drug court monitoring, evaluation, and management

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Bureau of Justice Assistance

MONOGRAPH

Drug Court Monitoring,Evaluation, and ManagementInformation Systems: NationalScope Needs Assessment

F E B R U A R Y 2 0 0 3

SEARCH, The NationalConsortium for JusticeInformation and Statistics

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

U.S. Department of JusticeOffice of Justice Programs

810 Seventh Street NW.Washington, DC 20531

John AshcroftAttorney General

Deborah J. DanielsAssistant Attorney General

Richard R. NedelkoffDirector, Bureau of Justice Assistance

Office of Justice ProgramsHome Page

www.ojp.usdoj.gov

Bureau of Justice AssistanceHome Page

www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA

The Bureau of Justice Assistance is a component of the Office of Justice Programs, which alsoincludes the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the National Institute of Justice, the Office of JuvenileJustice and Delinquency Prevention, and the Office for Victims of Crime.

NCJ 195077

i

Notice

n November 2002,the Bureau of JusticeAssistance (BJA)assumed responsibility

for administering the Drug Court GrantProgram and the Drug Court Training andTechnical Assistance Program. For furtherinformation, please contact BJA.

Bureau of Justice Assistance810 Seventh Street NW.Washington, DC 20531Telephone: (202) 616–5001Fax: (202) 514–6452E-mail: [email protected]

I

ii

Acknowledgments

his report was pre-pared by SEARCH,The National Consor-tium for Justice Infor-

mation and Statistics, Gerald E. Wethington,Chair, and Gary R. Cooper, Executive Direc-tor. The project director was Francis L.Bremson, Courts Program Director. Thereport was written by Victoria S. Cashman,Cashman & Associates, Inc. Twyla R. Cun-ningham, Manager, and Juliet S. Farmer,Writer/Researcher, Corporate Communica-tions, edited this report. The Federal projectmonitor was Jill Beres, Policy Specialist,Drug Courts Program Office (DCPO), U.S.Department of Justice.

In the preparation of the study design andquestionnaire, a number of individuals inparticular contributed their time and tal-ents to ensure the success of this project,and were all invaluable to the productionof this report, including Marilyn Robertsand Jennifer Columbel, DCPO; DavidRoberts, Francis Bremson, and OwenGreenspan, SEARCH; Dr. Barry Mahoney,Richard Hoffman, and Karen Booth, TheJustice Management Institute; CarolineCooper, American University; and Eric Lee,Center for Court Innovation.

Many drug court practitioners contributedtheir time and effort to make this study

possible. We are indebted to the many drugcourt judges and court coordinators whoresponded to the survey. We are especiallygrateful to the following drug court judgesand their teams who participated in thepilot test phase of this survey: Hon. RussellCanan, Washington, D.C.; Hon. Rudy Diaz,El Monte, California; Hon. Bonnie Duman-is, San Diego, California; Hon. MichaelKavanaugh, Albuquerque, New Mexico;Hon. Stephen Marcus, Los Angeles, Califor-nia; Hon. Leslie Miller, Tucson, Arizona;Hon. Robert Russell, Buffalo, New York;and Hon. Jorge Simon, New Haven, Con-necticut. It is because of the selfless effortsand dedication of these drug court profes-sionals that courts nationwide will benefitfrom their experience and expertise.

Our special thanks to Shelley Johnson,Ph.D. candidate at the University ofCincinnati Division of Criminal Justice,who was responsible for all data analysisand who helped draft the final report sec-tions on the data. Johnson was assisted bygraduate student researchers Lisa Growetteand Kate Andriacco.

We are grateful to all who have helped illu-minate this issue and to those whoseefforts will contribute to the continuingimprovement of drug courts.

T

iii

Foreword

his report provides theresults of an assess-ment conducted aspart of the National

Drug Court Training and Technical Assist-ance Program, which supports the DrugCourt Grant Program. Both programs areadministered by the Drug Courts ProgramOffice (DCPO), Office of Justice Programs,U.S. Department of Justice. The Drug CourtGrant Program addresses both the increasingnumber of nonviolent, substance-abusingadult and juvenile offenders who contributeto the pervasive problems of prison over-crowding, and the high recidivism rate forthose offenders. Drug treatment courts lever-age the coercive power of the criminal jus-tice system to enforce abstinence among andalter the behavior of drug-involved offenders.

Drug courts are a growing phenomenon, andthe number of jurisdictions establishing drugcourts has grown significantly over the past10 years. Although numerous drug courtsthroughout the Nation report success stories,many experts point out that rigorous evi-dence to document their impact is lacking,especially with regard to longer term out-comes. For the most part, the successeshave not been rigorously documented be-cause drug courts lacked both process and

impact evaluation data, because most pro-grams began and continue without the bene-fit of rigorous evaluation plans or automatedmanagement information systems (MIS).In recognition of this gap in resources andmethodology, DCPO established initiativesto quantify the courts’ needs for informationtechnology and evaluation training and tech-nical assistance, and to develop training andtechnical assistance solutions to addressdrug court priority needs. This report docu-ments that quantification—the results of thefirst national survey of drug court MIS/evalu-ation requirements—and identifies a seriesof proposed DCPO initiatives to address thehighest priority training and technical assist-ance requirements, as identified by the drugcourts themselves.

SEARCH, The National Consortium forJustice Information and Statistics, commis-sioned Cashman & Associates, Inc., to con-duct this study on behalf of DCPO. Specialthanks go to the organizations that workedin partnership with SEARCH to conductthis study: The Justice Management Insti-tute (JMI), the Drug Court Clearinghouseand the Technical Assistance Project atAmerican University, the Center for CourtInnovation, and the National Association ofDrug Court Professionals.

T

iv

Contents

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

Drug Court Approach ....................................................................................................1Monitoring and Evaluation Needs of Drug Courts ........................................................2Needs Assessment Survey: A Component of the National

Training and Technical Assistance Program ............................................................3Summary of Major Survey Findings ..............................................................................4Recommendations ........................................................................................................5

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

Research Design ............................................................................................................9Sample ........................................................................................................................10Assessment Areas ........................................................................................................10Drug Court Characteristics ........................................................................................11Statistical Analysis ......................................................................................................11Scope ..........................................................................................................................12

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

Management and Evaluation Information Capabilities: Supporting Decisionmaking ....................................................................................13

Automation: Enhancing Effectiveness and Efficiency ................................................22Technical Assistance: Overwhelming Appeal for Support ..........................................38Education and Training: Sharing and Expanding Successes ......................................43Background and Other Characteristics ......................................................................47

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

Major Findings ............................................................................................................55Other 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..15Table 1b. ..................................................................................................................17Table 1c. ..................................................................................................................18Table 1d. ..................................................................................................................19Table 1e. ..................................................................................................................21Table 1f. ..................................................................................................................22Table 2a. Drug Court Assessment by Jurisdiction Size/Automation........................23Table 2b. ..................................................................................................................25Table 2c. ..................................................................................................................27Table 2d. ..................................................................................................................29Table 2e. ..................................................................................................................31Table 2f. ..................................................................................................................33Table 2g. ..................................................................................................................35Table 2h. ..................................................................................................................36Table 2i. ..................................................................................................................39Table 3a. Drug Court Assessment by Jurisdiction Size/Technical Assistance ........41Table 3b. ..................................................................................................................42Table 4a. Drug Court Assessment by Jurisdiction Size/Education and Training ....45Table 4b. ..................................................................................................................46Table 5. Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Drug Court

Background Characteristics......................................................................50Table 6. Drug Court Description by Number of Active Participants......................51Table 7a. Drug Court Description by Efficiency of Test Results to Judge ..............52Table 7b. ..................................................................................................................53Figure 1. Level of Automation of Screening Information ........................................24Figure 2. Level of Automation of Court Case Management Data ............................26Figure 3. Level of Laptop Availability for Travel Use ..............................................30Figure 4. Level of Drug Court Team Linkage via Computer Network ....................32Figure 5. Level Linked to Pretrial Services..............................................................34Figure 6. Level of Access to Main Trial Court Management Program ....................34Figure 7. Level of Training in General Office Applications ....................................37Figure 8. Level of Training in Drug Court Software ................................................37Figure 9a. Usefulness of Technical Assistance ..........................................................43Figure 9b. ..................................................................................................................44Figure 10a. Usefulness of Education and Training ......................................................48Figure 10b. ..................................................................................................................48

1

s of June 2001, morethan 697 drug courtswere operating in theUnited States, and

427 more were in the planning phases.Currently, all 50 States, including majorNative American Tribal Courts, the Districtof Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and 2U.S. Federal Courts have operational adultdrug court programs. Thirty States haveenacted legislation related to planning andoperating drug courts.1

More than 75 percent of the drug courts inthe United States participated in a nation-al survey in mid-1999 designed to helpthose dealing with large drug caseloadsassess their needs for enhanced information-gathering tools.2 This phenomenal re-sponse rate confirms that drug courtsplace a high value on information. As theHonorable Jo Ann Ferdinand, who pre-sides over the Brooklyn Treatment Courtin New York, noted:

“Computers allow judges to draw thebig picture—to browse quickly andto spot connections, like the linkbetween missed appearances and faileddrug tests. Speed is imperative whenhandling so many cases, but the realvalue of automation is that it keepsappropriate team members apprisedon all relevant client details—the factsneeded to make the best decisions—while at the same time, [it] preventsunauthorized access to confidentialdata, such as judge’s notes.”3

Drug Court ApproachDrug courts represent a unique, information-intensive approach to managing drug-relatedcases. This approach is a fairly recent phe-nomenon for the justice system. It grew outof problems created for the justice system,and the communities it serves, when thegrowth of drug-related arrests threatened tooverwhelm 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, manyjurisdictions began searching for alterna-tives, which led to the movement towardspecialized courts in the late 1980s.5 Drugcourts were developed to reduce substanceabuse and recidivism through techniquessuch as treatment, judicial supervision, andgraduated sanctions.

Typically, each drug court team—judge,drug-treatment providers, court coordinator,prosecutor, defense attorney, and other inte-gral players such as probation and pretrialservices—carefully monitors and continuallyreports on the nonviolent defendant’s jour-ney to a drug-free life. For example, almostall drug courts require participants to obtaina General Educational Development (GED)diploma, to keep a job, and to pay currentfinancial obligations, including drug courtfees and child support (where applicable).

As team members track participants’ com-pliance with program requirements, the“total progress picture” must be availablequickly and accurately so drug court teammembers can manage the participants effec-tively. The drug court team must be able toanalyze and summarize these “progress pic-tures” to provide the data that drug courtsneed to monitor their day-to-day operations,evaluate their processes and impact, anddemonstrate the costs and benefits of theirprograms to their communities.

National research charting the drug courts’first decade of progress shows that the drugcourt approach is working. For example,close to 230,000 defendants have partici-pated in more than 500 drug court pro-grams nationwide since the early 1990s.Almost 70 percent of these defendants arestill enrolled in or have graduated fromdrug court programs, nearly double theexpected retention rate from traditionaltreatment 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 $3,000per participant. Contrast that with a recentestimate of savings in jail-bed days of atleast $5,000 per defendant, which does notinclude savings in reduced police overtime,witness costs, and grand jury and indict-ment expenses.7

Monitoring and EvaluationNeeds of Drug CourtsSome drug courts, such as the Buffalo DrugCourt in New York, have made great stridesin developing management information sys-tems (MIS) that meet the specific needsof the drug court. Others, such as the LosAngeles County Drug Court Program, arepioneering ways to use systems for evengreater effectiveness and efficiency, includ-ing use of a secured intranet to make thesystem available to authorized users whoselocations are widely dispersed.8

Yet, study results show that most drugcourts see major barriers to achieving theirgoals of managing their programs and eval-uating their results. For example, drugcourts surveyed clearly indicated that theylack funding for essential equipment andsoftware. Another major barrier is the diffi-culty in linking diverse program informa-tion sources.

Drug courts want help to strengthen theirability to collect and manage importantprogram details. They are looking for train-ing and technical assistance to take advan-tage of available technologies that arecapable of boosting productivity in theirvital information-gathering and evaluation-producing processes.

This is known because of prior work in thisarea. In 1997, The Justice ManagementInstitute, in cooperation with the DrugCourts Program Office (DCPO), Office ofJustice Programs (OJP), U.S. Department ofJustice (DOJ), convened two focus groups of


3

drug court practitioners, public health offi-cials, researchers, court managers, and MISexperts. The first meeting topic was “Moni-toring and Evaluating Drug Courts,” and thesecond was “Drug Court Management Infor-mation Systems.” The topic areas, althoughdistinct, are “. . . closely interrelated, sincesound monitoring and evaluation are heavi-ly dependent on the availability of relevantand reliable information about programoperations and participant outcomes.”9

The focus group participants took a posi-tion of strong consensus on several keypoints. Included among these was that

“Monitoring and evaluation ofdrug courts are critically importantfunctions. Drug court practitionersrecognize the importance of thesefunctions, but many drug courts needhelp—through education and training,technical assistance, and resourceaugmentation—to make effective mon-itoring and evaluation a reality.”10

Obviously, drug courts are at a criticaljuncture. Stakeholders are rightfullyencouraged by the successes of the drugcourt model. But more information is need-ed. In its report to the U.S. Congress issuedin 1997 (the same year the focus groupsconvened), the U.S. General AccountingOffice (GAO) concluded that “Existingevaluations provided some limited informa-tion but do not permit firm conclusionsregarding drug court impact.”11 GAO fur-ther explained:

“We note in this report that many ofthe studies we reviewed provide posi-tive evidence of the merits of drugcourt programs. We do not believe,however, that all of these studies areequally sophisticated in their designand methods, or that the results ofthese studies can be simply summedto provide firm conclusions.”12

GAO went on to recommend more rigorousimpact evaluations “To better ensure thatconclusions about the impact of drug courtprograms on participants’ criminal recidi-vism and/or drug use relapse can be drawn. . . .”13

Although there is general agreement on thedesirability of improving the monitoringand evaluation functions in drug courts,there is also recognition that this is a par-ticularly difficult area and that it wouldtake a concerted effort to implement thisgoal. Even GAO acknowledged:

“We recognize the difficulties inherentin collecting follow-up data. . . . Wealso recognize that the need for andbenefits of having data must be bal-anced against the cost of collectingand maintaining it . . . .”14

Needs Assessment Survey:A Component of the NationalTraining and TechnicalAssistance ProgramDCPO’s national strategy for addressingthese issues included the establishment ofa national training and technical assistanceprogram that included an initiative to pro-vide the training and technical assistancefor jurisdictions to develop effective MISand evaluations for all drug courts.15 Inother words, the objective is to help drugcourt practitioners and stakeholders cap-ture the best practices of the current pro-grams and share them nationwide toensure that future drug courts achievethe same success rates.

This survey is an important step in thatinitiative, identifying the technical assist-ance and educational needs of existing drug courts and pinpointing the barriersthat keep courts from fulfilling thoseneeds.16 To bolster drug court capabilities,this survey identified the specific resources


4

and knowledge required to collect the dataneeded to effectively manage, monitor, andevaluate drug courts.

The survey queried the entire population ofknown drug courts in the United States todevelop an assessment that is nationwidein scope and broadly reflective of all drugcourts regardless of background or othercharacteristics. (The research methodologyundertaken in this survey—includingresearch design, assessment areas, drugcourt characteristics, statistical analysis,and scope—is detailed in section II.)

Survey responses were received from 257of the 340 drug courts that were opera-tional as of mid-1999, for a response rate of75.59 percent. This response rate increasesour confidence in the significance of theresults as accurately representing the stateof drug court evaluation and managementinformation systems and the preferredapproaches for continuing improvements.(Detailed survey results by assessment areaare provided in section III. Section III alsoincludes a general profile of drug courtsbased on background and other character-istics, such as population of the jurisdictionserved and number of active participants,and an overview of issues that need furtherdiscussion and research.)

Summary of MajorSurvey FindingsIn general, many drug court processes arenot automated. Although there is wide-spread use of computers in the drug courtenvironment, this survey showed that theautomated support being provided to drugcourts by existing computer systems isinadequate. This hampers drug courtoperations in many ways, such that

■ Drug courts cannot take advantage ofproductivity gains and success sharingthat computer automation offers.

■ Drug courts cannot serve larger num-bers of participants unless they aremore fully automated.

The major findings of this study are sum-marized in the following key points, as wellas in section IV:

1. Although there is widespread access topersonal computers, vital data are notgenerally entered into automated sys-tems, and there is not widespread,appropriately shared access to dataamong drug court team members. Infact, less than one-quarter of courtssurveyed use automation to help judges interact with their caseload ofdefendants.

2. A strong correlation exists betweenautomation and the time it takes forthe judge to get failed drug test results.Because some of the less automatedcourts also have rapid test reporting, itseems that those courts that place ahigh value on the importance of infor-mation in the drug court environmentare the same courts that establish theprocesses that will get them the crucialdata in a timely fashion. The criticalfactor is the importance that the drug court places on the value ofinformation.

3. An overwhelming majority of the drugcourts surveyed expressed their willing-ness to use every technical assistanceoption offered to acquire the properautomation, maintain the technology,and obtain the education needed togenerate regular productivity reports.

4. A lack of funding was the number onereason drug courts did not acquire theadditional automation needed and thetraining and technical assistance toimprove the administration of drugcourt justice.


5

5. In addition to funding barriers, drugcourts also listed difficulty with linkingto other systems as a prime barrier toautomation.

6. Even though most serve large jurisdic-tions, the majority of drug courts have100 active participants or fewer. Thelargest drug courts—those with 200 ormore participants—are highly automat-ed with good MIS support. This andother survey results suggest that thelack of automation is hindering drugcourt programs from serving largernumbers of participants and provid-ing the resultant benefits to theircommunities.

7. Drug courts clearly specified that theyneed technical assistance with allaspects of automation—including helpwith initial “getting started” steps, suchas developing needs assessments andtechnology plans and preparing fundingproposals for stakeholders.

8. Surveyed drug courts overwhelminglyexpressed a desire for additional educa-tion and training to deal specificallywith evaluation and management infor-mation systems. Targeted workshopsand videotaped training sessions dedi-cated to monitoring, evaluation, andMIS development rated highly amongsurveyed courts.

9. Difficulty with data entry and sharingare not a result of drug court indiffer-ence to the need to provide regularevaluation information. Indeed, fewerthan half of the drug courts surveyedrated their current systems as good orvery good at providing information forevaluations.

10. Less than 15 percent of all surveyedcourts report that they have completedthe necessary automation required to

produce reports needed for overall pro-gram evaluation. It is telling that this isabout the same percentage of drugcourts that have the largest number ofactive participants (200 or more).

RecommendationsThe results of this survey clearly show thatthe automated support being provided tothe drug courts by existing computer sys-tems is inadequate.17 The respondents alsoidentified several initiatives that, if adopt-ed, would be useful in improving the moni-toring, evaluation, and MIS capabilities ofdrug courts. Although the data were col-lected in summer 1999, the findings are asimportant today as when the survey wasinitially conducted and provide the onlyempirical evidence of user training andtechnical assistance needs.

Although DCPO and training and technicalassistance providers have continued todevelop and present programs and solu-tions responsive to the needs described inthis report, those programs and solutionsto some extent reflect the fact that trainingand technical assistance project staff haveworked collaboratively throughout the proj-ect with DCPO staff, project partners, andother technical assistance providers andexperts in the field to address the require-ments of the drug court community. Itwould have been surprising if survey find-ings and recommended responses to thefindings were contrary to DCPO’s under-standing of the field’s needs and require-ments, because the field was the samesource for determining resource needsthroughout the grant period. Thus, thisreport provides statistical evidence of thelack of hardware, software, evaluation, andMIS expertise among drug court staff. Italso offers an agenda for addressing thoseneeds through many of the same kinds of


6

training and technical assistance programsand content that DCPO and the field hadassumed were needed based on subjectiveassessments.

Without technology, it is difficult for drugcourts to link the information about theirresults with the goals of the court. It is alsodifficult to produce the reports and evalua-tions needed to persuade stakeholders toallot more funding for technology. This isobviously a vicious cycle that should beaddressed to ensure continued andenhanced court success.

To break this cycle and ensure future infor-mation sharing, the drug court field shouldconsider six broad recommended initia-tives, which are detailed below and alsopresented in section V.

Recommendation 1Confront the main barriers to drug courtefforts to gather and maintain informa-tion through effective automated means.

The top two barriers to further automationcited by survey respondents were lack offunding and difficulty linking with othersystems. Some ways of addressing thesebarriers are discussed below.

■ Lack of funding. Although identifyinga complete solution to this barrier isbeyond the scope of any one entity,this major barrier might be mitigatedin part by providing forms of assistancethat drug courts identified as useful.

■■ One such tool identified in thisstudy is a model presentation ondrug court costs and benefits. Bytaking data from available cost/benefit analyses conducted through-out the country, and by using mod-ern computer graphics softwaresuch as Microsoft PowerPoint® orHarvard Graphics, assistance can be

provided to turn these facts intostakeholder presentations that canhelp generate vital funding.

■■ Another form of assistance would beto develop an MIS/evaluation listservto update the field as developmentsoccur, to provide a forum for practi-tioners to discuss issues, and topose and answer questions of peers.

■■ An online clearinghouse of fre-quently asked questions about drugcourt MIS and evaluation that wouldfeature answers by leading expertsin the field would also be helpful.

■ Difficulty linking with other systems.Providing training and technical assist-ance can also be instrumental in help-ing drug court personnel deal with thesecurity, privacy, and access issues thatarise when automating a system withshared information. Subject mattertrainings could be conducted, includinga workshop on linking drug court infor-mation systems to court informationsystems.

Recommendation 2 Respond to the call for specialized edu-cational programs by developing work-shops that address high-priority issues.

■ A first workshop should focus on pro-gram monitoring and process evalua-tion and provide illustrations of outputreports from a real MIS to illustratewhat can be accomplished throughawareness and planning.

■ A second workshop should addressusing technology to enhance drug courtoperations. It should include the appli-cation of existing audio, video, data,and telecommunications products andtools—including testing, monitoring,and mapping technologies—to improve


7

the drug court team’s ability to makethe highest quality decisions and toimprove the overall efficiency andeffectiveness of drug courts.

■ A third workshop on linking drug courtinformation systems to court informa-tion systems should explore the barri-ers to system interface, including theprivacy and security issues inherent inintegrated justice information systems.Subject matter faculty should includerepresentatives from jurisdictions inwhich the court and drug court systemsare already integrated.

Recommendation 3 Provide technical assistance thataddresses areas identified as needingspecial attention.

Survey respondents identified the followingareas for training.

■ Information technology strategic plan-ning, including staffing issues.

■ Comparing data being collected withrecommended data elements and func-tional requirements.

■ Conducting information system designand development and/or acquisition,including help preparing requests forproposals (RFPs); selecting consultants,hardware, and software; and draftingand negotiating contracts with vendors.

■ Defining the scope of work to imple-ment the technology plan.

■ Making the business case to the fundingagency.

■ Establishing appropriately secure linksto exchange critical information withother criminal justice agencies andtreatment providers.

■ Developing a drug court evaluation planand selecting an evaluator.

Recommendation 4 Respond to the call for a specially tail-ored software package for drug courtsby designing programs that help devel-op intelligent consumers of technology.

There should be a multiple approach tothis recommendation.

■ First, there should be more educationabout the use of technology, its acquisi-tion, and the proper role of governmentin this process. These issues should beincluded in the workshops discussed inrecommendation 2. These workshopsshould help drug court members be-come intelligent consumers of technolo-gy by dealing with questions such as

■■ What is the role of management vis-à-vis technology as distinct from theroles of MIS personnel?

■■ What are the appropriate roles oftechnology vendors?

■■ Why and how do we deal withprivate-sector technology vendors?

■ Second, initiatives should be undertak-en that illustrate the steps needed todevelop a system and demonstrate bestpractices for MIS systems. These initia-tives might include a case study docu-menting the development and operationof a drug court MIS.

■ Third, building on this case study andwork that has already been done bySEARCH—including an assessmentreport of four public domain drug courtsoftware systems and an “informationaudit” report,18 which identify neces-sary information elements for a drugcourt MIS—an initiative should beundertaken to develop a set of commonrequirements for such software pack-ages and/or a model RFP that includesthe specific requirements of such apackage.


8

Recommendation 5 Focus on the role of systems training insuccessful automation projects.

Drug courts should explore ways to focus onthe role of systems training in successfulautomation projects. Because proper train-ing is so important to the success of theseprojects, serious consideration should begiven to various methods of training. Also,there should be an exploration of the meansof encouraging this training, either by mak-ing training mandatory or by rewarding

those who have the training in a timelymanner.

Recommendation 6 Develop a research agenda for drugcourt best practices.

There is a need to identify the best prac-tices that have been developed for drugcourts in particular, and courts in general,with regard to the use of performancemeasures and technology and automationcomponents.

9

II.

Research Methodology

o bolster drug courtcapabilities, this sur-vey was developed toidentify the specific

resources and knowledge required to col-lect the data to effectively manage, moni-tor, and evaluate drug courts. In developingthe survey, we were guided by the resultsof the 1997 JMI focus groups on evaluationand MIS. Among other difficulties, thesefocus groups identified six major obstaclesto sound evaluation research on drugcourts. These ranged from difficulty inobtaining relevant data, to the lack of acadre of experienced researchers, to a lackof resources for evaluation, to inadequatemanagement information systems.19

We were especially cognizant of the drugcourts’ unique challenge to evaluators,which has been documented by the workof the OJP Drug Court Clearinghouse andTechnical Assistance Project at AmericanUniversity. That is, a drug court evaluationmust rely on many sources, such as intakeassessment results, court dockets, probation

T officer notes, and treatment-provider out-comes. The survey was developed withquestions applicable to each part of thedrug court team and their needs, takinginto account the many different sourcesfor relevant information.

Research DesignFocusing on the nexus between good infor-mation systems and evaluation, the ques-tionnaire was designed to answer questionsin a number of key assessment areas,including

1. How many courts use computers and towhat extent are data routinely enteredinto the system?

2. Are members of the drug court teamable to effectively communicate impor-tant information regarding an individ-ual case or progress in treatmentthrough the current MIS?

3. Is the current system capable of produc-ing useful summary reports for overallprogram management and evaluation?


10

4. What are the main barriers to furtherautomating the current system?

5. What are the most common types oftechnical assistance needs ranked bytheir usefulness to the respondents?

6. What are the most common types ofeducation and training needs ranked bytheir usefulness to the respondents?

SampleThe survey questionnaire was pretested ona small group of drug courts and, after revi-sion based on the results, the survey wassent to the remaining drug courts on thelist of 340 drug courts operational as ofmid-1999. The list of drug courts was pro-vided by the Drug Court Clearinghouse andTechnical Assistance Project at AmericanUniversity.

The survey was sent to the attention of thepresiding drug court judge with a copy tothe court coordinator. These drug courtleaders were asked to meet with their drugcourt team before completing the surveyin an effort to capture the capabilities andneeds of all the participating entities thatcompose the team. Shortly after the surveywas due, a followup postcard was mailed toincrease the response rate.

Each survey was logged as it was receivedand the remaining courts that had notresponded were sent an additional reminderpostcard. This process proved to be verysuccessful, and 257 surveys were received,a response rate of 75.59 percent. Thisresponse rate increased confidence in thesignificance of the results as accurately rep-resenting the current state of drug courtevaluation and MIS, and the preferredapproaches for continuing improvements.

Assessment AreasThe survey mailed to the drug courts con-sisted of four assessment sections and asection for write-in comments.20

■ Management and Evaluation Informa-tion. Included questions to assess theuse of computers at each site, the typeof information currently entered intocomputers, and the ability to automati-cally produce useful management andevaluation reports.

■ Automation. Explored the extent towhich each functional area is supportedby automation, the access to computersby the drug court team, the networkingof computers to improve communica-tion, the availability of specifically rele-vant applications and capabilities, theaccess to technology training programs,the technology employees themselves,and the main barriers to furtherautomation.

■ Technical Assistance. Directed respond-ents to rate the usefulness of a numberof technical assistance activities thatmight be provided to them during thesecond phase of this initiative.

■ Education and Training. Asked respond-ents to rate the usefulness of a numberof education and training programs thatmight also be provided to them in thesecond phase of this initiative.

■ Comments. Each section of the surveyprovided space for additional commentsto allow respondents to express difficul-ties or needs in areas not included inthe structured portions of the survey.Many practitioners took added com-ments and suggestions.

Research Methodology

11

Drug Court CharacteristicsA “background” section of the survey alsoasked about a number of different court-identifying and demographic characteristicsto determine where statistical differencesmight occur. The characteristics included

■ Type of court. As indicated by the per-sons eligible to participate, such asadult, juvenile, family, or tribal.

■ Clients served. As measured by thenumber of persons who are currentlyactive participants in the drug courtprogram.

■ Time in existence. As measured by thetime since the drug court accepted itsfirst client.

■ Population. As measured by the sizeof the population of the jurisdictionserved.

■ Treatment providers. As indicated bywhether the providers are in-house orcontractual and, if contractual, howmany separate entities are providingservices to the program.

■ Time elapsing before test resultsreceived. As indicated by the amount oftime it usually takes, from minutes todays, for judges to receive failed drugtesting information. This question wasincluded because drug testing is suchan integral part of drug courts.

Statistical AnalysisBeginning with frequency and percentages,various statistical analyses were conductedto summarize and organize the data. Whereappropriate, measures of association andbivariate tests of significance were con-ducted. The data, then, are presented inthis report in several different ways.

1. First, the results of each question of thesurvey are presented in tables with per-centages by both option and populationserved.

2. Second, bivariate analyses were con-ducted to determine if a statisticallysignificant relationship exists betweenthe characteristics of the courts and thesurvey responses to any of the evalua-tion or automation variables. Missingand skipped categories were excludedfor these analyses due to small cell size.Chi-square was selected as the test ofsignificance. The standard significancelevel used was 0.05 or less.21 Results ofthe significance testing are selectivelyreported when any of the results showa significant correlation.

3. Third, an analysis was done of thewrite-in comments. Selected responseswere grouped by section, categorized,and the results presented in frequencytables in the appropriate sections ofthis report. All of the comments wereassembled in full-text and are presentedin appendix 2.

The population size of the jurisdictionserved by the court was one of the courtcharacteristics that presented the most sig-nificant statistical differences in results.Therefore, the tables in the body of thisreport are categorized based on populationsize.22 To present the results in a manage-able format, the size of the population ofthe jurisdiction was grouped into threecategories:

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

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

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


12

Obviously, although drug courts share com-mon components, each is unique, and sur-veying them individually allowed the surveyteam to identify unique aspects. The inclu-sion of write-in comments was especiallyhelpful to assess how certain perspectivesand practices contribute to the level of MISand evaluation competency.

ScopeThis survey queried the entire population ofthen-known drug courts in the United Statesto develop an assessment both nationwidein scope and broadly reflective of all drug

courts, regardless of background or othercharacteristics. Based on time and resourcesavailable, it was not feasible to complete adetailed analysis of each individual court’sautomated equipment configuration or workprocesses. Although these indepth analyseswere beyond the scope of this assessment,it should be noted that such studies wouldprovide valuable information for the individ-ual court studied. If such detailed studieswere done on a representative sample ofdrug courts, the studies would provide valu-able data for extrapolations to the largerpopulation of drug courts.

13

his section providesthe following detailedsurvey results:

■ Four specific assessment areas—Management and Evaluation Informa-tion, Automation, Technical Assistance,and Education and Training.

■ Background characteristics of respond-ing drug courts.

■ Policy, technology, and tactical issuesthat were identified as needing furtherdiscussion and research through analy-sis of survey responses and write-incomments.

Management and EvaluationInformation Capabilities:Supporting DecisionmakingDrug courts determine their successesthrough information about what workedand what did not. As pointed out in theDCPO report of the 1997 focus groupsthat met to discuss drug court monitoring,

evaluation, and MIS, “Drug courts areinformation driven to a very significantextent, and their needs for information aresignificantly greater than existing court-based management information systemshave been able to provide.”23 Specifically,focus group participants were concernedabout the lack of information to supportthe following types of decisionmaking:

■ Operational decisionmaking in individ-ual drug court cases.

■ Overall management of the drug courtcaseload.

■ Sound program monitoring.

■ Useful evaluation.24

But many questions are raised. By auto-mating the routine processes of drug courtsand compiling the vital data they need tomake these decisions, how well are thecurrent management information systemsserving drug courts? What types of data areroutinely entered into court computers?

III.

Detailed Survey Results by Assessment Area

T


14

How do the courts rate their abilities tomonitor the entire caseload based on com-prehensive, accurate, and current data? Isthe information extensive enough to havean evaluation conducted and presented tostakeholders with an accurate picture ofcourt success? Are the computer databasesthat support the data for the drug courtspart of separate or integrated systems capa-ble of sharing?

Use of ComputersWithout a doubt, computers are an integralpart of the drug court environment (table1a). In response to the question “Does yourdrug court use any computers?,” a vastmajority of the courts, regardless of the sizeof the jurisdiction, use computers—92 per-cent of the small, 92 percent of the medium,and 96 percent of the large jurisdictioncourts. Although computers are widespread,the automated support provided to the drugcourts by these computers is inadequate.

These findings are illustrated by write-incomments from several different respond-ents: “We do not have software yet,although we have computers.” Anothernoted, “No MIS system—some computersfor word processing and e-mail only.” Yetanother said, “Information is entered in anafter-the-fact manner. The system is notused to assist team members or the judgein their daily duties. The system is merelystoring the information so that it can beused for evaluation purposes.”25

As expressed in survey respondents’ com-ments, it is also important to assess theoverall extent of the information beingentered into automated systems.

At this time, it is apparently standard prac-tice to gather drug court statistics “afterthe fact.” In some instances, this is han-dled by clerical personnel who performdata entry only and in other instances it isthrough contracting with outside sources.

These outside contracts are typically withacademic institutions. Graduate studentscome in (on an irregular basis) to reviewall or selected samples from the reams ofpaper reports. Then they match clientinformation to other data, thereby recon-structing court actions, and they finish bycompiling the statistics.

Although this process may meet the imme-diate goal of providing a program evalua-tion report for local, regional, State, orFederal reporting requirements, it is notmeeting the needs for ongoing managementand long-term planning. This process alsomakes it more difficult to compile thereports that regional stakeholders are com-fortable using to answer important policyand managerial questions. Further, theseprocesses are at variance with the founda-tion principles needed for the integrationof the information systems of courts andother justice agencies.

This move to integrate State court informa-tion systems is being driven mainly by thecost savings associated with increased effi-ciency.26 Two of the integration principlesthat are relevant to this practice follow:

■ Data should be captured at the origi-nating point, rather than reconstruct-ing it down the line or having otherscapture it.

■ Data should be captured once andused many times, leveraging existingresources and improving data quality.27

Obviously, the full benefits of computeriza-tion are not being realized. First, becausethe routine processes are not automatedand data entry is after the fact, productivi-ty gains that may be realized from automa-tion will remain elusive. Second, importantlocal progress and success stories are beinglost because information pertinent to drugcourt case outcome and processing is notautomatically being captured.


15

Automated Information SupportThe second question in the ManagementInformation assessment area probed theextent to which specific types of informa-tion are being routinely entered into thecomputer system. The questions about spe-cific drug court functions follow the typicalsequence of handling cases, starting withan initial screening of an individual forprogram eligibility (tables 1b–1d).

■ Screening and assessment outcomes.Only 51 percent of the small, 56 per-cent of the medium, and 62 percent ofthe large jurisdiction courts routinelyenter information from an initial evalu-ation of the defendant.

■ Defendant’s criminal history. Only 58percent of the small, 62 percent of themedium, and 65 percent of the largejurisdiction courts routinely enterinformation relevant to the defendants’criminal history, even though this in-formation is extremely relevant to thedefendants’ placement in the drugcourt system and to matching themwith appropriate treatment services.

■ Treatment services (type, duration,intensity, status). Slightly more courts—54 percent of small, 68 percent of medi-um, and 68 percent of large jurisdictioncourts—input details on the drug treat-ment plans prescribed for defendants.

■ Drug testing frequency and outcomes.This is the most important indicator ofa defendant’s “clean” progress. Here,results are slightly more encouraging,with about 64 percent of small, 70 per-cent of medium, and 74 percent of large jurisdiction courts entering thisinformation.

■ Compliance/Noncompliance informa-tion. About 64 percent of small, 68percent of medium, and 65 percentof large jurisdiction courts routinelyenter compliance information.

■ Status hearing outcomes. One aspectthat makes drug courts unique is therelationship between the judge andoffender during treatment. For exam-ple, status hearings held throughouttreatment increase accountability, yetonly 53 percent of small, 60 percent ofmedium, and 58 percent of large juris-diction courts record the outcome ofthese hearings in an automated system.

■ Sanctions imposed. Can courts assessthe outcomes of sanctions based on sta-tistical records? About 63 percent ofsmall, 61 percent of medium, and 65percent of large jurisdiction courts rou-tinely enter information on sanctionsimposed. This process allows for theeffective monitoring of individualclients 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 93.5No 8.5 6.1 2.8 5.2Missing 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.


16

to monitor the effects of specific sanc-tions on the overall caseload.

■ Incentives provided. What court-providedincentives work to promote defendantsuccess? Few drug courts can find outvia an accurate, automated report. Infact, only 31 percent of small, 42 per-cent of medium, and 34 percent of largejurisdiction courts routinely enter thisinformation.

■ Information needed to monitor clientprogress. About 61 percent of small, 61percent of medium, and 52 percent oflarge jurisdiction courts make an effortto enter this information into an auto-mated database.

■ Fees imposed/Bench warrants. Specifi-cally, 51 percent of small, 54 percent ofmedium, and 50 percent of large juris-diction courts input information rele-vant to fees imposed and collected. Asomewhat higher percentage—61 per-cent of small, 71 percent of medium,and 74 percent of large jurisdictioncourts—enter information on benchwarrants issued or executed.

■ Award of GED or vocational certifi-cate/Employment status. Are defen-dants preparing themselves for financialresponsibility? Only 39 percent ofsmall, 44 percent of medium, and 40percent of large jurisdiction courts rou-tinely follow up on GED awards viaautomated systems. Slightly more—56percent of small, 62 percent of medium,and 64 percent of large jurisdictioncourts—input employment status.

■ Living arrangements. Finally, aredefendants making lifestyle changes;that is, living in a drug-free environ-ment and maintaining relationshipswith “clean” family and friends? Only51 percent of small, 54 percent ofmedium, and 53 percent of large

jurisdiction courts can effectively moni-tor their defendants’ living arrange-ments through automated reports.

■ Rearrest or conviction during pro-gram. Another important indicator ofcompliance among participants is rear-rest or conviction while the defendantis in drug court services. However, onlya little more than half—51 percent ofsmall, 61 percent of medium, and 64percent of large jurisdiction courts—routinely enter this information intoan automated system.

■ Rearrest or conviction after graduation.This is a desirable component of anyoutcome evaluation; however, it is gener-ally very difficult for courts to obtainreliable data after the court releases thedefendant. Despite the difficulties, 29percent of small, 32 percent of medium,and 35 percent of large jurisdictioncourts input this information into a data-base. To determine the effectiveness ofdrug court programs, a record of howparticipants perform after they arereleased from the drug court is especiallyhelpful. If paired with a control or com-parison group, this information providesdata to determine whether drug courtsare having an impact on drug use andsubsequent criminal behavior.

■ Drug-free/Employment status after grad-uation. Ideally, rearrest or measures ofrecidivism should also be supplementedwith more detailed measures of behav-ioral or lifestyle change. Although thisinformation is very desirable, it is diffi-cult to obtain after people have left theprogram. With most drug courts focusingon operations, it is not surprising thatonly 17 percent of small, 17 percent ofmedium, and 10 percent of large juris-diction courts can routinely enter datarelevant to the clients’ drug-free statuspostgraduation. Similarly, only 10 percent


17

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


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

2. Type of information routinely entered into your computer system:

a. Screening and assessmentYes 50.8 56.1 61.7 57.3No 37.3 35.4 33.6 35.1Do not know 3.4 0.0 0.0 0.8Skip 8.5 6.1 2.8 5.2Missing 0.0 2.4 1.9 1.6

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0b. Criminal history

Yes 57.6 62.2 64.5 62.1No 32.2 28.0 30.8 30.2Do not know 1.7 1.2 0.0 0.8Skip 8.5 6.1 2.8 5.2Missing 0.0 2.4 1.9 1.6

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0c. Treatment services


100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0d. Drug testing


100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0e. Compliance/noncompliance information


100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0f. Status hearing outcomes


100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0



18

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


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

2. Information routinely entered into your computer system (continued):

g. Sanctions imposedYes 62.7 61.0 64.5 62.9No 27.1 29.3 29.0 28.6Do not know 1.7 1.2 1.9 1.6Skip 8.5 6.1 2.8 5.2Missing 0.0 2.4 1.9 1.6

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0h. Incentives provided


100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0i. Information to monitor client progress


100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0j. Fees imposed and collected


100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0k. Bench warrants issued/executed


100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0l. GED or vocational certificate award


100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0



19

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


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

2. Information routinely entered into your computer system (continued):

m. Employment statusYes 55.9 62.2 63.6 61.3No 35.6 28.0 31.8 31.5Do not know 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.4Skip 8.5 6.1 2.8 5.2Missing 0.0 2.4 1.9 1.6

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0n. Living arrangements


100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0o. Rearrest or conviction while in the drug court program


100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0p. Rearrest or conviction after graduation from the drug court program


100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0q. Drug-free status after graduation from the drug court program


100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0r. Employment status after graduation from the drug court program


100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0



20

of small, 13 percent of medium, and 8percent of large jurisdiction courts col-lect data with regard to employmentstatus postgraduation.

These statistics paint a rather bleak pic-ture of the support provided to thesecourts regarding automated data availablefor various types of indicators, especiallydata on postgraduation status. Yet theseresults are not surprising. Even GAOacknowledges the difficulties of collectingcertain types of data and the policy consid-erations inherent in running these pro-grams. In its 1997 report, GAO stated:

“We recognize the difficulties inherentin collecting followup data on criminalrecidivism and particularly drugrelapse, as well as comparable data onnonparticipants . . . . We also recog-nize that the need for and benefits ofhaving data must be balanced againstthe cost of collecting and maintainingit, as well as against any logistical andlegal implications, including existingstatutory limitations. Nevertheless, ifmeaningful impact evaluations are tobe done in the future on the growingnumber of drug courts, more of themmust collect and maintain data on fac-tors affecting program operations andoutcomes, including data on partici-pants after they leave the program.”28

The write-in comments of survey respond-ents provide insight, as some commentsshow progress toward the goals set by GAO.For example, one drug court official stated,“For rearrest, drug status, and employmentstatus postgraduation, we have the capacityand are just in the beginning stages of datacollection.” Other drug courts show there isa long way to go to meet the GAO challenge,as exemplified by comments from severalrespondents stating that “most informationis in narrative form only,” and “all informa-tion is tracked in a written chart.”

Note: The drug courts that can counton the fastest automated turnaround forvital drug test results—within minutes orhours—are usually the best equipped toreact quickly, because these courts are alsomore likely to have computerized informa-tion detailing other aspects of defendantprogress, such as sanctions and rewards.

Assembling Data IntoHelpful ReportsDrug courts were also asked to rate theirability to automatically produce manage-ment reports for a number of purposes. It isno surprise that, since many courts do nothave the time or the equipment to captureall of the pertinent data needed for reports,many do not rate their report-generatingcapabilities highly. Only 56 percent ofsmall, 56 percent of medium, and 44 per-cent of large jurisdiction courts rate theirsystem for generating automated reports tosupport informed decisionmaking on indi-vidual cases as either “good” or “very good”(table 1e).

The courts in the largest jurisdictions, andwith the largest potential caseload, are lesslikely to feel their system does a good jobproviding information relevant to monitor-ing overall operations of the court. Only 53percent of small, 51 percent of medium,and 39 percent of large jurisdiction courtsrate their information system as eithergood or very good.

The qualified concern regarding report-generating abilities also transfers to courtsusing computerized reports to gauge theirown effectiveness. Only 51 percent ofsmall, 37 percent of medium, and 37 per-cent of large jurisdiction courts rate theircurrent system as good or very good at pro-viding information for evaluations to assesseffectiveness. In addition, only 37 percentof small, 52 percent of medium, and 44percent of large jurisdiction courts feel


21

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


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 casesVery good 28.8 18.3 14.0 19.0Good 27.1 37.8 29.9 31.9Fair 18.6 25.6 24.3 23.4Poor 11.9 8.5 15.9 12.5Very poor 8.5 6.1 7.5 7.3Skip 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.4Missing 5.1 3.7 7.5 5.6

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0b. Monitoring overall operations

Very good 18.6 17.1 6.5 12.9Good 33.9 34.1 32.7 33.5Fair 23.7 29.3 26.2 27.2Poor 13.6 12.2 22.4 16.9Very poor 5.1 4.9 4.7 4.8Skip 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.4Missing 5.1 2.4 6.5 4.8

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0c. Evaluating impact to assess effectiveness


100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0d. Maintaining statistics on target populations served


100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0e. Analyzing costs and benefits for stakeholders


100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0



22

they can provide statistics proficiently ontarget populations served. Only 27 percentof small, 17 percent of medium, and 18percent of large jurisdiction courts feeltheir system can provide cost and benefitanalyses for stakeholders.

Overall, less than half of the drug courtsbelieve they have the information neededto create automated reports for the peoplethey serve that demonstrate what they doand how well they are accomplishing theirgoals.

On a positive note, drug courts that valuetimely drug test turnaround times appearmore likely to capture the data that willsupport good management decisions forthe overall program. These courts are morelikely to capture information that will ulti-mately help the court evaluate its overallperformance, as well as its ability to reachtargeted populations.

Separate or IntegratedComputer SystemCompounding the shortage of informationfor reports is the nonintegrated nature ofcomputer systems serving drug courts.

These courts offer a unique continuum ofservices that often involve the defendant inthe court system, the treatment providers,and pretrial and probation services. There-fore, each part of the system needs appro-priate access to the defendants’ progressreports and the ability to chart progress.However, 58 percent of small, 52 percent ofmedium, and 50 percent of large jurisdic-tion courts have separate or stand-alonecomputer systems that are not part of alarger court or county system (table 1f).“Currently, we keep information in at leastfour separate databases,” reported one drugcourt coordinator. It would be helpful toknow why the majority of courts have sep-arate systems and whether or not it wouldbe feasible to integrate them.

Automation: EnhancingEffectiveness and EfficiencyWithin each drug court, automation offersthe opportunity to enhance productivity, toserve larger numbers of participants, and tochart results. A lack of automation createsa barricade to sharing the informationneeded to make a drug court program runeffectively and efficiently. Ultimately, these

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


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 52.4Integrated 22.0 30.5 35.5 30.6Do not know 8.5 7.3 1.9 5.2Both 10.2 3.7 10.3 8.1Skip 0.0 3.7 0.9 1.6Missing 1.7 2.4 1.9 2.0

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0



23

factors will limit both the number of partic-ipants served and the benefits that accrueto the community.

Where are today’s drug court programs inthe continuum between effective, sharedcommunication and isolated, nonproduc-tive operation? Results from the automa-tion assessment area of the survey showthat drug courts of all sizes are makingdefinite inroads into automation. In fact,computers are prevalent in drug court set-tings. However, computers are not locatedin the right places and the right team mem-bers do not have enough access to them toensure that courts have the ability to gaugeday-to-day and overall program success.Looking at the activities of the drug courtfrom a functional perspective—screening,assessment, docketing, and scheduling—itis apparent that progress is needed in sup-porting these processes with automation.More important, drug courts point to lackof funding as a formidable foe that keeps

needed court-specific programs, training,and in-house expertise out of reach.

Screening and AssessmentTable 2a and figure 1 show each sizecourt’s level of automation with regard toscreening and assessment information ondrug court defendants.

■ Screening information. Although par-tial automation is prevalent, 48 percentof small, 44 percent of medium, and28 percent of large jurisdiction courtsreport that screening information ondrug court defendants is not automated.

■ Assessment information. Only 19 per-cent of small, 21 percent of medium,and 11 percent of large jurisdictioncourts are fully automated with respectto assessment information. A full 41 per-cent of small, 38 percent of medium, and32 percent of large drug courts reportthis function is not automated at all.

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


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 37.9Partial 37.3 29.3 54.2 41.9Complete 10.2 22.0 8.4 13.3Missing 5.1 4.9 9.3 6.9

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0b. Assessment


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 lowlikelihood 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 equal100 due to rounding.


24

Once again, it is obvious that drug courtsof all sizes are grappling with the dauntingtask of obtaining current, accurate picturesof their clients and their potential clientsin their target populations, yet they are notreceiving much automated support fromtheir MIS. Without this screening andassessment information, along with crimi-nal histories, it is hard to know if a drugcourt is reaching its target population.

Monitoring Day-to-DayDefendant ProgressDrug courts, especially large jurisdictioncourts, fare only slightly better with regardto monitoring specific components of theirday-to-day programs. They are also deficientin terms of having certain information auto-matically accessible to judges and otherdrug court team members. The followingdescribes, and table 2b illustrates, each size

court’s level of automation with regard toinformation on treatment case management,probation monitoring, court case manage-ment, drug court MIS, judicial supervision,and graduation/program separation.

■ Treatment case management. Only19 percent of small, 20 percent ofmedium, and 16 percent of large juris-diction courts are fully automated interms of the treatment case manage-ment function.

■ Probation monitoring. Althoughapproximately 40 percent of the courtsreport having this function partiallyautomated, only 22 percent of small,16 percent of medium, and 14 percentof large jurisdiction courts are fullyautomated.

■ Court case management (docketingand scheduling). Large jurisdiction

Figure 1. Level of Automation of Screening Information

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Small Medium Large

None

Partial

Complete


25

Table 2b. Drug Court Assessment by Jurisdiction Size/Automation


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

1. Extent to which each function is automated (continued):c. Treatment case management


100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0d. Probation monitoring


100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0e. Court case management*


100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0f. Drug court management information system


100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0g. Judicial supervision


100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0h. Graduation/program separation


100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

*χ2 = 13.39, p = .01.



26

jurisdiction courts are fully automatedwith regard to client graduation andprogram separation.

Tracking Vital Client andProgram SuccessesDrug courts of all sizes are clearly strugglingto use technology to capture, maintain, andprovide some of the more important com-posite data elements used to determine thesuccess of the total program. Table 2c illus-trates that only about 14 percent of small,15 percent of medium, and 8 percent oflarge jurisdiction courts report completeautomation with respect to maintainingoverall program evaluation information.Obviously, many court successes go unre-ported, and so too the opportunity to sharethe methodology behind those successesis unreported.

Collecting data on postprogram recidivismis another challenge for these courts, aswas earlier described by GAO. Significant

courts are more likely to have informa-tion partially automated (figure 2).About half, 44 percent of small, 54percent of medium, and 51 percent oflarge jurisdiction courts, have this func-tion completely automated.

■ Drug court management informationsystems (client sanctions and rewards).Some 25 percent of small, 27 percentof medium, and 16 percent of largejurisdiction courts are fully automatedwith regard to this function.

■ Judicial supervision. Only 27 percentof small, 21 percent of medium, and14 percent of large jurisdiction courtsreport being fully automated. In otherwords, less than a quarter of the courtsuse automation to help judges interactwith their huge caseload of defendants.

■ Graduation/Program separation. Only17 percent of small, 31 percent ofmedium, 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


27

expense, logistical, and jurisdictional issuesmust be addressed to obtain this informa-tion after the defendants are released fromthe program. It is not surprising that onlyabout 10 percent of small, 13 percent ofmedium, and 9 percent of large jurisdictioncourts report complete automation withrespect to tracking this vital indicator ofsuccess (table 2c). Almost half the drugcourts report they have no access toautomation that is capable of trackingwhich defendants succeed after they leavethe drug court.

These drug courts, like other problem-solving courts, are setting a more ambitiousstandard for themselves by seeking to assessthe longer term outcome of court actions onindividual defendants. In this regard, enti-ties like GAO, acting on behalf of Congress,are ultimately requesting that courts takemore responsibility for the outcomes ofindividual case decisions and, in the aggre-gate, for the quality of justice being dis-pensed. Such demands from the legislativebranch have policy implications for the

entire judicial branch of government. Al-though these policy issues are relevant tothis discussion because the demands forevaluative data drove the need for thisassessment, a full analysis of the policyimplications are beyond the scope of thisreport. Nonetheless, these policy issuesneed to be kept in mind, because thoseresponsible for courts in general, and drugcourts in particular, have a long-standingand bona fide interest in automated systemsto support the management of these courts.

Part of the difficulty in building systems totrack drug court data stems from the factthat traditional courts have not collectedthis type of data. Indeed, the role ofmodern court management has onlyrecently emerged, with most of the devel-opment of the role of the court managerevolving in the last few decades. Beforethat, traditional courts left the manage-ment of cases to others, most notably tomembers of the bar. Although modern prin-ciples of case flow management have beenaccepted by many legal communities, the

Table 2c. Drug Court Assessment by Jurisdiction Size/Automation


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

1. Extent to which each function is automated (continued):i. Overall program evaluation


100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0j. Postprogram recidivism


100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0


focus on performance standards and themeasurement of performance in the courtsis a relatively recent phenomenon.29

Although more attention is being paid tocourt performance measures, court officialscontinue to face a tremendous struggle tosecure the resources necessary for MIS soft-ware that tracks information on very basiccourt processes. And the goal of trackingdefendants’ activities after their cases havebeen disposed seems even more difficult toachieve.

Access to Computers byIndividual Team MembersThe lack of individual access to computersmay be a contributing factor to the lack ofautomated information. Most members ofthe drug court team do have some accessto computers. For example, 92 percent ofsmall, 94 percent of medium, and 86 per-cent of large jurisdiction courts responded“yes” when asked if team members hadaccess to computers (table 2d). Yet, whenasked if they had access at their desksrather than at central or shared areas, thepositive responses dropped noticeably, with64 percent of small, 71 percent of medium,and 67 percent of large court teams havingcomputers on their desks.

Two other questions were used to gauge the accessibility of computers, one aboutcomputer availability in the courtroom andthe other about the availability of laptopsfor travel. Drug court decisions may bemade in the courtroom, in a differentbuilding across town, or across the countyfrom team members’ desks. When asked ifthe members had access to computers inthe courtroom, the number of affirmativeresponses dropped significantly, with only20 percent of small, 34 percent of medium,and 36 percent of large jurisdiction courtshaving courtroom computer access. Simi-lar percentages—27 percent of small,

46 percent of medium, and 30 percent oflarge jurisdiction courts—have laptopsavailable for travel (figure 3).

Several respondents provided write-in com-mentary that illustrated the environmentsreflected in the statistical results, such as,“Some team members have computers ontheir desks. The computers in the court-rooms are for clerks only.” Another suc-cinctly stated the desktop availability as“Some do, some don’t.”

Sharing Information AmongNetworked Team MembersAdded to the lack of timely access tocomputers is the diminished ability forappropriate drug court team members toshare current, accurate information viacomputer. It is extremely important for alldrug court team members to be linked andto share appropriate information on thedefendants’ progress through various drugcourt services. As in any court or justicesetting, controlling access to confidentialdata is also an important requirement.

Controlled computer networks, with pass-word access to high-speed informationsharing among team members in diverselocations, are particularly beneficial in set-tings such as drug courts. Yet not all courtshave network access. Table 2e shows that39 percent of small, 63 percent of medium,and 66 percent of large jurisdiction courtshave communication networks that allowdrug court team members to communicateor share information via computer (also fig-ure 4). It is important to note that small,more physically dispersed areas fare theworst with availability of networks. Thisdistinction between the small jurisdictionsand their colleagues in medium- to large-size jurisdictions was so great that it wasstatistically significant at the level of .005.That is, our statistical tests showed an


28


29

Table 2d. Drug Court Assessment by Jurisdiction Size/Automation


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

2. Access to computers:a. Do members of the drug court team haveaccess to computers?

Yes 91.5 93.9 86.0 89.9No 8.5 3.7 12.1 8.5Skip 0.0 2.4 0.9 1.2Missing 0.0 0.0 0.9 1.4

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0b. In central, shared areas?


100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0c. On their desks?


100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0d. In the courtrooms?


100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0e. Are laptops available for travel?*


100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

*χ2 = 8.70, p = .013.



30

extremely high level of confidence thatthese results did not occur by chance.

It appears that the judge and the court coor-dinator are most likely to be linked via acomputer network. Specifically, table 2fshows that 32 percent of small, 51 percent ofmedium, and 57 percent of large jurisdictioncourts have networks that link to the drugcourt judge. In addition, 31 percent of small,52 percent of medium, and 56 percent oflarge jurisdiction courts have networks thatare linked to the court coordinator, whooversees case flow and ensures the efficientadministration of justice.

However, beyond the judge and courtcoordinator, network coverage decreases,especially among the team membersresponsible for providing accurate progressinformation to the judicial decisionmak-ers. 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 percentof small, 35 percent of medium, and 27percent of large jurisdiction courts offernetworked systems linked to treatmentproviders.

■ Pretrial services. Only 3 percent ofsmall jurisdiction courts have networksthat are linked to pretrial services, incomparison to 21 percent of mediumand 22 percent of large court networks(figure 5). This is an important issuebecause pretrial services are oftenresponsible for collecting relevantscreening 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


31

■ Probation. Some 20 percent of small,37 percent of medium, and 42 percentof large jurisdiction courts have a net-worked system that includes links toprobation.

■ Prosecutors. Only 15 percent of small,31 percent of medium, and 39 percentof large jurisdiction courts have net-works with links to prosecutors.

■ Public defenders. About 15 percent ofsmall, 22 percent of medium, and 36percent of large jurisdiction courtsextend their network links to thedefense teams.

The write-in comments given in responseto this question provide some details fromspecific courts. The comments range from respondents whose courts are notnetworked, who said, “Drug court memberscannot communicate via computer,” toother respondents with more progress indeveloping networks who stated, “Plannedlinkage (for) calendar year 2000.” Othercomments came from drug courts evenfurther along in the automation processwho have immediate team members andbeyond all linked, such as, “Programevaluator is also linked.”

Table 2e. Drug Court Assessment by Jurisdiction Size/Automation


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 58.9No 54.2 34.1 32.7 38.3Missing 6.8 2.4 0.9 2.8

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0b. Are judges linked?


100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0c. Is the court coordinator linked?


100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0d. Are treatment providers linked?


100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

*χ2 = 10.58, p = .005



32

Gaining Access to ComputerPrograms That Support SuccessDrug courts clearly have basic computerprograms that help in tasks like letter writ-ing or sending e-mail. For example, 95 per-cent of small, 98 percent of medium, and96 percent of large jurisdiction courts haveword-processing programs (table 2g). Inaddition, more than 70 percent of drugcourts of all jurisdiction sizes report accessto both e-mail and personal calendar func-tions (table 2g). As further illustrated bytable 2g, a majority of drug courts haveaccess to the Internet, database manage-ment software, spreadsheet applications,and antivirus programs.

However, access drops off noticeably whenit comes to programs specifically tailor-ed to court tasks. When asked if therewas software appropriate for their job,

respondents were less positive. For example,only 49 percent of small, 57 percent ofmedium, and 66 percent of large jurisdictioncourts have links to other justice systemdatabases as appropriate to job function,such as arrest records, criminal histories,and court dockets. More important, evenfewer report access to task-relevant soft-ware, such as screening programs for intakeor pretrial services officers and case man-agement programs. Only 34 percent ofsmall, 38 percent of medium, and 36 per-cent of large jurisdiction courts have accessto task-relevant software.

Finally, only 22 percent of small, 42 per-cent of medium, and 54 percent of largejurisdiction courts have access to thecourt’s main trial court case managementsystem. Although large jurisdiction courtsreport 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


33

larger systems are not well automated.Only 54 percent of the large jurisdictioncourts report having this access (figure 6).

The comment of one respondent sums upthe picture of sporadic access to job-specificcapabilities, stating, “E-mail is limited tothe office. We have links to other justicesystem databases for arrest records only.Not all of us have these functions.” Anothercommented, “Working on software specificto drug court.”

Educating Team Memberson Specific Software Programsand TechnologiesNot only do drug courts have limitedaccess to task-specific computer pro-grams, they also may face a severe short-age of automation training programs.Many veterans of successful automationprojects consider training on the newcomputer systems and software critical to ensuring the successful installation andusefulness of a system. As stated in a 1993book on court automation, “Millions ofdollars can be spent on hardware and

Table 2f. Drug Court Assessment by Jurisdiction Size/Automation


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

3. Communications network (continued):e. Are pretrial services linked?


100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0f. Is probation linked?


100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0g. Is the prosecutor linked?


100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0h. Is the public defender linked?


100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

*χ2 = 9.09, p = .05.



34

software, yet the ultimate success of thesystem depends on the quality of work ofthe individuals with the lowest salariesand the least training in the judicialbranch. 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 impor-tant challenges project leaders will face. Iftraining is not effective, the automationprocess 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


35

Table 2g. Drug Court Assessment by Jurisdiction Size/Automation


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 96.4No 5.1 2.4 3.7 3.6

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0b. Personal calendar

Yes 76.3 70.7 70.1 71.8No 23.7 29.3 29.9 28.2

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0c. E-mail

Yes 72.9 78.0 80.4 77.8No 27.1 22.0 19.6 22.2

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0d. Internet access

Yes 67.8 63.4 59.8 62.9No 32.2 36.6 40.2 37.1

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0e. Database management

Yes 67.8 67.1 62.6 65.3No 32.2 32.9 37.4 34.7

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0f. Spreadsheet

Yes 67.8 69.5 65.4 67.3No 32.2 30.5 34.5 32.7

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0g. Antivirus

Yes 71.2 70.7 69.2 70.2No 28.8 29.3 30.8 29.8

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0h. Links to other justice systems

Yes 49.2 57.3 66.4 59.3No 50.8 42.7 33.6 40.7

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0i. Task-relevant software

Yes 33.9 37.8 35.5 35.9No 66.1 62.2 64.5 64.1

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0j. Trial court case management system*

Yes 22.0 41.5 54.2 42.3No 78.0 58.5 44.9 57.3Missing 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.4

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

*χ2 = 16.62 p = .005.



36

To gauge the role training has in computersystems success in drug courts, the surveyasked respondents about access to formal,court-supported technology training pro-grams. A slight majority of drug courtsindicated that such programs exist, butthat where they do exist they are generallynot mandatory.

Specifically, only in the medium- to large-size jurisdictions are training programsavailable to half or more of the drug courts(table 2h). When asked about training ingeneral office applications, only 36 percentof small, 51 percent of medium, and 67percent of large jurisdiction courts reportthat such training is available (figure 7). Asimilar situation is found with training fordrug court-specific software, with 14 per-cent of small, 33 percent of medium, and 35

percent of large jurisdiction courts havingsuch training available (figure 8). A statisti-cally significant finding is that, whether forgeneral or specific training, small jurisdic-tion courts are less likely to have any for-mal training programs in place.

Furthermore, programs are mandatory in less than 12 percent of these courts,regardless of court size. Only 9 percent ofsmall, 4 percent of medium, and 5 percentof large jurisdiction courts require drugcourt team members to participate in train-ing to learn general office applications ofthe software. Requirements for training indrug court-specific software fared littlebetter, with 12 percent of small, 4 percentof medium, and 9 percent of large jurisdic-tion courts requiring these specific trainingprograms.

Table 2h. Drug Court Assessment by Jurisdiction Size/Automation


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 54.4Mandatory 8.5 3.7 4.7 5.2No training available 6.8 11.0 3.7 6.9Do not know 3.4 1.2 0.9 1.6Skip 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.4Missing 45.8 32.9 22.4 31.5

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0b. Drug court-specific software applications**

Available 13.6 32.9 34.6 29.0Mandatory 11.9 3.7 9.3 8.1No training available 10.2 13.4 6.5 9.7Do not know 3.4 0.0 1.9 1.6Skip 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Missing 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.



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 trainingto the details on the lack of court-specificprograms, and it is easy to conclude that,although computers and basic programsare available, this hardware and softwarecannot be used effectively for drug courtbusiness.

Relying on In-House Automation ExpertiseAnother indicator of automation advance-ment is the presence of staff technology personnel, one or more employees whoseprimary responsibilities include data process-ing, programming, system administration,

Figure 8. Level of Training in Drug Court Software

0

10

20

30

40

Small Medium Large

Mandatory

Available

None


38

and computer maintenance. However, only29 percent of small, 29 percent of medium,and 40 percent of large jurisdiction courtshave such expertise in-house (table 2i).Write-in comments like this one indicatedrug courts borrow MIS personnel fromother court functions or use student interns,even volunteers at times, just to achievebasic data entry and data processing. “Wejust want a good MIS so we can spend as lit-tle time as possible on reports and as muchtime as we can on treatment of our clients,”added one understaffed court coordinator.

Facing Automation BarriersCourts were asked to identify the main bar-riers to further automating their drugcourts. The barrier overwhelmingly citedwas a lack of funding. In fact, 61 percentof small, 72 percent of medium, and 66percent of large jurisdiction courts point tofunding as the number one impediment totheir automation development. In addition,56 percent of small, 61 percent of medium,and 47 percent of large jurisdiction courtsindicate difficulty in linking with other sys-tems that support drug court team mem-bers as a prime barrier. The vast majorityof the courts do not see the other itemslisted on the survey as being “main” barri-ers to further automating their drug court(table 2i). These included insufficientskills, a lack of guidelines specific to drugcourts, a need to educate stakeholders,ongoing maintenance costs, unfamiliaritywith State and/or national standards, andappropriate security controls to limit access.

Write-In CommentsThe write-in comments for this sectionshowed a wide range of concerns. Somerespondents mentioned the current de-mand for technical personnel, noting that“Programmers are not available becausethey are so busy with other projects.”

Other comments, perhaps reflective of acertain desperation where automation isconcerned, went so far as to suggest thatthe government go into the software devel-opment business. One respondent suggest-ed that DCPO/American University developa software package specific to drug courts.

Although identifying the need for tailoredsoftware is on target, the suggestion thatthe government should develop such soft-ware seems misguided. Comments such asthese suggest that there may be a greaterneed for education, so that those having torely on these systems will have a betterunderstanding of the role of technologyvendors, the use of various aspects of theprocurement process to acquire technolo-gy, and how to deal with the private sector.

The write-in comments about additionalbarriers were categorized and are present-ed below.

Additional Barriers Number ofComments Recorded

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

Technical Assistance:Overwhelming Appeal for SupportAs drug courts take on greater roles withintheir communities and serve larger clientpopulations, they obviously take on addi-tional responsibilities with more goals thatmust be achieved. The survey asked therespondents to identify the technicalassistance that the courts need to fulfill


39

Table 2i. Drug Court Assessment by Jurisdiction Size/Automation


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 33.9No 71.2 70.7 56.1 64.5Missing 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 skillsYes 25.4 31.7 25.2 27.4No 74.6 68.3 74.8 72.6

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0b. Lack of guidelines specific to drug courts

Yes 25.4 28.0 23.4 25.4No 74.6 72.0 76.6 74.6

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0c. Need to educate stakeholders

Yes 25.4 23.2 17.8 21.4No 74.6 76.8 82.2 78.6

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0d. Ongoing maintenance costs

Yes 33.9 28.0 35.8 32.8No 66.1 72.0 64.2 67.2

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0e. Funding

Yes 61.0 72.0 66.4 66.9No 39.0 28.0 33.6 33.1

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0f. Not familiar with national/State standards

Yes 16.9 12.2 10.3 12.5No 83.1 87.8 89.7 87.5

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0g. Difficulty linking with other systems

Yes 55.9 61.0 46.7 53.6No 44.1 39.0 53.3 46.4

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0h. Designing appropriate security controls

Yes 18.6 20.7 17.8 19.0No 81.4 79.3 82.2 81.0

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0



40

those vital goals. In fact, the survey teamculled many technical assistance optionsfrom earlier drug court focus groups. Thereport on these focus groups identified“eight high-priority areas for direct techni-cal assistance to jurisdictions with respectto development of monitoring, evaluation,and MIS capabilities.”31 From these areas,and based on consultation with expertsin the field, a list of specific options wasdeveloped. The respondents were asked torate these options from “extremely useful”to “not useful.”

The drug courts’ responses were forcefuland clear.

Overwhelmingly, drug courts ranked everyoffered technical assistance option as useful.In fact, very few of the hundreds of respond-ents ranked any technical assistanceoption as not useful. As one obviously frus-trated court coordinator wrote after answer-ing with a long technical assistance wishlist, “What day will (help) arrive???”

The greatest needs center around thebasics of getting started on long-term auto-mated productivity. The statistical resultsare shown in tables 3a and 3b and are discussed below.

Information Elements andFunctional RequirementsOne option listed on the survey was“Assistance in doing a comparison of theinformation elements being collected inyour drug court with a set of recommend-ed information elements and functionalrequirements.” For help with this “actualversus recommended” approach, 83 per-cent of small, 79 percent of medium, and87 percent of large jurisdiction courts feelthis help would be useful, very useful, orextremely useful.

Needs AssessmentHelp in conducting an MIS needs assess-ment that includes documenting existingprocedures, determining functionalrequirements, and developing recommend-ed solutions was also popular. Results showthat 87 percent of small, 79 percent ofmedium, and 83 percent of large jurisdic-tion courts cite this as useful, very useful,or extremely useful.

Strategic Information Technology PlansThe development of a strategic informationtechnology plan for the drug court wouldinclude an assessment of the staff’s techni-cal capabilities and a plan for acquiring thetechnical skill sets that are not available in-house. Respondents indicated that 70 per-cent of small, 71 percent of medium, and70 percent of large jurisdiction courts feelthis activity would be useful, very useful, orextremely useful.

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

Defining the Scope of WorkWhen asked about help in defining thescope of work required to implement atechnology plan, 76 percent of small, 70percent of medium, and 71 percent of largejurisdiction courts rated this activity asuseful, very useful, or extremely useful.

Model PowerPoint PresentationSome 78 percent of small, 94 percent ofmedium, and 85 percent of large jurisdic-tion courts favored the development andmaintenance of a template for a modelMicrosoft PowerPoint® presentation on drugcourt costs and benefits to use when makingpresentations to regional stakeholders.


41

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


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 21.4Very useful 28.8 34.1 34.6 33.1Useful 33.9 23.2 30.8 29.0Minimally useful 10.2 9.8 5.6 8.1Not useful 3.4 6.1 0.9 3.2Missing 3.4 4.9 6.5 5.2

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.02. Needs assessment


100.0 100.0 100.0 100.03. Development of a strategic information technology plan


100.0 100.0 100.0 100.04. Defining the scope of work to implement the technology plan


100.0 100.0 100.0 100.05. Development and maintenance of a PowerPoint®

presentation on the drug courtExtremely useful 28.8 40.2 32.7 34.3Very useful 28.8 36.6 24.3 29.4Useful 20.3 17.1 28.0 22.6Minimally useful 15.3 2.4 6.5 7.3Not useful 6.8 1.2 4.7 4.0Missing 0.0 2.4 3.7 2.4

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0


and products, including help preparingRFPs; selecting consultants, hardware, andsoftware; and drafting and negotiating con-tracts with vendors. Responses indicatedthat 64 percent of small, 68 percent ofmedium, and 60 percent of large jurisdic-tion courts cite this activity as useful, veryuseful, or extremely useful.

Drug Court EvaluationPlans/Identifying an EvaluatorWhen asked about help to develop a drugcourt evaluation plan and identify an


42

Security Links To Ensure PrivacyWhen asked about help and advice onestablishing appropriately secure links toexchange critical information with othercriminal justice agencies and treatmentproviders, 86 percent of small, 85 percentof medium, and 82 percent of large juris-diction courts rated this as useful, veryuseful, or extremely useful.

Vendors and ProductsRespondents were asked to rate the needfor assistance and advice selecting vendors

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


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 securityExtremely useful 27.1 28.0 22.4 25.4Very useful 32.2 35.4 25.2 30.2Useful 27.1 22.0 34.6 28.6Minimally useful 5.1 7.3 12.1 8.9Not useful 8.5 2.4 1.9 3.6Missing 0.0 4.9 3.7 3.2

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.07. Assistance and advice on selection of vendors and products


100.0 100.0 100.0 100.08. Assistance in developing a drug court evaluation plan and on identifying an evaluator


100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0



43

evaluator, 75 percent of small, 61 percentof medium, and 65 percent of large juris-diction courts rate assistance as useful,very useful, or extremely useful. Smalljurisdiction courts gave this option amuch higher rating than their colleagues inmedium- and large-size jurisdictions. Thisdifferential in ratings was significantly dif-ferent for small jurisdiction courts than forthe other courts. Stated differently, the sta-tistical analysis indicated that a strongrelationship exists between size of jurisdic-tion and need for such assistance, and thatthis finding is extremely unlikely to haveresulted from chance.

Overall Ranking of TechnicalAssistance OptionsBy assigning a weight to each responsecategory, and taking an overall average foreach activity, the relative importance ofeach activity could be assessed. The resultsof this weighting, which show activitiesfrom least useful to most useful overall, aredisplayed graphically (figures 9a and 9b).

Write-In CommentsRespondents had the opportunity to writecomments and suggestions for this section.In response to the question of “AdditionalAssistance” the results were as follows:

Assistance Requested Number ofComments Recorded

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

These write-in comments continue to showan emphasis on the need for adequatefunding and software that meets the specif-ic needs of drug courts.

Education and Training: Sharingand Expanding SuccessesAs with technical assistance, drug courtsoverwhelmingly underscored the need foreducational assistance. Only a handful ofthe hundreds of respondents ranked anyeducation 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


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 spe-cific types of training they need most andthe types of training delivery devices, suchas videoconferences, videotapes, and pre-existing conferences, that they can accesscost effectively.

Information Management “Add-On” ModulesRespondents from 88 percent of small, 87percent of medium, and 84 percent of largejurisdiction courts believe an informationmanagement component in future DCPO-sponsored workshops on planning andimplementation would be useful, very use-ful, or extremely useful.

Dedicated Topical WorkshopsEven more respondents, 93 percent ofsmall, 89 percent of medium, and 90 per-cent of large jurisdiction courts, thoughtworkshops dedicated to the topics of drugcourt monitoring, evaluation, and MISdevelopment would be useful, very useful,or extremely useful.

VideoconferencesIn recognition of limited travel budgets,respondents were asked to rate the useful-ness of conducting videoconferences, orState or regional conferences targeted tospecific monitoring, evaluation, and MISissues. Respondents from 76 percent ofsmall, 78 percent of medium, and 83 per-cent of large jurisdiction courts indicatedthat such conferences would be useful,very useful, or extremely useful.

Software OrientationAlso rated highly was the option of con-ducting orientation sessions on specificsoftware programs and their application todrug court MIS needs, with 83 percent ofsmall, 91 percent of medium, and 81 per-cent of large jurisdiction courts reportingthat these would be useful, very useful, orextremely useful.


45

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


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


100.0 100.0 100.0 100.02. Drug court monitoring, evaluation, and MIS development in a series of workshops


100.0 100.0 100.0 100.03. Drug court monitoring, evaluation, and MIS issues via videoconference


100.0 100.0 100.0 100.04. Orientation on specific software programs and their application to drug court needs


100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0



46

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


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


100.0 100.0 100.0 100.06. Development and maintenance of frequently asked questions about drug court MIS


100.0 100.0 100.0 100.07. Development of an Internet listserver to automatically send e-mails to the drug court community


100.0 100.0 100.0 100.08. Identification, description, and dissemination of information about well-functioning drug courts


100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0



47

Drug Court Request for Proposalsand Contract DatabaseResponses show that 75 percent of small,74 percent of medium, and 78 percent oflarge jurisdiction courts thought the devel-opment and maintenance of a drug courtRFP and contract database could benefitthe court by improving the development of technology projects.

Frequently Asked QuestionsThis item focused on whether it would beuseful to develop and maintain a list of fre-quently asked questions (FAQs) about drugcourt MIS, with answers contributed byleading experts in the field. Of thoseresponding, 81 percent of small, 84 percentof medium, and 81 percent of large juris-diction courts rate this list as useful, veryuseful, or extremely useful.

Internet Listserver A vast majority of courts would like to seedevelopment of an Internet listserver thatwould automatically send copies of e-mailnotes on drug court technology issues andconcerns to subscribers within the drugcourt community. Specifically, 93 percentof the small, 88 percent of the medium,and 85 percent of the large jurisdictioncourts rated this activity as useful, veryuseful, or extremely useful.

Evaluation and ManagementInformation Systems BestPracticesSome 93 percent of small, 93 percent ofmedium, and 91 percent of large jurisdic-tion courts noted that it would be benefi-cial to identify, describe, and disseminateinformation about well-functioning drugcourt evaluation and management informa-tion systems.

Overall Ranking of Education andTraining OptionsAs was the case with technical assistance,by weighting categories and taking an over-all average for each activity, the relativeimportance of each activity could beassessed. The results of this weighting,which shows activities from least useful tomost useful overall, are shown in figures10a and 10b.

Write-In CommentsRespondents had the opportunity to writecomments and suggestions for this section.In response to the question of “AdditionalAssistance” the following were suggested:

Educational Option Number ofComments Recorded

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

These results show that, unlike the technicalassistance options, there was not as muchconsensus on additional or alternativeoptions that would help address educationand training needs.

Background and OtherCharacteristicsThe general profile of drug courts assembledthrough analysis of the survey responsesand write-in comments shows that 69 per-cent were adult courts (table 5). Of themore than 250 courts that responded, themajority of courts serve adults in moder-ately large cities with populations of100,000 to 1 million. In looking at thenumber of active participants in each drugcourt, 58 percent have 100 participants orfewer. In addition, the modal average, orthe largest percentage programs in a single


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


49

category, had 50 participants or fewer. Yetthe “average,” as measured by the arith-metic mean, was about 200 active partici-pants. This larger average results becausethe statistical mean is influenced orskewed by the 15 percent of programs thathave more than 200 participants.

These findings raise an important issue.Because most drug courts are serving juris-dictions of 100,000-plus, one might expectthat the majority of the drug courts wouldbe handling a larger number of partici-pants. But the majority of drug courts have100 participants or fewer. This begs thequestion of why more of the programs are not handling larger numbers ofparticipants. Several explanations comeimmediately to mind. Three possibilitiesare that

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

2. Treatment providers or other necessaryservices and facilities are not availableto increase the size of these programs.

3. These courts lack the automation thatwould allow the teams to handle largernumbers of participants.

The first seems an unlikely causal explana-tion, knowing the explosive growth of thedrug-related caseload, but other researchmay be in progress to answer this question.As to the lack of treatment resources, it isgenerally acknowledged to be a constantchallenge for these programs. To be sure,others within most communities and cer-tain Federal programs are seeking ways toaddress the availability of treatment. Thethird explanation, that the lack of automa-tion is hindering these programs from serv-ing larger numbers of participants, has notbeen generally acknowledged. However,data in this study would tend to supportthis explanation.

Significant correlations exist between sev-eral measures of the extent of automationand the number of active participants—that is, the larger the number of partici-pants, the greater the extent of automationand the better the MIS support (table 6).For example, the results of questions aboutinformation elements entered into thecomputer show a significant correlationbetween the number of participants andseveral of these elements. These includeinformation on screening and assessment,treatment services, and fees imposed andcollected. Significant correlations also existbetween the number of participants andother measures of automation, includinghow well the various functions are auto-mated, and whether or not there is a courtcase and drug court MIS. As illustrated intable 6, an interesting additional finding isthat a significant correlation also existsbetween the number of participants andwhether the public defender is electroni-cally linked to the drug court team.

More than 77 percent of the drug courtsoperating at the time of the survey hadbeen in operation for at least 2 years.Almost 73 percent rely exclusively on con-tractual treatment providers for service,rather than having in-house treatmentproviders (table 5). Another 10 percentrely on both, bringing the total of programsthat rely in some fashion on contractualtreatment providers to 83 percent. Thenumber of different providers varied, butthe average or arithmetic mean was sevenand the median, or the response at themidpoint of the distribution, was two. Inthis instance, the median of 2 is a muchmore representative indicator of the aver-age number of providers because the arith-metic mean is inflated due to 2 courts withmore than 130 providers each.

The Background section of the survey alsoincluded a question addressing how long


50

Table 5. Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Drug Court Background Characteristics

n %CharacteristicType of court

Adult 176 69.0Juvenile 48 18.8Family 24 9.4Tribal 4 1.6Missing 3 1.2Total 255 100.0

Years in operationOne year or less 46 18.0Two years or less 80 31.4Three years or less 53 20.8More than three years 68 26.7Missing 8 3.1Total 255 100.0

Population of jurisdiction served0–50,000 19 7.550,001–100,000 40 15.7100,001–350,000 82 32.2350,001–500,000 36 14.1500,001–1,000,000 42 16.51,000,001 and above 29 11.4Missing 7 2.7Total 255 100.0

Number of active participants50 or less 90 35.351–100 59 23.1101–200 54 21.2201 or more 38 14.9Missing 14 5.5Total 255 100.0

Treatment providerIn-house 39 15.3Contractual 186 72.9Both 25 9.8Missing 5 2.0Total 255 100.0

Number of providers, if contractualMean 6.79Median 2.00

Amount of time to elapse until judge received failed drug-testing results

Minutes 48 18.8One day 60 23.5Two days 29 11.4Three days 38 14.9Four or more days 72 28.2Missing 8 3.1Total 255 100.0

Note: Percent totals may not equal 100 due to rounding.


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*% % % % %

QuestionScreening and assessment information entered into computer

Yes 52.6 60.7 76.9 66.7 62.6No 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 computerYes 61.3 64.3 80.4 86.1 70.4No 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 computerYes 61.3 38.2 66.7 52.8 55.4No 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 automatedNone 58.0 40.8 21.2 26.5 40.8Partial 30.7 38.8 65.4 55.9 44.4Complete 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 automatedNone 51.7 42.6 21.2 28.6 38.9Partial 35.6 36.2 55.8 54.3 43.5Complete 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 automatedNone 44.3 30.8 15.4 25.0 31.6Partial 42.0 51.9 55.8 58.3 50.0Complete 13.6 17.3 28.8 16.7 18.4

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Court management information is automatedNone 21.6 17.0 9.4 10.5 15.9Partial 28.4 34.0 45.3 18.4 31.9Complete 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 automatedNone 41.4 39.6 17.3 28.9 33.5Partial 36.8 28.3 61.5 55.3 43.5Complete 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 linkedYes 26.1 53.7 48.6 56.5 44.1No 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.



52

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

— Drug Test Result Efficiency — Minutes One day Two+ days Totaln = 48 n = 60 n = 139 n = 247*

% % % %

Information entered into the computerSanctions imposed

Yes 60.6 70.3 57.6 62.4No 39.4 29.7 42.4 37.6

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

Incentives providedYes 49.5 33.9 27.7 38.9No 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 awardYes 46.5 53.1 30.8 43.9No 53.5 46.9 69.2 56.1

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

Management report capabilityAbility to produce reports to monitor overall operations

Very good 18.4 3.1 14.9 13.2Good 32.0 43.1 32.8 35.3Fair 27.2 33.8 25.4 28.5Poor 18.4 18.5 16.4 17.9Very 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 evaluationsVery good 11.9 7.6 10.8 10.9Good 27.7 34.8 33.8 31.5Fair 23.8 34.8 18.5 25.4Poor 32.7 16.7 20.0 24.6Very 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 servedVery good 19.0 12.1 17.9 16.7Good 32.0 37.9 22.4 30.9Fair 17.0 37.9 22.4 24.5Poor 25.0 6.1 22.4 18.9Very 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.


on average it took to get a report to thejudge about a failed drug test. The cross-tabulation on this question, done to seehow well reporting test results correlateswith other factors, produced some of themost interesting findings. The results

indicate that a high correlation existsbetween automation and rapidity of testresults (tables 7a and 7b). There is also asignificant correlation between courts thatget rapid results and those that are charac-terized by two other factors: those that


53

maintain data on rewards and sanctions,and those that have good managementreporting capabilities.

However, the results of the data on thetime it takes to get test results also showthat some other factor must be at work,because some of the less automated courtsalso have rapid test reporting.32 A likelyexplanation is that those courts that put ahigh value on the importance of informa-tion 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 Totaln = 48 n = 60 n = 139 n = 247*

% % % %

Automation levelJudicial supervision is automated

None 44.0 30.0 43.5 40.2Partial 29.0 56.7 36.2 38.4Complete 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 automatedNone 34.7 16.4 39.7 31.3Partial 53.5 73.8 45.6 56.5Complete 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 travelYes 48.5 32.2 28.8 38.5No 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.


same courts that establish the processesthat will get them the critical data in atimely fashion. They seem to establishthese processes whether or not their sys-tem is automated. This likely acknowledgesthat automation alone is not the answer.Rather, the issue is whether the drug courtplaces a high value on information. Eventhose drug courts that do a good job nowwould be able to do it easier and faster witha good integrated automation system.

55

generally entered into automated sys-tems, and there is not widespread,appropriately shared access to dataamong drug court team members. Infact, less than a quarter of the courtssurveyed use automation to helpjudges interact with their caseload of defendants.

2. A strong correlation exists betweenautomation and the time it takes forthe judge to get failed drug test results.Because some of the less automatedcourts also have rapid test reporting, itseems that those courts that place ahigh value on the importance of infor-mation in the drug court environmentare the same courts that establish theprocesses that will get them the crucialdata in a timely fashion. The criticalfactor is the importance that the drugcourt places on the value of information.

3. An overwhelming majority of the drugcourts surveyed expressed their willing-ness to use every technical assistance

IV.

Summary of Findings

he detailed review ofthe survey results insection III showedthat many drug court

processes are not automated. Without adoubt, computers are an integral part ofthe drug court environment. Althoughcomputers are widespread, survey resultsshow that the automated support beingprovided to the drug courts by existingcomputer systems is inadequate. There-fore, drug courts are hampered in manyways. First, they cannot take advantage ofproductivity gains and success sharing thatcomputer automation offers. Second, thereis some evidence that courts cannot servelarger numbers of participants unless theyare more fully automated.

Major FindingsThe major findings of the survey are sum-marized in the following key points:

1. Although there is widespread access topersonal computers, vital data are not

T


56

option offered to acquire the properautomation, maintain the technology,and obtain the education necessary togenerate regular productivity reports.

4. A lack of funding was the number onereason drug courts did not acquire theadditional automation and training/technical assistance they need toimprove the administration of drugcourt justice.

5. In addition to funding barriers, drugcourts also listed difficulty with linkingto other systems as a prime barrier toautomation.

6. Even though most serve large jurisdic-tions, the majority of drug courts have100 active participants or fewer. Thelargest drug courts, those with 200 ormore participants, are highly automat-ed with good MIS support. This andother survey results suggest that thelack of automation is hindering drugcourt programs from serving larger num-bers of participants and providing theresultant benefits to their communities.

7. Drug courts clearly specified that theyneed technical assistance with allaspects of automation. These includehelp with “getting started” steps suchas developing needs assessments andtechnology plans and preparing fundingproposals for stakeholders.

8. Surveyed drug courts overwhelminglyexpressed a desire for additional educa-tion and training that deal specificallywith evaluation and management infor-mation systems. Targeted workshopsand videotaped training sessions dedi-cated to monitoring, evaluation, andMIS development rated highly amongsurveyed courts.

9. Difficulty with data entry and sharingare not a result of drug court indiffer-

ence to the need to provide regularevaluation information. Indeed, lessthan half of the drug courts surveyedrated their current systems as good orvery good at providing information forevaluations.

10. Less than 15 percent of all surveyedcourts report that they have completedthe automation needed to producereports for overall program evaluation.It is telling that this is about the samepercentage of drug courts that have thelargest number of active participants(200 or more).

Other Results1. Access to computers. Although com-

puters are prevalent in drug courts,most are not located in areas conduciveto regular, effective data entry and shar-ing. Furthermore, most drug court teammembers, particularly pretrial servicespersonnel and treatment providers whomust keep the judges regularly apprisedof drug court activity and participantstatuses, do not have shared access todata and data-updating capabilities.This problem is multifaceted, as is illus-trated by one respondent who comment-ed, “These different types of informationare entered by different team membersinto their own PCs in whatever formatthey choose. There is no connectionbetween PCs at this time.”

2. Survey result differences. Generally,there was no statistically significantdifference in survey results of differenttypes of courts or among courts in exist-ence for different durations. The majorstatistically significant difference inresults was among courts serving differ-ent jurisdiction sizes. A few of the drugcourts in the largest jurisdictions dohave sophisticated systems that theyrate highly. Surprisingly, sometimes

Summary of Findings

57

courts in the largest jurisdictions farethe worst in information entry, access,and sharing.

3. Recidivism tracking. About 60 percentof the programs can track recidivismwhile offenders are in the program, aclear measure of program success. Lessthan a third of surveyed drug courtscan report on vital defendant recidi-vism rates postgraduation.

4. Internal technical personnel. Onlybetween 30 to 40 percent of drugcourts can rely on their own experi-enced MIS personnel to guide dataentry, processing, and programming.

5. Access to court-specific software. Aminority of drug court teams haveaccess to trial court management sys-tems and software programs tailored to specific court tasks.

6. Training. A majority of drug courts sur-veyed indicated that automation train-ing programs for specific software ortechnologies are not available. Ininstances where training is available, it is generally not mandatory. This is a particularly telling statistic becauseproper training is crucial to the creation,use, and effective maintenance of anautomated MIS.

59

he results of this sur-vey clearly show thatthe automated sup-port being provided to

the drug courts by existing computer sys-tems is inadequate.33 The respondents alsoidentified several initiatives that, if adopt-ed, would help improve the monitoring,evaluation, and MIS capabilities of drugcourts. Although the data were collectedin summer 1999, the findings are as impor-tant today as when the survey was initiallyconducted because they provide the onlyempirical evidence of user training andtechnical assistance needs.

DCPO and training and technical assistanceproviders have continued to develop andpresent programs and solutions responsiveto the needs described in this report. How-ever, to some extent, those programs andsolutions reflect the fact that training andtechnical assistance project staff haveworked collaboratively throughout theproject with DCPO staff, project partners,

and other technical assistance providersand experts in the field to address therequirements of the drug court community.It would have been surprising if surveyfindings and recommended responses tothe findings were contrary to DCPO’sunderstanding of the field’s needs andrequirements, because the field was thesame source for determining resourceneeds throughout the grant period. Thisreport provides statistical evidence of thelack of hardware, software, evaluation, andMIS expertise among drug court staff andan agenda for addressing these needs.

Without technology, it is difficult for drugcourts to link the information about theirresults with the goals of the court. It is alsodifficult to produce the reports and evalua-tions needed to persuade stakeholders toallot more funding for technology. This isobviously a vicious cycle that should beaddressed to ensure continued andenhanced court success.

V.

Recommendations

T


60

To break this cycle and to ensure futureinformation sharing, the drug court fieldshould consider six broad recommendedinitiatives, which are detailed below.

Recommendation 1Confront the main barriers to drug courtefforts to gather and maintain informa-tion through effective automated means.

The top two barriers to further automationcited by survey respondents were lack offunding and difficulty linking with othersystems. Some ways of addressing thesebarriers are discussed below.

■ Lack of funding. Although identifyinga complete solution to this barrier isbeyond the scope of any one entity,this major barrier might be mitigatedin part by providing several forms ofassistance identified as useful by drugcourts.

■■ One such tool identified in thisstudy is a model presentation ondrug court costs and benefits. Bytaking data from available cost/benefit analyses conducted through-out the country, and by using mod-ern computer graphics softwaresuch as Microsoft PowerPoint® orHarvard Graphics, these facts canbe integrated into stakeholder pre-sentations that can help generatevital funding.

■■ Another tool would be to develop anMIS/evaluation listserv to updatethe field on developments as theyoccur, to provide a forum for practi-tioners to discuss issues, and topose and answer peers’ questions.

■■ An online clearinghouse of fre-quently asked questions about drugcourt MIS and evaluation that

would feature answers by leadingexperts in the field would also behelpful.

■ Difficulty linking with other systems.Providing training and technical assist-ance can also be instrumental in help-ing drug court personnel deal with thesecurity, privacy, and access issues thatarise when automating a system withshared information. Subject mattertrainings could be conducted, includinga workshop on linking drug court infor-mation systems to court informationsystems.

Recommendation 2Respond to the call for specialized edu-cational programs by developing work-shops that address high-priority issues.

■ A first workshop should focus on pro-gram monitoring and process evalua-tion and provide illustrations of outputreports from a real MIS to illustratewhat can be accomplished throughawareness and planning.

■ A second workshop should addressusing technology to enhance drug courtoperations. It should include the appli-cation of existing audio, video, data,and telecommunications products andtools including testing, monitoring, andmapping technologies. The aim shouldbe to improve the ability of the drugcourt team to make the highest qualitydecisions and to improve the overallefficiency and effectiveness of drugcourts.

■ A third workshop on linking drug courtinformation systems to court informa-tion systems should explore the barri-ers to system interface, including theprivacy and security issues inherent in

Recommendations

61

integrated justice information systems.Subject matter faculty should includerepresentatives from jurisdictions inwhich the court and drug court systemsare already integrated.

Recommendation 3Provide technical assistance thataddresses areas identified as needingspecial attention.

Survey respondents identified the followingareas for training.

■ Information technology strategic plan-ning, including staffing issues.

■ Comparing data being collected withrecommended data elements and func-tional requirements.

■ Conducting information system designand development and/or acquisition,including help preparing RFPs; selectingconsultants, hardware, and software;and drafting and negotiating contractswith vendors.

■ Defining the scope of work to imple-ment the technology plan.

■ Making the business case to the fundingagency.

■ Establishing appropriately secure linksto exchange critical information withother criminal justice agencies andtreatment providers.

■ Developing a drug court evaluationplan and selecting an evaluator.

Recommendation 4Respond to the call for a specially tailored software package for drugcourts by designing programs that help develop intelligent consumers of technology.

There should be a multiple approach tothis recommendation.

■ First, there should be more educationabout the use of technology, its acquisi-tion, and the proper role of governmentin this process. These issues should beincluded in the workshops discussed inrecommendation 2. These workshopsshould help drug court membersbecome intelligent consumers of tech-nology by dealing with questions such as

■■ What is the role of managementvis-à-vis technology as distinctfrom the roles of MIS personnel?

■■ What are the appropriate roles oftechnology vendors?

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

■ Second, initiatives should be undertak-en that illustrate the steps needed todevelop a system and demonstrate bestpractices for MIS systems. These initia-tives might include a case study docu-menting the development and operationof a drug court MIS.

■ Third, building on this case study andwork done by SEARCH—including an assessment report of four publicdomain drug court software systemsand an “information audit” report,34

which identify needed information ele-ments for a drug court MIS—an initia-tive should be undertaken to develop aset of common requirements for suchsoftware packages and/or a model RFPthat includes the specific requirementsof such a package.


62

Recommendation 5Focus on the role of systems training insuccessful automation projects.

Drug courts should explore ways to focuson the role of systems training in success-ful automation projects. Because propertraining is so important to the success ofthese projects, serious considerationshould be given to various methods oftraining. Also, there should be an explo-ration of the means of encouraging thistraining, either by making training manda-tory or by rewarding those who have thetraining in a timely manner.

Recommendation 6Develop a research agenda for drugcourt best practices.

There is a need to identify the best practicesthat have been developed for drug courts inparticular, and courts in general, with regardto the use of performance measures andtechnology and automation components.

63

Appendix 1Drug Court Needs Assessment of

Evaluation and ManagementInformation Systems, May 1999


64

Appendix 1

65


66

Appendix 1

67


68

Appendix 1

69


70

71

Appendix 2Write-In Comments


72

Management InformationQuestion 1. Does your Drug Court use anycomputers?35

Survey respondents added these explanations:

■ We use Provider Plus and are lookingto convert to new county system.

■ Just for minute orders.

■ We are working on getting data entryassistance on each of the unidentifieditems (rearrest while in the program,rearrest, drug-free status, and employ-ment status postgraduation).

■ Some by participants and probation.

■ No MIS system but some computers forword processing and e-mail only. Ourcalendaring/docketing mainframe usedfor all juvenile cases is used for drugcourt cases. We are currently planninga case management system to be usedin addition to this. We developed anapplication in Power Builder for depend-ency case management and may modifyfor drug court.

■ Two systems: probation and treatment.

Question 2. Please indicate the type ofinformation currently being routinelyentered into your computer system.(Check all that apply.)

In addition to selecting from the 18 optionsincluded in the survey, respondents addedthe following comments:

■ We intend to enter followup informa-tion for graduates. We do not have graduates at this time. (2)

■ Treatment plans and discharge summaries.

■ For rearrest, drug status, and employ-ment status postgraduation, we have

the capacity and are just in the begin-ning stages of data collection.

■ Probation department enters criminalhistory data and tracks the rearrestafter graduation.

■ The provider keeps all records.

■ Incentives and fees are not applicable.

■ Rearrest, drug-free status, employmentafter graduation will be applicable, butnot at this time.

■ This information is available, but noton computer.

■ We have not been established longenough to have postgraduation information.

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

■ We use the Iowa Court InformationSystem.

■ Demographic information (drug-freechildren, number of children, race, dateof birth, ZIP Code).

■ Drug of choice, drug history, race, mari-tal status, family size.

■ Children unification.

■ Drug-free babies.

■ Track family relationships (e.g., reunifi-cation and healthy births).

■ Program level changes.

■ Mental health issues.

■ Most of captured information is undertreatment and tracking.

■ Most information is in narrative formonly on probation and social servicessystems.

■ Complete database of Social Securitynumber, 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 formonly.

■ Urine and medical screens; individual,group, and family sessions; courtappearances per month; and case man-agement sessions.

■ Information is not kept in one system.Drug testing results, assessment infor-mation, fees collected, and arrest infor-mation are maintained in separatesystems. Other data elements areentered into a Microsoft Access data-base created in-house, which is in useon case managers’ and the drug courtjudges’ desktops as of 5/21/99. We alsocollect data on past drug use, educationstatus, number of dependents, depend-ent living status, changes in employ-ment status, and changes in educationstatus.

■ Information to monitor client progress(some); rearrest or conviction aftergraduation (within 3 months).

■ Attendance at status reviews.

■ All outgoing correspondence.

■ General demographics; judge hearingcase; pertinent dates.

■ New system will incorporate almost allof the above.

■ All information is tracked in a writtenchart.

■ Employment status is not updated.

■ The local university does a followupsurvey on graduated youth.

■ All postgraduation information: we donot have the programming necessary todo this.

■ Drug testing: partial and in aggregateonly; compliance: partial and in aggre-gate only; status hearing: BR–15 only;sanctions imposed: BR–15 only; drug-free postgraduation: in process; employ-ment status: in process; demographics;aggregate outcomes; existing status;drug-free babies born; family reunifica-tion; resumption of child support; refer-ral information.

■ These different types of information areentered by different team members intotheir own PCs in whatever format theychoose. There is no connectionbetween PCs at this time.

■ We do not have software yet, althoughwe have computers. We do not have aprogram. All checked information is apart of the weekly . . . .

■ Program is so new there are no gradu-ates, yet. We plan to include this in thedatabase.

■ We track jail time only on sanctionsimposed, and meetings with counselorsand probation officers are also tracked.

Question 3. Please rate your drug court’sability to automatically produce manage-ment reports in order to provide informa-tion for the following purposes. (Check theappropriate response.)

Respondents provided the following addi-tional comments:

■ All paper reports.

■ Cost and benefit analyses are not done.

■ All information on paper.

■ We share the ability to track criminalhistory with the rest of the court.There is no MIS for the drug programindividually.

■ No automated system.


74

■ We cannot automatically produce anymanagement reports.

■ Our ability to produce managementreports is poor due to the fact that allinformation is not included in one sys-tem, nor do the various informationsystems communicate with each otherat this time.

■ Individual casework is done by hand orverbally, as are maintaining statisticson target populations.

■ System does not have capacity to gen-erate automated reports. However, sys-tem collects all necessary data andeasily translates into aggregate statisti-cal analysis.

■ These are rated very poor since we donot have a lot of data in the system.Also, we are still working with the ven-dor to get some useful reports from thesystem.

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

Respondents added these comments:

■ Separate, but equal to the countysystem.

■ Integrated, but a separate track.

■ Computer system not used.

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

■ We are using Drug Court PC+ and havemuch data entered but are having tech-nical difficulties with statistics outputs.This is being addressed.

■ Treatment provider has some informa-tion on separate systems.

■ Access 2.0.

■ We are using three systems and they areboth separate and integrated.

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

■ No database is available. There is cur-rently a proposal to implement a drugcourt database. That has not been doneyet.

■ Kentucky has been granted an MISgrant and will soon be upgrading andintegrating systems.

■ Treatment (Department of PublicHealth), the court, police department,and probation have different systems.DPH—billing system; treatment—smalldatabase on treatment history; criminaljustice agencies—use court managementsystem for bench warrant, arrest, etc.

■ We are currently working on a softwareprogram specifically designed for thisproject and separate from our largersystem.

■ Our current Drug Court InformationSystem was created in-house and lacksdepth. We are currently in a holdingpattern; the Louisiana State SupremeCourt, along with the Louisiana Depart-ment of Health and Hospitals Office ofAlcohol and Drug Abuse, is in theprocess of implementing a statewidedrug court information system using theBaltimore/Washington HIDTA softwarepackage.

■ We also use a statewide database.

■ Will be a separate server/database thatlinks to and receives downloaded infor-mation from other systems.

■ No database. Separate system does ourreports on MIS and the integratedsystem is ICON MIS which is statewidein Colorado.

Appendix 2

75

■ Separate, but working on integration.

■ Utilize more than one.

■ Local information is sent to the Stateoffice. The State office can pull anyinformation on local program from their database.

■ All databases are separate now.

■ Both really. We have a client/servicedatabase; an aggregate supplementaldatabase in process of partial integra-tion with county system; an assess-ment/followup database in developmentand a screening/monitoring databaseseparate 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, notyet one main drug court database.

■ There is no database. We have request-ed same from American University sev-eral times.

AutomationQuestion 1. Please indicate the extent towhich each function is supported byautomation.

In addition to rating automation in 10 dif-ferent drug court functions, survey respon-dents also noted the following:

■ We are working on screening andassessment.

■ Postprogram recidivism is notapplicable.

■ When PC+ is working correctly, we’llbe able to do these items (screening,assessment, treatment case management).

■ Court case management is done on aseparate program. (2)

■ Overall program evaluation and post-program recidivism are on separate systems.

■ The indicated items are supportedthrough automation, but all items arenot maintained in one central database.This makes querying data possible buttime consuming.

■ New system will incorporate almost all.

■ Court case management is on the gen-eral court system.

■ Information is entered in an “after thefact” manner. The system is not used toassist team members or the judge intheir daily duties. The system is merelystoring the information so that it can beused for evaluation purposes.

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

Survey respondents provided additionalcomments on computer coverage, including:

■ Laptop used in courtroom by drugcourt officer.

■ Only the judge and court coordinator.

■ Drug court team does not have accessto the database system. They haveaccess to the LAN and other courtinformation systems, but not the drugcourt system.

■ One laptop is available.

■ Probation and coordinator have access.We hope to expand to treatmentproviders next year with the enhance-ment grant.

■ Each member is on their own system.We must copy and fax information fromone to the other.


76

■ Bail commissioner and judge havelaptops. State’s attorney and publicdefender have desktops. Social workermay also have a desktop. Serviceproviders handwrite reports, but coulddo better to e-mail them. They wouldbe legible and timely, if they did so.

■ Court staff and clinic staff have accessto computers.

■ The drug court has its own LAN.

■ In the drug court office.

■ We only have two members.

■ Only the drug court specialist has acomputer that is set up for the drugcourt use.

■ We currently operate through JOLTS(Juvenile Online Tracking System). It’sa statewide computer system.

■ AODS program is in central areas andthe courtroom computers are for courtsystem contacts.

■ Clerical computers are in the centralarea and probation officers have desktops.

■ Probation and the judge have desktops.

■ Case management access is alreadyexisting with department case trackingsystems (probation/social service).Judges (felony/misdemeanor) have no computer access. PCs on order.

■ Limited availability.

■ Only when contacting me or a proba-tion staff.

■ Judge and coordinator only havelaptops.

■ Most members have access to computers.

■ There is a larger system probation offi-cers use (on their desks); a system the

courtroom clerks use (in the court-room); and a system the judge uses (inhis chambers). All are independent,nonintegrated.

■ Team members have computers in theiroffices (Tribal Court and Public SafetyDepartment).

■ Each case manager has a desktop PCconnected to our recently installed net-work (4/1/99). However, not all judgeshave PCs attached to the network attheir immediate disposal. Case man-agers are located in a satellite office. Acentral shared area within the court-house for them to be able to log on andretrieve data would be helpful.

■ Probation has desktops.

■ At the drug court office, which is locat-ed a block from the courthouse, wehave computers. The treatment coordi-nator, however, has his system linked tothis one. There is a separate computersystem used by prosecutors, publicdefenders, etc., which shows arrestrecords and court information.

■ Laptops are available for travel for pro-bation officers and program director.

■ Agency specific systems, not shared.

■ Working toward putting computers inthe classrooms.

■ Will Beta test a new MIS in June. Teamwill have access in offices and court-room, through PCs and laptops.

■ Some team members have computerson their desks. The computers in thecourtrooms are for clerks only and onlyfor general family court calendaringsystem.

■ Also, remote access.

■ Currently, only the resource coordina-tor has a computer. The court will be

Appendix 2

77

receiving new computers by fall 1999.A total of 10 computers to be used bythe judge, courtroom staff, and casemanagers.

■ Drug court coordinator’s staff uses aseparate MIS. Reports now court staffand probation use a Colorado State system—ICON.

■ But do not have access to database.

■ Central computers are for probation forrecord checks of clients and secretaryhas computer. One laptop is shared forscreening and assessment.

■ Some do, some don’t.

■ The computers are not linked withtreatment providers, DA, and judge.

■ Separate databases. We are seekingfunding to link treatment to the court.

■ Some have access to computers. Someon their desks; judges in the court-rooms, and a few laptops.

■ Computers are being installed in thecourtrooms.

■ On desks, but no programs.

Question 3. Do you have a communica-tions network that allows team members tocommunicate or share information viacomputer? If yes, who is linked?

In addition to explaining which drug courtmembers were linked, survey participantsnoted:

■ This is the main problem with our sys-tem. The MIS software provided byAmerican University is designed fornetworks and we are unable to networkat this time.

■ Only the treatment providers who arein-house.

■ Drug court members cannot communi-cate via computer.

■ Substance abuse administrator is alsolinked. We are all on the county e-mailsystem.

■ Judicial branch, employees in MIS, andalternative sanctions are also linked.

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

■ We will have a new system in the falland all will be linked.

■ Case managers and court-appointedspecial advocates are also linked.

■ Multijurisdictional judges and coordina-tors are linked.

■ Mental health specialist is also linked.

■ Yes, through JOLTS.

■ Limited to these areas only (treat-ment provider, pretrial services, andprobation).

■ Treatment providers are only linked toeach other.

■ Data entry person is also linked.

■ Perinatal, mental health, CPS, socialservices are also linked.

■ Court management system can beaccessed 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 isalso linked.

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

■ Use various systems for various reasonswith various access abilities.

■ Jail is also linked.

■ Connected to access drug test resultsand criminal information only.


78

■ Treatment liaison person. Communi-cate through e-mail.

■ One is ordered and the following peoplewill be linked (judge, court coordinator,treatment provider, prosecutor, publicdefender).

■ Department of Social Services andCounty Council are also linked.

■ Case managers are also linked. (3)

■ Communication via the computer net-work is nonexistent. Our system lacksInternet access and e-mail whichwould enable increased efficiency and timeliness.

■ Planned linkage (calendar year 2000).

■ Program evaluator is also linked.

■ Court administrator and clerks arelinked. (2)

■ Court coordinator, counselors, andcoordinators are connected to DouglasCounty District computer system.

■ Substance abuse evaluators and Stateadministrative offices are also linked.

■ New system will link court administra-tion, district attorney, PD, treatment,detention, and clerk’s office.

■ Some e-mail is available.

■ Treatment providers are work inprogress; onsite case managers, healthservices providers, and drug testinglaboratory are also linked.

■ Not yet. However, we plan to have thenetwork system up and running by fall1999.

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

■ TASC.

■ Information shared through e-mail.Other members do not have access todatabase. Public defender is networkedthrough secretary.

■ Case managers, assessors, and relatedcourt staff are also linked.

■ Remote printing is also linked.

■ E-mail only between systems; processevaluator/committee coordinator andproject administrator are also linked.

■ The only linked computer system is theclerk of the circuit court’s system thatcan be viewed by the judge, PD, State’sattorney, etc., but they cannot enterinformation.

■ 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 cur-rently linked. Treatment provider, pro-bation, and prosecutor are currentlylinked. Soon, all of the above will belinked (3 months).

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

■ The network is expected to becomeoperational in September 1999.

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

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

■ We do not have a direct link to otherjustice system databases. Assessmentsoftware used by case management.

■ Database management and spreadsheet,if necessary. Do have PC and drug courtsoftware.

Appendix 2

79

■ E-mail is available within the court-house only.

■ Drug court data access.

■ Drug court PC+ NT Server and database.

■ Links to other justice system databasesare currently under development.

■ Probation and district attorney onlyhave links to other justice systemdatabases, and the treatment providersare the only ones with task-relevantsoftware.

■ Links to other justice system databasesare only in the in-court system.

■ Links to other justice system databasesthrough the Tiburon system.

■ E-mail is limited to the office. We havelinks to other justice system databasesfor arrest records only. Not all of ushave these functions.

■ Working on software specific to drugcourt.

■ Mainframe case management system.

■ NCIC system is also available.

■ Task-relevant software relates toscreening and assessment only.

■ Personal calendar (some); e-mail (some);spreadsheet (coordinator); links toother justice system databases (coordi-nator and probation); main trial courtcase management system (coordinator).

■ Some word processing capabilities.

■ Case management is done manuallytyped and filed in the juvenile individ-ual case record.

■ Probation has older computers usingtwo and three systems to enter andreceive data.

■ Statistical analysis software (SPSS).

■ We will have e-mail soon. Our links toother justice system databases are on awhole other computer system. We dohave task-relevant software for drugcourt personnel. Prosecutors, publicdefenders, and other court personnelhave access to the main trial court casemanagement system, as do our drugcourt screens.

■ Only the program director has spread-sheet capabilities.

■ Spreadsheet, not yet.

■ All except treatment providers arecounty employees and as such haveaccess to capabilities checked.

■ Some staff have word processing capa-bilities and some access to family courtsystem, but not to any criminal justicelinks.

■ Paradox is the database managementsystem used and Quattro Pro is ourspreadsheet program.

■ Some have only internal e-mail and thejudges only have Internet access.

■ Can access DOC records, all districtcourts information.

■ Only the district attorney has access toother justice database links and task-relevant software.

■ E-mail is internal only.

■ Personal calendar and database man-agement are partial.

Question 5. Do drug court team membershave access to formal, court-supportedtechnology training programs for the fol-lowing? If so, is the training mandatory?(Check all that apply.)

In addition to indicating that training pro-grams are not generally available, surveyparticipants also noted:


80

■ Computer training for employees is notavailable, although computer trainingfor the statewide drug court system,when implemented, will be.

■ Will have training for a new MIS.

■ Drug court specific software applica-tions are mandatory for some persons.

■ Preparing to make operational; still ininitial connection phase.

Question 6. Does your drug court have anyemployees whose primary responsibilitiesinclude data processing, computer mainte-nance, programming, etc.?

Write-in responses to provide detail oncourt MIS personnel included:

■ Don’t know.

■ Yes, for data processing.

■ Staff borrows from data processingpersonnel of team members.

■ Yes, for data processing, but no for com-puter maintenance and programming.

■ Employees are not dedicated to thedrug court, but are available.

■ Yes, through 6/30/99, plus volunteerhelp.

■ Data processing only.

■ County is too small.

■ Data entry, mainly.

■ Each office has its own employees.

■ Support from Main Queen’s SupremeCourt Office.

■ Student interns.

■ Beginning 7/1/99, we will have .5 FTEdedicated to our system.

■ Employees are in the treatment agency.

■ Data processing: yes; computer mainte-nance 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 andnetworking difficulty at the top of theirbarriers list (from a list of eight barriers),drug court survey respondents notedspecifically:

■ We need to expand our data entry capa-bilities to gather more data related toevaluation and achievement of our drugcourt goals.

■ Database program development thatmeets our unique needs.

■ Funding in place; enhancements beingimplemented currently.

■ Current database is insufficient; await-ing New York statewide MIS.

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

■ Developing a good drug court softwareprogram for juveniles that can work ona PC or LAN.

■ Programmers are not available becausethey are so busy with other projects.

■ Getting a truly useful program. Myunderstanding is that what is availableis too cumbersome and more troublethan helpful.

■ Family court database and drug courtdatabases are not compatible.

■ We need software that is drug courtspecific.

■ Need for integrated criminal historyinformation access and continuedaccess to current addresses for partici-pants after leaving drug court.

Appendix 2

81

■ No programmer to set up such a system.

■ Staff person recently hired (receivedgrant) but needs to be trained.

■ Numerous data collection instrumentsand variety of database programs.

■ Some information is restricted bystatute, i.e. criminal history informa-tion, certain case related information,certain treatment information is pro-tected by privacy concerns.

■ Small population.

■ Need computer training.

■ Our drug court team consists of severalseparate agencies/groups. “Court” per-sonnel (judge, state attorney, publicdefender, and pretrial) are on same sys-tem. Drug treatment is provided by aprivate group and case management isprovided by the Florida Department ofCorrections. Most answers pertain tothe “Court.”

■ The 16th Circuit has implemented arobust system. Software designed byHIDTA-Baltimore called HALTS. It isquestionable how critical this technolo-gy is to our rural circuit or to our spe-cific efforts of having in-house lab andin-house treatment. Department of Jus-tice has put the horse behind the cart!Technical assistance should have beenthe focus prior to awarding grants forMIS implementation.

■ No PCs.

■ Suggest that DCPO/American Universi-ty develop a software package specificto drug courts to include data needs forrequired reports, status changes regard-ing treatment, urinalysis, sanctions,employment, education, etc., and thecapability to refine software to meetjurisdictional needs.

■ We are awaiting our Supreme Courtfinalizing a statewide drug court MIS.

■ Combination of expertise, collabora-tion, and funding.

■ Availability of staff time.

■ Need network.

■ Building wiring does not currently allowintranet communication between drugcourt team members.

■ Lack of technical assistance particularto the development of MIS for a juve-nile drug court.

■ Not up and running yet.

■ A specific software program should bedeveloped to keep data which theDCPO and American Universityrequires in their reports.

■ Grant availability; funds available 6/99.

■ Time/resources.

■ Philadelphia Treatment Court Automa-tion Process has been combined effortwith the Focis Network of the courts, aCSAT-funded program. Automation andtraining is anticipated to be finalized byAugust 1999.

■ Adequate system identified to use indrug court.

■ Time. We are currently doing systemevaluation. (2)

■ Inability to develop database that isthorough, yet user friendly.

■ Lack of equipment.

■ State system does not have drug courtspecific capabilities.

■ Making software statewide compatible.

■ None required.


82

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

■ Beta test—June. Online and finalizedby September.

■ Database/MIS system in developmentcurrently (specific for family court/drugcourt).

■ Grant money was just released and weare awaiting a larger courtroom toaccommodate all the computers.

■ We are not linked to a network and wedo not have a program for client charts.

■ Politics—having to rely on JIC (CourtComputer Shop) and DHSS (socialservice agency) to assist with designand integration.

■ Program development and costs.

■ Lack of funding for personnel to operateand set up a system.

■ We have not purchased any hardwareor software yet due to no Federal fundsbeing sent.

■ Appropriate software.

■ Time and staff.

■ Physical space; juvenile officer beingmoved into new building. Makes run-ning lines “iffy”.

■ No software.

■ Personnel to enter data.

Technical AssistanceWhen asked to rate the usefulness of thefollowing technical assistance activities,survey respondents entered these addition-al comments.

Question 1. Assistance in doing a compari-son of the information elements being collected in your drug court with a set of

recommended information elements andfunctional requirements.

■ Not sure what this means.

■ Currently using GAO/AU dataset.

Question 2. Assistance in conducting amanagement information system needsassessment that includes documentingexisting procedures, determining functionalrequirements, and developing recommend-ed solutions.

■ No comments.

Question 3. Assistance and advice ondeveloping a strategic information technol-ogy plan for the drug court that includes anassessment of the staff’s technical capabili-ties and a plan for acquiring the technicalskill sets that are currently not availablein-house.

■ No comments.

Question 4. Assistance in defining thescope of work to implement the technologyplan.

■ No comments.

Question 5. Develop and maintain a modelPowerPoint® presentation on drug courtcosts and benefits for presentations to cityor county councils, State legislators, orcommunity groups.

■ No comments.

Question 6. Assistance and advice onestablishing appropriately secure links toexchange critical information with othercriminal justice agencies and treatmentproviders.

■ Hotly debated local issue.

Question 7. Assistance and advice onselection of vendors and products, includ-ing help preparing requests for proposals;selecting consultants, hardware, and

Appendix 2

83

software; and drafting and negotiating con-tracts with vendors.

■ Too late.

Question 8. Assistance in developing adrug court evaluation plan and identifyingan evaluator.

■ Too late.

■ Already have one.

Question 9. Additional assistance. (Pleasespecify.)

■ We are trying to help people not justfunction.

■ Money to provide ongoing services fortroubleshooting and training.

■ We need software and we need ourcomputers connected.

■ What day will you arrive???

■ Evaluating current automation systemto maintain state-of-the-art capability.

■ Developing a tracking program forrecidivism.

■ I wish this tech support was availableprevious to our implementation thatwas required to be in compliance withan MIS system through our Federaldrug court enhancement grant.

■ We are awaiting a grant request to doall of this.

■ Funding for model system would bebeneficial.

■ Ability to track participant performanceweek-to-week throughout their time inprogram to see if there are patterns towhen relapse and frequency of sanc-tions occur so that we know when addi-tional resources are needed.

■ Assistance in evaluating current systemwith recommendations for any neededchanges.

■ Would like more discussion on theDCPO required data elements as a min-imum dataset for drug courts.

■ OCA is putting together a technicalsupport team from Albany, with coresupport from each drug court office.

■ Funding.

■ Development of freeware which can beadopted to local needs.

■ What program to use for evaluations.

■ How to coordinate data collection/dataentry/summary so as to avoid duplica-tion of efforts and to serve multiplepurposes.

■ Obtaining the software.

■ Develop PC-based drug court MIS soft-ware in the public domain that meetsnational drug court MIS standards andis updated as standards are revised.

Education and TrainingWhen asked to rate the usefulness of thefollowing educational and training options,survey respondents entered these addition-al comments.

Question 1. Incorporate a dedicated information management component infuture Drug Court Program Office (DCPO)-sponsored workshops on planning andimplementation.

■ Family court’s needs are entirely different from criminal.

Question 2. Develop a series of specialDCPO workshops that focus on drug courtmonitoring, evaluation, and managementinformation system development.

■ Too late.


84

Question 3. Conduct videoconferences orState or regional conferences targeted tospecific monitoring, evaluation, and man-agement information system needs.

■ No comments.

Question 4. Conduct orientation on specif-ic software programs and their applicationto drug court management informationsystem needs.

■ If we had the money to buy the software.

■ Too late.

Question 5. Develop and maintain a data-base of drug court requests for proposalsand contracts used for technology projects.

■ No comments.

Question 6. Develop and maintain a list of“Frequently Asked Questions About drugcourt Management Information Systems”with answers by leading experts in thefield.

■ No comments.

Question 7. Develop an Internet “Listserv-er,” which will automatically send copies ofe-mail notes on drug court issues andconcerns to subscribers within the drugcourt community.

■ No comments.

Question 8. Identify, describe, and dissem-inate information about well-functioningdrug court management informationsystems.

■ Too late.

Question 9. Additional assistance. (Pleasespecify.)

■ Training for team members on sharingdata, security information, evaluationoutcomes, etc.

■ Technical assistance without the avail-ability of equipment (purpose lost).

■ Software programs in Visual Basics;willing to work for government rates tomake generic MIS systems specific toindividual drug courts.

■ Project does not have Internet access,however, project coordinator would usepersonal ISP.

■ We do not currently have Internetaccess.

■ We have a lot of other areas that needwork first.

■ Better define minimum datasets. DCPOdata survey was difficult and some ofthe data they wanted was not useful ornot available in the format requested.

■ We have requested additional assistance(someone to come to our location) sev-eral times. No one has ever responded.

■ We need a national minimum datasetfor all drug courts.

BackgroundQuestion 1. Categories of persons eligibleto participate in the drug court program.(Check all that apply.)

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

■ Our family court is combined with ourjuvenile court.

Question 2. Please specify your primary“target population.”

■ No comments.

Question 3. How many months has it beensince the drug court accepted its firstclient?

■ No comments.

Question 4. Please check the appropriatepopulation of the jurisdiction served bythe drug court.

Appendix 2

85

■ No comments.

Question 5. Number of persons who arecurrently active participants in the drugcourt 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, butthere are two that are most commonlyused.

■ State Alcohol and Drug Abuse Officer istreatment provider.

■ Seven residential providers and fiveoutpatient providers.

■ Noncontractual referral network.

■ Onsite case management staff useapproximately 130 community-basedtreatment providers (not contractual).

■ Outside, noncontractual.

■ Too many to list.

■ Residential and some outpatient.

■ Multiple providers; contracted withADM office.

■ County health care agency for outpatient.

Question 7. Within what amount of timedoes the drug court judge usually receivenegative drug test information? (Checkone.)

■ Future plan will provide information in24–48 hours.

■ Probation and counselors receive theresults within 1 day.

■ Weekly court reviews.

■ Probation receives this informationwithin approximately 3 days.

■ This is very problematic.

■ Same day, if judge requests it.

■ Clients come back every 2–4 weeks andwe can get results back within minutesif we use the rapid test.

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

■ Drug court judge receives immediatenotice on all positive drug screens.

■ Same day for onsite testing and 2–8days for testing at treatment programs.

■ Onsite laboratory.

■ On court dates, however, if a defendantabsconds from program, informationwithin 1 day.

■ Agencies volunteer their services.

■ Usually at next status conference, butavailable on demand.

■ In court, within minutes and 4 or moredays in treatment facility.

■ A month.

■ Court is held weekly. Test results areavailable the same day, but the clientmay not appear in court until severaldays after submitting sample.

General Comments,Suggestions, and RemarksSurvey respondents were given the oppor-tunity to provide additional comments,suggestions, and remarks on the final pageof the survey. These are as follows:


86

■ Our drug court is 1 year old. The cur-rent staff consists of one service coordi-nator who is also the administrativedrug testing person and does any othertasks needed.

■ We use the access program. We arestandardizing nomenclature throughoutthe State to better report progress anddevelopmental opportunities.

■ The San Diego Drug Superior Court isin the process of developing an evalua-tion system in collaboration with SanDiego State University and alcohol anddrug services.

■ The entire juvenile court has a new MISsystem (JEMS–Juvenile Enterprise Man-agement System). But as that is justbeing rolled out, its availability andapplicability vary widely.

■ This response reflects the fact that weare less than 8 months in the develop-ment and implementation of our juve-nile drug court. More importantly weare attempting to develop our ownmanagement information system. Weare presently attempting to acquiretechnical assistance to assist us.

■ Assistance and education on manage-ment information systems and evalua-tion is long overdue.

■ I did not receive a request to completethis survey, so my colleague from theSixth Municipal District gave me a copyof hers.

■ As of this time, each case in our drugcourt is processed manually. We wouldappreciate any suggestions or recom-mendations that you may have inregards to software packages, etc.

■ We just want a good MIS so we canspend as little time as possible onreports and as much time as we can ontreatment of our clients. We have nodesire to become entangled in numbersand paperwork.

■ We are creating automated reports andshould be operational by 8/1/99.

■ We are close to implementing a com-prehensive, integrated system for drugcourt. I attempted to respond with pre- and postsystem answers.

■ CCI is currently developing a special-ized family treatment court MIS systemfor this project.

■ Most of my responses are based onexpected capabilities of our drug courtinformation system (DCIS) which isstill under construction and targeted for implementation by the end of thissummer.

■ We are in the process of converting to anew computer system. Currently, wekeep information in at least four sepa-rate databases: criminal records, evalua-tion information, information on partic-ipants, and urinalysis records. The goalis to integrate all these databases intoone system accessible to all.

■ Most of the automated informationabout drug courts is kept at the Stateoffice. They have the ability to collectinformation from their computer abouteach drug/treatment court.

87

Notes

1. U.S. Department of Justice, DrugCourts Program Office, Looking at aDecade of Drug Courts, and updates,1999 and 2000 (Washington, DC: U.S.Department of Justice, Drug CourtsProgram Office, June 1998), p. 2. Thisreport was prepared by the Office ofJustice Programs’ Drug Court Clearing-house and Technical Assistance Projectat American University. Hereafter, ADecade of Drug Courts report. Avail-able at www.ojp.usdoj.gov/dcpo/decade98.htm and http://gurukul.ucc.american.edu/justice/publications/decade1.htm. See also Drug CourtActivity Update: Summary Informationon All Programs and Detailed Informa-tion 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 opera-tional as of mid-1999, 257 responded tothe survey, for a response rate of 75.59percent.

3. Interview with the Honorable Jo Ann Ferdinand, Brooklyn Treatment Court,Brooklyn, New York, February 16, 1999.The court has more than 550 active par-ticipants. See also John Feinblatt andGreg 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 TreatmentDrug Court for Felony Defendants:Some Implications of Assessment Findings,” Prison Journal 74 (2):110–57, 1994.

5. Adele Harrell, Drug Courts and the Roleof Graduated Sanctions, Research Pre-view series (Washington, DC: U.S. De-partment of Justice, National Instituteof Justice, August 1998). Available athttp://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles/fs000219.pdf.

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

7. Ibid.


88

8. Letter from Ed Brekke, Court Adminis-trator, Los Angeles Superior Court, May9, 2000.

9. Barry Mahoney, Drug Court Monitor-ing, Evaluation, and ManagementInformation Systems (Washington, DC:U.S. Department of Justice, Drug Court Programs Office, May 1998), p. 1. Hereafter, Mahoney. Available atwww.ojp.usdoj.gov/dcpo/monitor/ welcome.html.

10. Ibid.

11. U.S. General Accounting Office, DrugCourts: Overview of Growth, Charac-teristics, and Results, GAO/GGD–97–106 (Washington, DC: U.S. GeneralAccounting Office, July 1997), p. 69.Hereafter, GAO report. Available atwww.ncjrs.org/pdffiles/dcourts.pdf.

12. Ibid., pp. 90–91.

13. Ibid., p. 87.

14. Ibid., p. 86.

15. Drug Court Training and TechnicalAssistance Program, Fiscal Year 1998(Washington, DC: U.S. Department ofJustice, Drug Courts Program Office,1998), pp. 27–29. Available atwww.ojp.usdoj.gov/dcpo/drugctta.htm.

16. SEARCH, The National Consortium forJustice Information and Statistics, com-missioned Cashman & Associates, Inc.,to conduct the survey. Other organiza-tions that worked in partnership withSEARCH to conduct this study wereThe Justice Management Institute andthe Center for Court Innovation. Alsoinvolved through their advice and coop-eration were the Drug Court Clearing-house and Technical Assistance Projectat American University and the Nation-al Association of Drug Court Profession-als. A copy of the survey, which was

sent to the 340 drug courts operationalin mid-1999, is included as appendix 1.

17. This report on drug courts has implica-tions for the handling of many othertypes of cases, especially those thatrequire critical data to be available during courtroom operations.

18. These reports were prepared bySEARCH and are pending publication by DCPO. Robert Gibson and Owen M.Greenspan, “Public Domain Drug CourtSoftware: Functions and Utility,” andOwen M. Greenspan, “Supporting theDrug Court Process: What You Need ToKnow for Effective Decisionmaking andProgram Evaluation.”

19. Mahoney, supra note 9, pp. 10–12.

20. The survey is included in appendix 1.

21. Chi-square is a statistical test frequentlyused to determine if there is an associa-tion or correlation between several dif-ferent variables. The significance levelindicates the level of confidence thatthe results did not occur by chance and that there really is an associationbetween the variables.

22. Due to missing data from several courts regarding population size, thetotal number of courts reported in thetables is 248.

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

24. Ibid., pp. 12–13.

25. See appendix 2.

26. SEARCH Group, Inc., Report of theNational Task Force on Court Automa-tion and Integration, NCJ 177601(Washington, DC: U.S. Department ofJustice, 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 theContext of Justice Information Sys-tems: 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 JusticeAssistance, U.S. Department of Justice,July 1997), p. 13. Available atwww.ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/ 161569.pdf.See also Comprehensive Public Infor-mation Programs Subcommittee, Hold-ing Courts Accountable: CountingWhat Counts (Williamsburg, VA: Nation-al 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 forState Courts, 1993), p. 82.

31. Mahoney, supra note 9, pp. 21–22.

32. These courts place the kind of valuethat we would like to see courts gen-erally place on this type of criticalinformation.

33. This report on drug courts has implica-tions for handling many other types ofcases, especially those that require crit-ical data to be available during court-room operations.

34. These reports were prepared bySEARCH and are pending publication by DCPO. Robert Gibson and Owen M.Greenspan, “Public Domain Drug CourtSoftware: Functions and Utility,” andOwen M. Greenspan, “Supporting the Drug Court Process: What You Need ToKnow for Effective Decisionmaking andProgram Evaluation.”

35. Editor’s note: These write-in commentsare presented as received, and were notedited for content or style.

Bureau of Justice AssistanceInformation

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

❒ MailP.O. Box 6000Rockville, MD 20849–6000

❒ Visit2277 Research BoulevardRockville, MD 20850

❒ Telephone1–800–688–4252Monday through Friday8:30 a.m. to 7 p.m.eastern time

❒ Fax301–519–5212

❒ BJA Home Pagewww.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA

❒ NCJRS Home Pagewww.ncjrs.org

❒ [email protected]

❒ JUSTINFO NewsletterE-mail to [email protected] the subject line blankIn the body of the message,type:subscribe justinfo [your name]

drug court monitoring, evaluation, and management

Documents