 

Summary of Findings

he detailed review of

the survey results in

section III showed

that many drug court

processes are not automated. Without a

doubt, computers are an integral part of

the drug court environment. Although

computers are widespread, survey results

show that the automated support being

provided to the drug courts by existing

computer systems is inadequate. Therefore, drug courts are hampered in many

ways. First, they cannot take advantage of

productivity gains and success sharing that

computer automation offers. Second, there

is some evidence that courts cannot serve

larger numbers of participants unless they

are more fully automated.

Major Findings

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

1. Although there is widespread access to

personal computers, vital data are not

T
Drug Court Monitoring, Evaluation, and Management Information Systems

56

option offered to acquire the proper

automation, maintain the technology,

and obtain the education necessary to

generate regular productivity reports.

4. A lack of funding was the number one

reason drug courts did not acquire the

additional automation and training/

technical assistance they need to

improve the administration of drug

court justice.

5. In addition to funding barriers, drug

courts also listed difficulty with linking

to other systems as a prime barrier to

automation.

6. Even though most serve large jurisdictions, the majority of drug courts have

100 active participants or fewer. The

largest drug courts, those with 200 or

more participants, are highly automated with good MIS support. This and

other survey results suggest that the

lack of automation is hindering drug

court programs from serving larger numbers of participants and providing the

resultant benefits to their communities.

7. Drug courts clearly specified that they

need technical assistance with all

aspects of automation. These include

help with “getting started” steps such

as developing needs assessments and

technology plans and preparing funding

proposals for stakeholders.

8. Surveyed drug courts overwhelmingly

expressed a desire for additional education and training that deal specifically

with evaluation and management information systems. Targeted workshops

and videotaped training sessions dedicated to monitoring, evaluation, and

MIS development rated highly among

surveyed courts.

9. Difficulty with data entry and sharing

are not a result of drug court indifference to the need to provide regular

evaluation information. Indeed, less

than half of the drug courts surveyed

rated their current systems as good or

very good at providing information for

evaluations. 

10. Less than 15 percent of all surveyed

courts report that they have completed

the automation needed to produce

reports for overall program evaluation.

It is telling that this is about the same

percentage of drug courts that have the

largest number of active participants

(200 or more).

Other Results

1. Access to computers. Although computers are prevalent in drug courts,

most are not located in areas conducive

to regular, effective data entry and sharing. Furthermore, most drug court team

members, particularly pretrial services

personnel and treatment providers who

must keep the judges regularly apprised

of drug court activity and participant

statuses, do not have shared access to

data and data-updating capabilities.

This problem is multifaceted, as is illustrated by one respondent who commented, “These different types of information

are entered by different team members

into their own PCs in whatever format

they choose. There is no connection

between PCs at this time.”

2. Survey result differences. Generally,

there was no statistically significant

difference in survey results of different

types of courts or among courts in existence for different durations. The major

statistically significant difference in

results was among courts serving different jurisdiction sizes. A few of the drug

courts in the largest jurisdictions do

have sophisticated systems that they

rate highly. Surprisingly, sometimes
Summary of Findings

57

courts in the largest jurisdictions fare

the worst in information entry, access,

and sharing. 

3. Recidivism tracking. About 60 percent

of the programs can track recidivism

while offenders are in the program, a

clear measure of program success. Less

than a third of surveyed drug courts

can report on vital defendant recidivism rates postgraduation. 

4. Internal technical personnel. Only

between 30 to 40 percent of drug

courts can rely on their own experienced MIS personnel to guide data

entry, processing, and programming.

5. Access to court-specific software. A

minority of drug court teams have

access to trial court management systems and software programs tailored 

to specific court tasks.

6. Training. A majority of drug courts surveyed indicated that automation training programs for specific software or

technologies are not available. In

instances where training is available, 

it is generally not mandatory. This is 

a particularly telling statistic because

proper training is crucial to the creation,

use, and effective maintenance of an

automated MIS.
59

he results of this survey clearly show that

the automated support being provided to

the drug courts by existing computer systems is inadequate.33 The respondents also

identified several initiatives that, if adopted, would help improve the monitoring,

evaluation, and MIS capabilities of drug

courts. Although the data were collected

in summer 1999, the findings are as important today as when the survey was initially

conducted because they provide the only

empirical evidence of user training and

technical assistance needs.

DCPO and training and technical assistance

providers have continued to develop and

present programs and solutions responsive

to the needs described in this report. However, to some extent, those programs and

solutions reflect the fact that training and

technical assistance project staff have

worked collaboratively throughout the

project with DCPO staff, project partners,

and other technical assistance providers

and experts in the field to address the

requirements of the drug court community.

It would have been surprising if survey

findings and recommended responses to

the findings were contrary to DCPO’s

understanding of the field’s needs and

requirements, because the field was the

same source for determining resource

needs throughout the grant period. This

report provides statistical evidence of the

lack of hardware, software, evaluation, and

MIS expertise among drug court staff and

an agenda for addressing these needs.

Without technology, it is difficult for drug

courts to link the information about their

results with the goals of the court. It is also

difficult to produce the reports and evaluations needed to persuade stakeholders to

allot more funding for technology. This is

obviously a vicious cycle that should be

addressed to ensure continued and

enhanced court success. 

V. 

Recommendations

T
Drug Court Monitoring, Evaluation, and Management Information Systems

60

To break this cycle and to ensure future

information sharing, the drug court field

should consider six broad recommended

initiatives, which are detailed below.

Recommendation 1

Confront the main barriers to drug court

efforts to gather and maintain information through effective automated means.

The top two barriers to further automation

cited by survey respondents were lack of

funding and difficulty linking with other

systems. Some ways of addressing these

barriers are discussed below.

■ Lack of funding. Although identifying

a complete solution to this barrier is

beyond the scope of any one entity,

this major barrier might be mitigated

in part by providing several forms of

assistance identified as useful by drug

courts.

■ One such tool identified in this

study is a model presentation on

drug court costs and benefits. By

taking data from available cost/

benefit analyses conducted throughout the country, and by using modern computer graphics software

such as Microsoft PowerPoint® or

Harvard Graphics, these facts can

be integrated into stakeholder presentations that can help generate

vital funding.

■ Another tool would be to develop an

MIS/evaluation listserv to update

the field on developments as they

occur, to provide a forum for practitioners to discuss issues, and to

pose and answer peers’ questions.

■ An online clearinghouse of frequently asked questions about drug

court MIS and evaluation that

would feature answers by leading

experts in the field would also be

helpful.

■ Difficulty linking with other systems.

Providing training and technical assistance can also be instrumental in helping drug court personnel deal with the

security, privacy, and access issues that

arise when automating a system with

shared information. Subject matter

trainings could be conducted, including

a workshop on linking drug court information systems to court information

systems.

Recommendation 2

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

■ A first workshop should focus on program monitoring and process evaluation and provide illustrations of output

reports from a real MIS to illustrate

what can be accomplished through

awareness and planning.

■ A second workshop should address

using technology to enhance drug court

operations. It should include the application of existing audio, video, data,

and telecommunications products and

tools including testing, monitoring, and

mapping technologies. The aim should

be to improve the ability of the drug

court team to make the highest quality

decisions and to improve the overall

efficiency and effectiveness of drug

courts.

■ A third workshop on linking drug court

information systems to court information systems should explore the barriers to system interface, including the

privacy and security issues inherent in
Recommendations

61

integrated justice information systems.

Subject matter faculty should include

representatives from jurisdictions in

which the court and drug court systems

are already integrated.

Recommendation 3

Provide technical assistance that

addresses areas identified as needing

special attention.

Survey respondents identified the following

areas for training.

■ Information technology strategic planning, including staffing issues.

■ Comparing data being collected with

recommended data elements and functional requirements.

■ Conducting information system design

and development and/or acquisition,

including help preparing RFPs; selecting

consultants, hardware, and software;

and drafting and negotiating contracts

with vendors.

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

■ Making the business case to the funding

agency.

■ Establishing appropriately secure links

to exchange critical information with

other criminal justice agencies and

treatment providers.

■ Developing a drug court evaluation

plan and selecting an evaluator.

Recommendation 4

Respond to the call for a specially 

tailored software package for drug

courts by designing programs that 

help develop intelligent consumers 

of technology.

There should be a multiple approach to

this recommendation.

■ First, there should be more education

about the use of technology, its acquisition, and the proper role of government

in this process. These issues should be

included in the workshops discussed in

recommendation 2. These workshops

should help drug court members

become intelligent consumers of technology by dealing with questions such as

■ What is the role of management

vis-à-vis technology as distinct

from the roles of MIS personnel?

■ What are the appropriate roles of

technology vendors?

■ Why and how do we deal with 

private-sector technology vendors?

■ Second, initiatives should be undertaken that illustrate the steps needed to

develop a system and demonstrate best

practices for MIS systems. These initiatives might include a case study documenting the development and operation

of a drug court MIS.

■ Third, building on this case study and

work done by SEARCH—including 

an assessment report of four public

domain drug court software systems

and an “information audit” report,34

which identify needed information elements for a drug court MIS—an initiative should be undertaken to develop a

set of common requirements for such

software packages and/or a model RFP

that includes the specific requirements

of such a package.
Drug Court Monitoring, Evaluation, and Management Information Systems

62

Recommendation 5

Focus on the role of systems training in

successful automation projects.

Drug courts should explore ways to focus

on the role of systems training in successful automation projects. Because proper

training is so important to the success of

these projects, serious consideration

should be given to various methods of

training. Also, there should be an exploration of the means of encouraging this

training, either by making training mandatory or by rewarding those who have the

training in a timely manner.

Recommendation 6

Develop a research agenda for drug

court best practices.

There is a need to identify the best practices

that have been developed for drug courts in

particular, and courts in general, with regard

to the use of performance measures and

technology and automation components.
63

Appendix 1

Drug Court Needs Assessment of

Evaluation and Management

Information Systems, May 1999 
Drug Court Monitoring, Evaluation, and Management Information Systems

64
Appendix 1

65
Drug Court Monitoring, Evaluation, and Management Information Systems

66
Appendix 1

67
Drug Court Monitoring, Evaluation, and Management Information Systems

68
Appendix 1

69
Drug Court Monitoring, Evaluation, and Management Information Systems

70
71

Appendix 2

Write-In Comments
Drug Court Monitoring, Evaluation, and Management Information Systems

72

Management Information

Question 1. Does your Drug Court use any

computers?35

Survey respondents added these 

explanations:

■ We use Provider Plus and are looking

to convert to new county system.

■ Just for minute orders.

■ We are working on getting data entry

assistance on each of the unidentified

items (rearrest while in the program,

rearrest, drug-free status, and employment status postgraduation).

■ Some by participants and probation.

■ No MIS system but some computers for

word processing and e-mail only. Our

calendaring/docketing mainframe used

for all juvenile cases is used for drug

court cases. We are currently planning

a case management system to be used

in addition to this. We developed an

application in Power Builder for dependency case management and may modify

for drug court.

■ Two systems: probation and treatment.

Question 2. Please indicate the type of

information currently being routinely

entered into your computer system.

(Check all that apply.)

In addition to selecting from the 18 options

included in the survey, respondents added

the following comments:

■ We intend to enter followup information for graduates. We do not have 

graduates at this time. (2)

■ Treatment plans and discharge 

summaries.

■ For rearrest, drug status, and employment status postgraduation, we have

the capacity and are just in the beginning stages of data collection.

■ Probation department enters criminal

history data and tracks the rearrest

after graduation.

■ The provider keeps all records.

■ Incentives and fees are not applicable.

■ Rearrest, drug-free status, employment

after graduation will be applicable, but

not at this time.

■ This information is available, but not

on computer.

■ We have not been established long

enough to have postgraduation 

information.

■ We do not have drug court-specific 

software. We have two computers.

■ We use the Iowa Court Information

System.

■ Demographic information (drug-free

children, number of children, race, date

of birth, ZIP Code).

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

■ Children unification.

■ Drug-free babies.

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

■ Program level changes.

■ Mental health issues.

■ Most of captured information is under

treatment and tracking.

■ Most information is in narrative form

only on probation and social services

systems.

■ Complete database of Social Security

number, date of birth, case number,
Appendix 2

73

judge, case specialist, date of entry,

phase, date of completion/termination.

■ Mental health history.

■ Most information is in narrative form

only.

■ Urine and medical screens; individual,

group, and family sessions; court

appearances per month; and case management sessions.

■ Information is not kept in one system.

Drug testing results, assessment information, fees collected, and arrest information are maintained in separate

systems. Other data elements are

entered into a Microsoft Access database created in-house, which is in use

on case managers’ and the drug court

judges’ desktops as of 5/21/99. We also

collect data on past drug use, education

status, number of dependents, dependent living status, changes in employment status, and changes in education

status.

■ Information to monitor client progress

(some); rearrest or conviction after

graduation (within 3 months).

■ Attendance at status reviews.

■ All outgoing correspondence.

■ General demographics; judge hearing

case; pertinent dates.

■ New system will incorporate almost all

of the above.

■ All information is tracked in a written

chart.

■ Employment status is not updated.

■ The local university does a followup

survey on graduated youth.

■ All postgraduation information: we do

not have the programming necessary to

do this.

■ Drug testing: partial and in aggregate

only; compliance: partial and in aggregate only; status hearing: BR–15 only;

sanctions imposed: BR–15 only; drugfree postgraduation: in process; employment status: in process; demographics;

aggregate outcomes; existing status;

drug-free babies born; family reunification; resumption of child support; referral information.

■ These different types of information are

entered by different team members into

their own PCs in whatever format they

choose. There is no connection

between PCs at this time.

■ We do not have software yet, although

we have computers. We do not have a

program. All checked information is a

part of the weekly . . . . 

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

database.

■ We track jail time only on sanctions

imposed, and meetings with counselors

and probation officers are also tracked.

Question 3. Please rate your drug court’s

ability to automatically produce management reports in order to provide information for the following purposes. (Check the

appropriate response.)

Respondents provided the following additional comments:

■ All paper reports.

■ Cost and benefit analyses are not done.

■ All information on paper.

■ We share the ability to track criminal

history with the rest of the court.

There is no MIS for the drug program

individually.

■ No automated system.
Drug Court Monitoring, Evaluation, and Management Information Systems

74

■ We cannot automatically produce any

management reports.

■ Our ability to produce management

reports is poor due to the fact that all

information is not included in one system, nor do the various information

systems communicate with each other

at this time.

■ Individual casework is done by hand or

verbally, as are maintaining statistics

on target populations.

■ System does not have capacity to generate automated reports. However, system collects all necessary data and

easily translates into aggregate statistical analysis.

■ These are rated very poor since we do

not have a lot of data in the system.

Also, we are still working with the vendor to get some useful reports from the

system.

Question 4. Is the computer database that

supports the drug court a separate system

or is it part of a larger court or county 

system? (Check one.)

Respondents added these comments:

■ Separate, but equal to the county

system.

■ Integrated, but a separate track.

■ Computer system not used.

■ We have two databases: one for the

clinic (separate) and one for the court

(integrated). There is data on both.

■ We are using Drug Court PC+ and have

much data entered but are having technical difficulties with statistics outputs.

This is being addressed.

■ Treatment provider has some information on separate systems.

■ Access 2.0.

■ We are using three systems and they are

both separate and integrated.

■ Currently working on a software 

program specifically designed for 

this project.

■ No database is available. There is currently a proposal to implement a drug

court database. That has not been done

yet.

■ Kentucky has been granted an MIS

grant and will soon be upgrading and

integrating systems.

■ Treatment (Department of Public

Health), the court, police department,

and probation have different systems.

DPH—billing system; treatment—small

database on treatment history; criminal

justice agencies—use court management

system for bench warrant, arrest, etc.

■ We are currently working on a software

program specifically designed for this

project and separate from our larger

system.

■ Our current Drug Court Information

System was created in-house and lacks

depth. We are currently in a holding

pattern; the Louisiana State Supreme

Court, along with the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals Office of

Alcohol and Drug Abuse, is in the

process of implementing a statewide

drug court information system using the

Baltimore/Washington HIDTA software

package.

■ We also use a statewide database.

■ Will be a separate server/database that

links to and receives downloaded information from other systems.

■ No database. Separate system does our

reports on MIS and the integrated

system is ICON MIS which is statewide

in Colorado.
Appendix 2

75

■ Separate, but working on integration.

■ Utilize more than one.

■ Local information is sent to the State

office. The State office can pull any

information on local program from 

their database.

■ All databases are separate now.

■ Both really. We have a client/service

database; an aggregate supplemental

database in process of partial integration with county system; an assessment/followup database in development

and a screening/monitoring database

separate from the court and database.

The district attorney’s office has its 

own database as well. Program cost 

and budget information separate.

■ Clerk of circuit court is integrated.

■ It is many different little databases, not

yet one main drug court database.

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

Automation

Question 1. Please indicate the extent to

which each function is supported by

automation.

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

■ We are working on screening and

assessment.

■ Postprogram recidivism is not

applicable.

■ When PC+ is working correctly, we’ll

be able to do these items (screening,

assessment, treatment case 

management).

■ Court case management is done on a

separate program. (2)

■ Overall program evaluation and postprogram recidivism are on separate 

systems.

■ The indicated items are supported

through automation, but all items are

not maintained in one central database.

This makes querying data possible but

time consuming.

■ New system will incorporate almost all.

■ Court case management is on the general court system.

■ Information is entered in an “after the

fact” manner. The system is not used to

assist team members or the judge in

their daily duties. The system is merely

storing the information so that it can be

used for evaluation purposes.

Question 2. Do the members of the drug

court team have access to computers?

(Check all that apply.)

Survey respondents provided additional

comments on computer coverage, including:

■ Laptop used in courtroom by drug

court officer.

■ Only the judge and court coordinator.

■ Drug court team does not have access

to the database system. They have

access to the LAN and other court

information systems, but not the drug

court system.

■ One laptop is available.

■ Probation and coordinator have access.

We hope to expand to treatment

providers next year with the enhancement grant.

■ Each member is on their own system.

We must copy and fax information from

one to the other.
Drug Court Monitoring, Evaluation, and Management Information Systems

76

■ Bail commissioner and judge have

laptops. State’s attorney and public

defender have desktops. Social worker

may also have a desktop. Service

providers handwrite reports, but could

do better to e-mail them. They would

be legible and timely, if they did so.

■ Court staff and clinic staff have access

to computers.

■ The drug court has its own LAN.

■ In the drug court office.

■ We only have two members.

■ Only the drug court specialist has a

computer that is set up for the drug

court use.

■ We currently operate through JOLTS

(Juvenile Online Tracking System). It’s

a statewide computer system.

■ AODS program is in central areas and

the courtroom computers are for court

system contacts.

■ Clerical computers are in the central

area and probation officers have 

desktops.

■ Probation and the judge have desktops.

■ Case management access is already

existing with department case tracking

systems (probation/social service).

Judges (felony/misdemeanor) have 

no computer access. PCs on order.

■ Limited availability.

■ Only when contacting me or a probation staff.

■ Judge and coordinator only have

laptops.

■ Most members have access to 

computers.

■ There is a larger system probation officers use (on their desks); a system the

courtroom clerks use (in the courtroom); and a system the judge uses (in

his chambers). All are independent,

nonintegrated.

■ Team members have computers in their

offices (Tribal Court and Public Safety

Department).

■ Each case manager has a desktop PC

connected to our recently installed network (4/1/99). However, not all judges

have PCs attached to the network at

their immediate disposal. Case managers are located in a satellite office. A

central shared area within the courthouse for them to be able to log on and

retrieve data would be helpful.

■ Probation has desktops.

■ At the drug court office, which is located a block from the courthouse, we

have computers. The treatment coordinator, however, has his system linked to

this one. There is a separate computer

system used by prosecutors, public

defenders, etc., which shows arrest

records and court information.

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

■ Agency specific systems, not shared.

■ Working toward putting computers in

the classrooms.

■ Will Beta test a new MIS in June. Team

will have access in offices and courtroom, through PCs and laptops.

■ Some team members have computers

on their desks. The computers in the

courtrooms are for clerks only and only

for general family court calendaring

system.

■ Also, remote access.

■ Currently, only the resource coordinator has a computer. The court will be
Appendix 2

77

receiving new computers by fall 1999.

A total of 10 computers to be used by

the judge, courtroom staff, and case

managers.

■ Drug court coordinator’s staff uses a

separate MIS. Reports now court staff

and probation use a Colorado State 

system—ICON.

■ But do not have access to database.

■ Central computers are for probation for

record checks of clients and secretary

has computer. One laptop is shared for

screening and assessment.

■ Some do, some don’t.

■ The computers are not linked with

treatment providers, DA, and judge.

■ Separate databases. We are seeking

funding to link treatment to the court.

■ Some have access to computers. Some

on their desks; judges in the courtrooms, and a few laptops.

■ Computers are being installed in the

courtrooms.

■ On desks, but no programs.

Question 3. Do you have a communications network that allows team members to

communicate or share information via

computer? If yes, who is linked?

In addition to explaining which drug court

members were linked, survey participants

noted:

■ This is the main problem with our system. The MIS software provided by

American University is designed for

networks and we are unable to network

at this time.

■ Only the treatment providers who are

in-house.

■ Drug court members cannot communicate via computer.

■ Substance abuse administrator is also

linked. We are all on the county e-mail

system.

■ Judicial branch, employees in MIS, and

alternative sanctions are also linked.

■ We are linked by a county e-mail 

system.

■ We will have a new system in the fall

and all will be linked.

■ Case managers and court-appointed

special advocates are also linked.

■ Multijurisdictional judges and coordinators are linked.

■ Mental health specialist is also linked.

■ Yes, through JOLTS.

■ Limited to these areas only (treatment provider, pretrial services, and

probation).

■ Treatment providers are only linked to

each other.

■ Data entry person is also linked.

■ Perinatal, mental health, CPS, social

services are also linked.

■ Court management system can be

accessed by the drug court team.

Access database is not on the network.

This needs development.

■ Not as of yet.

■ Director of alcohol and drug program is

also linked.

■ Administrative Office of the Courts,

Courtnet, Sustain are also linked.

■ Use various systems for various reasons

with various access abilities.

■ Jail is also linked.

■ Connected to access drug test results

and criminal information only.
Drug Court Monitoring, Evaluation, and Management Information Systems

78

■ Treatment liaison person. Communicate through e-mail.

■ One is ordered and the following people

will be linked (judge, court coordinator,

treatment provider, prosecutor, public

defender).

■ Department of Social Services and

County Council are also linked.

■ Case managers are also linked. (3)

■ Communication via the computer network is nonexistent. Our system lacks

Internet access and e-mail which

would enable increased efficiency 

and timeliness.

■ Planned linkage (calendar year 2000).

■ Program evaluator is also linked.

■ Court administrator and clerks are

linked. (2)

■ Court coordinator, counselors, and

coordinators are connected to Douglas

County District computer system.

■ Substance abuse evaluators and State

administrative offices are also linked.

■ New system will link court administration, district attorney, PD, treatment,

detention, and clerk’s office.

■ Some e-mail is available.

■ Treatment providers are work in

progress; onsite case managers, health

services providers, and drug testing

laboratory are also linked.

■ Not yet. However, we plan to have the

network system up and running by fall

1999.

■ Department of Alcohol and Drug Services, mental health, jail, and Department of Corrections are also linked.

■ TASC.

■ Information shared through e-mail.

Other members do not have access to

database. Public defender is networked

through secretary.

■ Case managers, assessors, and related

court staff are also linked.

■ Remote printing is also linked.

■ E-mail only between systems; process

evaluator/committee coordinator and

project administrator are also linked.

■ The only linked computer system is the

clerk of the circuit court’s system that

can be viewed by the judge, PD, State’s

attorney, etc., but they cannot enter

information.

■ Just started putting system together.

Three of the team are now connected.

Research planner and assessment 

specialist/case manager are also linked.

■ Drug testing center is also linked.

■ Judge and court coordinator are currently linked. Treatment provider, probation, and prosecutor are currently

linked. Soon, all of the above will be

linked (3 months).

■ Circuit is networked except juvenile.

Hope to have juvenile online by 1/00.

■ The network is expected to become

operational in September 1999.

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

In addition to selecting from 10 software/

task options, including task-relevant software, survey participants noted:

■ We do not have a direct link to other

justice system databases. Assessment

software used by case management.

■ Database management and spreadsheet,

if necessary. Do have PC and drug court

software.
Appendix 2

79

■ E-mail is available within the courthouse only.

■ Drug court data access.

■ Drug court PC+ NT Server and database. 

■ Links to other justice system databases

are currently under development.

■ Probation and district attorney only

have links to other justice system

databases, and the treatment providers

are the only ones with task-relevant

software.

■ Links to other justice system databases

are only in the in-court system.

■ Links to other justice system databases

through the Tiburon system.

■ E-mail is limited to the office. We have

links to other justice system databases

for arrest records only. Not all of us

have these functions.

■ Working on software specific to drug

court.

■ Mainframe case management system.

■ NCIC system is also available.

■ Task-relevant software relates to

screening and assessment only.

■ Personal calendar (some); e-mail (some);

spreadsheet (coordinator); links to

other justice system databases (coordinator and probation); main trial court

case management system (coordinator).

■ Some word processing capabilities.

■ Case management is done manually

typed and filed in the juvenile individual case record.

■ Probation has older computers using

two and three systems to enter and

receive data.

■ Statistical analysis software (SPSS).

■ We will have e-mail soon. Our links to

other justice system databases are on a

whole other computer system. We do

have task-relevant software for drug

court personnel. Prosecutors, public

defenders, and other court personnel

have access to the main trial court case

management system, as do our drug

court screens.

■ Only the program director has spreadsheet capabilities.

■ Spreadsheet, not yet.

■ All except treatment providers are

county employees and as such have

access to capabilities checked.

■ Some staff have word processing capabilities and some access to family court

system, but not to any criminal justice

links.

■ Paradox is the database management

system used and Quattro Pro is our

spreadsheet program.

■ Some have only internal e-mail and the

judges only have Internet access.

■ Can access DOC records, all district

courts information.

■ Only the district attorney has access to

other justice database links and taskrelevant software.

■ E-mail is internal only.

■ Personal calendar and database management are partial.

Question 5. Do drug court team members

have access to formal, court-supported

technology training programs for the following? If so, is the training mandatory?

(Check all that apply.)

In addition to indicating that training programs are not generally available, survey

participants also noted:
Drug Court Monitoring, Evaluation, and Management Information Systems

80

■ Computer training for employees is not

available, although computer training

for the statewide drug court system,

when implemented, will be.

■ Will have training for a new MIS.

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

■ Preparing to make operational; still in

initial connection phase.

Question 6. Does your drug court have any

employees whose primary responsibilities

include data processing, computer maintenance, programming, etc.?

Write-in responses to provide detail on

court MIS personnel included:

■ Don’t know.

■ Yes, for data processing.

■ Staff borrows from data processing

personnel of team members.

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

■ Employees are not dedicated to the

drug court, but are available.

■ Yes, through 6/30/99, plus volunteer

help.

■ Data processing only.

■ County is too small.

■ Data entry, mainly.

■ Each office has its own employees.

■ Support from Main Queen’s Supreme

Court Office.

■ Student interns.

■ Beginning 7/1/99, we will have .5 FTE

dedicated to our system.

■ Employees are in the treatment agency.

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

Question 7. What are the main barriers 

to further automating your drug court?

(Check all that apply.)

In addition to ranking lack of funding and

networking difficulty at the top of their

barriers list (from a list of eight barriers),

drug court survey respondents noted

specifically:

■ We need to expand our data entry capabilities to gather more data related to

evaluation and achievement of our drug

court goals.

■ Database program development that

meets our unique needs.

■ Funding in place; enhancements being

implemented currently.

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

■ Lack of equipment (computers, laptops,

etc.).

■ Developing a good drug court software

program for juveniles that can work on

a PC or LAN.

■ Programmers are not available because

they are so busy with other projects.

■ Getting a truly useful program. My

understanding is that what is available

is too cumbersome and more trouble

than helpful.

■ Family court database and drug court

databases are not compatible.

■ We need software that is drug court

specific.

■ Need for integrated criminal history

information access and continued

access to current addresses for participants after leaving drug court.
Appendix 2

81

■ No programmer to set up such a system.

■ Staff person recently hired (received

grant) but needs to be trained.

■ Numerous data collection instruments

and variety of database programs.

■ Some information is restricted by

statute, i.e. criminal history information, certain case related information,

certain treatment information is protected by privacy concerns.

■ Small population.

■ Need computer training.

■ Our drug court team consists of several

separate agencies/groups. “Court” personnel (judge, state attorney, public

defender, and pretrial) are on same system. Drug treatment is provided by a

private group and case management is

provided by the Florida Department of

Corrections. Most answers pertain to

the “Court.”

■ The 16th Circuit has implemented a

robust system. Software designed by

HIDTA-Baltimore called HALTS. It is

questionable how critical this technology is to our rural circuit or to our specific efforts of having in-house lab and

in-house treatment. Department of Justice has put the horse behind the cart!

Technical assistance should have been

the focus prior to awarding grants for

MIS implementation.

■ No PCs.

■ Suggest that DCPO/American University develop a software package specific

to drug courts to include data needs for

required reports, status changes regarding treatment, urinalysis, sanctions,

employment, education, etc., and the

capability to refine software to meet

jurisdictional needs.

■ We are awaiting our Supreme Court

finalizing a statewide drug court MIS.

■ Combination of expertise, collaboration, and funding.

■ Availability of staff time.

■ Need network.

■ Building wiring does not currently allow

intranet communication between drug

court team members.

■ Lack of technical assistance particular

to the development of MIS for a juvenile drug court.

■ Not up and running yet.

■ A specific software program should be

developed to keep data which the

DCPO and American University

requires in their reports.

■ Grant availability; funds available 6/99.

■ Time/resources.

■ Philadelphia Treatment Court Automation Process has been combined effort

with the Focis Network of the courts, a

CSAT-funded program. Automation and

training is anticipated to be finalized by

August 1999.

■ Adequate system identified to use in

drug court.

■ Time. We are currently doing system

evaluation. (2)

■ Inability to develop database that is

thorough, yet user friendly.

■ Lack of equipment.

■ State system does not have drug court

specific capabilities.

■ Making software statewide compatible.

■ None required.
Drug Court Monitoring, Evaluation, and Management Information Systems

82

■ Our presiding judge doesn’t support it,

but he’s gone in 6 months.

■ Beta test—June. Online and finalized

by September.

■ Database/MIS system in development

currently (specific for family court/drug

court).

■ Grant money was just released and we

are awaiting a larger courtroom to

accommodate all the computers.

■ We are not linked to a network and we

do not have a program for client charts.

■ Politics—having to rely on JIC (Court

Computer Shop) and DHSS (social

service agency) to assist with design

and integration.

■ Program development and costs.

■ Lack of funding for personnel to operate

and set up a system.

■ We have not purchased any hardware

or software yet due to no Federal funds

being sent.

■ Appropriate software.

■ Time and staff.

■ Physical space; juvenile officer being

moved into new building. Makes running lines “iffy”.

■ No software.

■ Personnel to enter data.

Technical Assistance

When asked to rate the usefulness of the

following technical assistance activities,

survey respondents entered these additional comments.

Question 1. Assistance in doing a comparison of the information elements being 

collected in your drug court with a set of

recommended information elements and

functional requirements.

■ Not sure what this means.

■ Currently using GAO/AU dataset.

Question 2. Assistance in conducting a

management information system needs

assessment that includes documenting

existing procedures, determining functional

requirements, and developing recommended solutions.

■ No comments.

Question 3. Assistance and advice on

developing a strategic information technology plan for the drug court that includes an

assessment of the staff’s technical capabilities and a plan for acquiring the technical

skill sets that are currently not available

in-house.

■ No comments.

Question 4. Assistance in defining the

scope of work to implement the technology

plan.

■ No comments.

Question 5. Develop and maintain a model

PowerPoint® presentation on drug court

costs and benefits for presentations to city

or county councils, State legislators, or

community groups.

■ No comments.

Question 6. Assistance and advice on

establishing appropriately secure links to

exchange critical information with other

criminal justice agencies and treatment

providers.

■ Hotly debated local issue.

Question 7. Assistance and advice on

selection of vendors and products, including help preparing requests for proposals;

selecting consultants, hardware, and
Appendix 2

83

software; and drafting and negotiating contracts with vendors.

■ Too late.

Question 8. Assistance in developing a

drug court evaluation plan and identifying

an evaluator.

■ Too late.

■ Already have one.

Question 9. Additional assistance. (Please

specify.)

■ We are trying to help people not just

function.

■ Money to provide ongoing services for

troubleshooting and training.

■ We need software and we need our

computers connected.

■ What day will you arrive???

■ Evaluating current automation system

to maintain state-of-the-art capability.

■ Developing a tracking program for

recidivism.

■ I wish this tech support was available

previous to our implementation that

was required to be in compliance with

an MIS system through our Federal

drug court enhancement grant.

■ We are awaiting a grant request to do

all of this.

■ Funding for model system would be

beneficial.

■ Ability to track participant performance

week-to-week throughout their time in

program to see if there are patterns to

when relapse and frequency of sanctions occur so that we know when additional resources are needed.

■ Assistance in evaluating current system

with recommendations for any needed

changes.

■ Would like more discussion on the

DCPO required data elements as a minimum dataset for drug courts.

■ OCA is putting together a technical

support team from Albany, with core

support from each drug court office.

■ Funding.

■ Development of freeware which can be

adopted to local needs.

■ What program to use for evaluations.

■ How to coordinate data collection/data

entry/summary so as to avoid duplication of efforts and to serve multiple

purposes.

■ Obtaining the software.

■ Develop PC-based drug court MIS software in the public domain that meets

national drug court MIS standards and

is updated as standards are revised.

Education and Training

When asked to rate the usefulness of the

following educational and training options,

survey respondents entered these additional comments.

Question 1. Incorporate a dedicated 

information management component in

future Drug Court Program Office (DCPO)-

sponsored workshops on planning and

implementation.

■ Family court’s needs are entirely 

different from criminal.

Question 2. Develop a series of special

DCPO workshops that focus on drug court

monitoring, evaluation, and management

information system development.

■ Too late.
Drug Court Monitoring, Evaluation, and Management Information Systems

84

Question 3. Conduct videoconferences or

State or regional conferences targeted to

specific monitoring, evaluation, and management information system needs.

■ No comments.

Question 4. Conduct orientation on specific software programs and their application

to drug court management information

system needs.

■ If we had the money to buy the software.

■ Too late.

Question 5. Develop and maintain a database of drug court requests for proposals

and contracts used for technology projects.

■ No comments.

Question 6. Develop and maintain a list of

“Frequently Asked Questions About drug

court Management Information Systems”

with answers by leading experts in the

field.

■ No comments.

Question 7. Develop an Internet “Listserver,” which will automatically send copies of

e-mail notes on drug court issues and

concerns to subscribers within the drug

court community.

■ No comments.

Question 8. Identify, describe, and disseminate information about well-functioning

drug court management information

systems.

■ Too late.

Question 9. Additional assistance. (Please

specify.)

■ Training for team members on sharing

data, security information, evaluation

outcomes, etc.

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

■ Software programs in Visual Basics;

willing to work for government rates to

make generic MIS systems specific to

individual drug courts.

■ Project does not have Internet access,

however, project coordinator would use

personal ISP.

■ We do not currently have Internet

access.

■ We have a lot of other areas that need

work first.

■ Better define minimum datasets. DCPO

data survey was difficult and some of

the data they wanted was not useful or

not available in the format requested.

■ We have requested additional assistance

(someone to come to our location) several times. No one has ever responded.

■ We need a national minimum dataset

for all drug courts.

Background

Question 1. Categories of persons eligible

to participate in the drug court program.

(Check all that apply.)

■ We may be adding a juvenile 

component. (2)

■ Our family court is combined with our

juvenile court.

Question 2. Please specify your primary

“target population.”

■ No comments.

Question 3. How many months has it been

since the drug court accepted its first

client?

■ No comments.

Question 4. Please check the appropriate

population of the jurisdiction served by

the drug court.
Appendix 2

85

■ No comments.

Question 5. Number of persons who are

currently active participants in the drug

court program.

■ No comments.

Question 6. Our treatment provider is 

(In-house or contractual). If contractual,

number of providers (are):

■ In-house is with the county.

■ We do not have a specific contract.

■ County AOD and private providers.

■ Includes one halfway house.

■ Referred out to no specific provider, but

there are two that are most commonly

used.

■ State Alcohol and Drug Abuse Officer is

treatment provider.

■ Seven residential providers and five

outpatient providers.

■ Noncontractual referral network.

■ Onsite case management staff use

approximately 130 community-based

treatment providers (not contractual).

■ Outside, noncontractual.

■ Too many to list.

■ Residential and some outpatient.

■ Multiple providers; contracted with

ADM office.

■ County health care agency for 

outpatient.

Question 7. Within what amount of time

does the drug court judge usually receive

negative drug test information? (Check

one.)

■ Future plan will provide information in

24–48 hours.

■ Probation and counselors receive the

results within 1 day.

■ Weekly court reviews.

■ Probation receives this information

within approximately 3 days.

■ This is very problematic.

■ Same day, if judge requests it.

■ Clients come back every 2–4 weeks and

we can get results back within minutes

if we use the rapid test.

■ Minutes if done in court and 2 days if

done by the provider.

■ Drug court judge receives immediate

notice on all positive drug screens.

■ Same day for onsite testing and 2–8

days for testing at treatment programs.

■ Onsite laboratory.

■ On court dates, however, if a defendant

absconds from program, information

within 1 day.

■ Agencies volunteer their services.

■ Usually at next status conference, but

available on demand.

■ In court, within minutes and 4 or more

days in treatment facility.

■ A month.

■ Court is held weekly. Test results are

available the same day, but the client

may not appear in court until several

days after submitting sample.

General Comments,

Suggestions, and Remarks

Survey respondents were given the opportunity to provide additional comments,

suggestions, and remarks on the final page

of the survey. These are as follows:
Drug Court Monitoring, Evaluation, and Management Information Systems

86

■ Our drug court is 1 year old. The current staff consists of one service coordinator who is also the administrative

drug testing person and does any other

tasks needed.

■ We use the access program. We are

standardizing nomenclature throughout

the State to better report progress and

developmental opportunities.

■ The San Diego Drug Superior Court is

in the process of developing an evaluation system in collaboration with San

Diego State University and alcohol and

drug services.

■ The entire juvenile court has a new MIS

system (JEMS–Juvenile Enterprise Management System). But as that is just

being rolled out, its availability and

applicability vary widely.

■ This response reflects the fact that we

are less than 8 months in the development and implementation of our juvenile drug court. More importantly we

are attempting to develop our own

management information system. We

are presently attempting to acquire

technical assistance to assist us.

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

■ I did not receive a request to complete

this survey, so my colleague from the

Sixth Municipal District gave me a copy

of hers.

■ As of this time, each case in our drug

court is processed manually. We would

appreciate any suggestions or recommendations that you may have in

regards to software packages, etc.

■ We just want a good MIS so we can

spend as little time as possible on

reports and as much time as we can on

treatment of our clients. We have no

desire to become entangled in numbers

and paperwork.

■ We are creating automated reports and

should be operational by 8/1/99.

■ We are close to implementing a comprehensive, integrated system for drug

court. I attempted to respond with 

pre- and postsystem answers.

■ CCI is currently developing a specialized family treatment court MIS system

for this project.

■ Most of my responses are based on

expected capabilities of our drug court

information system (DCIS) which is

still under construction and targeted 

for implementation by the end of this

summer.

■ We are in the process of converting to a

new computer system. Currently, we

keep information in at least four separate databases: criminal records, evaluation information, information on participants, and urinalysis records. The goal

is to integrate all these databases into

one system accessible to all.

■ Most of the automated information

about drug courts is kept at the State

office. They have the ability to collect

information from their computer about

each drug/treatment court.
87

Notes

1. U.S. Department of Justice, Drug

Courts Program Office, Looking at a

Decade of Drug Courts, and updates,

1999 and 2000 (Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Justice, Drug Courts

Program Office, June 1998), p. 2. This

report was prepared by the Office of

Justice Programs’ Drug Court Clearinghouse and Technical Assistance Project

at American University. Hereafter, A

Decade of Drug Courts report. Available at www.ojp.usdoj.gov/dcpo/

decade98.htm and http://gurukul.ucc.

american.edu/justice/publications/

decade1.htm. See also Drug Court

Activity Update: Summary Information

on All Programs and Detailed Information on Adult Drug Courts, June 20,

2001, available at http://gurukul.ucc.

american.edu/justice/publications/ 

allcourtactivity.pdf.

2. Of the 340 drug courts that were operational as of mid-1999, 257 responded to

the survey, for a response rate of 75.59

percent.

3. Interview with the Honorable Jo Ann 

Ferdinand, Brooklyn Treatment Court,

Brooklyn, New York, February 16, 1999.

The court has more than 550 active participants. See also John Feinblatt and

Greg Berman, Informed Decisions: 

Technology in the Courtroom (New York,

NY: Center for Court Innovation, 1999).

Available at www.courtinnovation.org/

pdf/info_deci.pdf.

4. John S. Goldkamp, “Miami’s Treatment

Drug Court for Felony Defendants:

Some Implications of Assessment 

Findings,” Prison Journal 74 (2):

110–57, 1994.

5. Adele Harrell, Drug Courts and the Role

of Graduated Sanctions, Research Preview series (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute

of Justice, August 1998). Available at

http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles/fs000219.

pdf.

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

7. Ibid.
Drug Court Monitoring, Evaluation, and Management Information Systems

88

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

9, 2000.

9. Barry Mahoney, Drug Court Monitoring, Evaluation, and Management

Information Systems (Washington, DC:

U.S. Department of Justice, Drug Court 

Programs Office, May 1998), p. 1. 

Hereafter, Mahoney. Available at

www.ojp.usdoj.gov/dcpo/monitor/ 

welcome.html.

10. Ibid.

11. U.S. General Accounting Office, Drug

Courts: Overview of Growth, Characteristics, and Results, GAO/GGD–97–

106 (Washington, DC: U.S. General

Accounting Office, July 1997), p. 69.

Hereafter, GAO report. Available at

www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles/dcourts.pdf.

12. Ibid., pp. 90–91.

13. Ibid., p. 87.

14. Ibid., p. 86.

15. Drug Court Training and Technical

Assistance Program, Fiscal Year 1998

(Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Justice, Drug Courts Program Office,

1998), pp. 27–29. Available at

www.ojp.usdoj.gov/dcpo/drugctta.htm.

16. SEARCH, The National Consortium for

Justice Information and Statistics, commissioned Cashman & Associates, Inc.,

to conduct the survey. Other organizations that worked in partnership with

SEARCH to conduct this study were

The Justice Management Institute and

the Center for Court Innovation. Also

involved through their advice and cooperation were the Drug Court Clearinghouse and Technical Assistance Project

at American University and the National Association of Drug Court Professionals. A copy of the survey, which was

sent to the 340 drug courts operational

in mid-1999, is included as appendix 1.

17. This report on drug courts has implications for the handling of many other

types of cases, especially those that

require critical data to be available 

during courtroom operations.

18. These reports were prepared by

SEARCH and are pending publication 

by DCPO. Robert Gibson and Owen M.

Greenspan, “Public Domain Drug Court

Software: Functions and Utility,” and

Owen M. Greenspan, “Supporting the

Drug Court Process: What You Need To

Know for Effective Decisionmaking and

Program Evaluation.”

19. Mahoney, supra note 9, pp. 10–12.

20. The survey is included in appendix 1.

21. Chi-square is a statistical test frequently

used to determine if there is an association or correlation between several different variables. The significance level

indicates the level of confidence that

the results did not occur by chance 

and that there really is an association

between the variables.

22. Due to missing data from several 

courts regarding population size, the

total number of courts reported in the

tables is 248.

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

24. Ibid., pp. 12–13.

25. See appendix 2.

26. SEARCH Group, Inc., Report of the

National Task Force on Court Automation and Integration, NCJ 177601

(Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance,

June 1999). Available to download 

at www.search.org/publications/

integrated-justice.asp.
Notes

89

27. David J. Roberts, Integration in the

Context of Justice Information Systems: A Common Understanding

(Sacramento: SEARCH Group, Inc.,

April 2000). Available at www.search.

org/integration/pdf/integration%20 

definition.pdf.

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

29. National Center for State Courts, 

Trial Court Performance Standards 

and Measurement System, NCJ 161569

(Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice

Assistance, U.S. Department of Justice,

July 1997), p. 13. Available at

www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/ 161569.pdf.

See also Comprehensive Public Information Programs Subcommittee, Holding Courts Accountable: Counting

What Counts (Williamsburg, VA: National Association for Court Management,

Spring 1999).

30. Lawrence P. Webster with Stephen 

A. Bouch, et al., Planning, Acquiring, 

and Implementing Court Automation

(Williamsburg, VA: National Center for

State Courts, 1993), p. 82.

31. Mahoney, supra note 9, pp. 21–22.

32. These courts place the kind of value

that we would like to see courts generally place on this type of critical

information.

33. This report on drug courts has implications for handling many other types of

cases, especially those that require critical data to be available during courtroom operations.

34. These reports were prepared by

SEARCH and are pending publication 

by DCPO. Robert Gibson and Owen M.

Greenspan, “Public Domain Drug Court

Software: Functions and Utility,” and

Owen M. Greenspan, “Supporting the 

Drug Court Process: What You Need To

Know for Effective Decisionmaking and

Program Evaluation.”

35. Editor’s note: These write-in comments

are presented as received, and were not

edited for content or style.
Bureau of Justice Assistance

Information

For more indepth information about BJA, its programs, and its funding opportunities, requesters can call

the BJA Clearinghouse. The BJA Clearinghouse, a component of the National Criminal Justice Reference

Service (NCJRS), shares BJA program information with state and local agencies and community groups

across the country. Information specialists are available to provide reference and referral services, publication

distribution, participation and support for conferences, and other networking and outreach activities. The

clearinghouse can be reached by:

❒ Mail

P.O. Box 6000

Rockville, MD 20849–6000

❒ Visit

2277 Research Boulevard

Rockville, MD 20850

❒ Telephone

1–800–688–4252

Monday through Friday

8:30 a.m. to 7 p.m.

eastern time

❒ Fax

301–519–5212

❒ BJA Home Page

www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA

❒ NCJRS Home Page

www.ncjrs.org

❒ E-mail

askncjrs@ncjrs.org

❒ JUSTINFO Newsletter

E-mail to listproc@ncjrs.org

Leave the subject line blank

In the body of the message,

type:

subscribe justinfo 

[your name]