Drug Court Steering Committee Meeting Information

April 18, 2007

U.W. Outreach Center

Casper, Wyoming

 

Committee Members Present

Representative Keith Gingery, Co-Chairman

Senator Michael Von Flatern, Co-Chairman

Senator Kathryn Sessions

Representative Liz Gentile

Tony Lewis (for Nicky Anderson)

Sue Chatfield

Holly Hansen

Bob Lampert

Steve Lindly

Rodger McDaniel

Clara Orr (for Judge Huber)

Hon. Richard Lavery

Richard Bohling

Ross McKelvey

Dr. Cary Heck

 

Committee Members Absent

Nicky Anderson

Hon. Michael Huber

Hon. Keith Kautz

Diane Lozano

 

WDH-Mental Health & Substance Abuse Services Division Staff

Korin Schmidt, Administrator for Policy & Planning

 

Others Present at Meeting

Anne Comeaux

Brian Christensen

Lee Kempler

Grace Zolonsky

Kurt Zunker

 

Call to Order-

Chairman Gingery called the meeting to order at 8:15.  The following sections summarize the Committee proceedings by agenda item.  Please refer to agenda from April 18, 2007 meeting.

 

Introductions, Review of Audit on Drug Courts, and Review of Enrolled Act No. 94 (SF0054)-

Chairman Gingery welcomed Committee members, read through Committee membership list and asked members to introduce themselves.  Chairman Gingery reviewed meeting materials, including a brief explanation of the 2006 LSO audit on drug courts and Enrolled Act No. 94, specifically addressing Section 1(c) which delineates the items of which the Committee shall review and make recommendations.  A report with recommendations from the Committee will be directed to the Joint Judiciary Committee no later than August 1, 2007.  The Joint Judiciary Committee will then determine whether or not to introduce any legislation.   The Committee will submit a follow-up report for issues not covered in 2007 by August 1, 2008.  Chairman Gingery noted that the creation of the Drug Court Steering Committee to look at models, funding and accountability is a result of a legislative review of recommendations from the audit.

 

Co-Chairmen Gingery and Von Flatern set the agenda for the Committee to address the easiest issues first beginning with the Case Management System.  In May, the Committee will address the issue of the variability of drug court models, and in June, address any unfinished business.

 

Co-Chairman Gingery surveyed Committee members asking what they hoped to achieve at this meeting and a statement about the status of drug courts.  The following is a summary:

• Important to identify a recommended model

• Standardize the monitoring of activities and funding in order to hold drug courts accountable

• Important to standardize but allow enough flexibility that courts can meet community needs

• Drug court teams are very committed.

• Standardization of drug courts is important so that best practices that can be replicated, but difficult to achieve pure consistency in drug courts across the state because each community has its own resources. 

• The state needs to look at the programs and make the determination that they are best practices and do achieve positive outcomes. 

• Drug courts look at outcomes which, for Judges, are outside the box as they usually focus on process.

• Drug courts provide the opportunity to work with the high level needs of children and family.

• Should be general outline for judges and team members to know what’s expected of their program.

• Issue is stability in funding so that courts can plan long term. 

• This Committee needs to give something to the legislature that will bring them comfort with the program so that funding will become institutionalized. 

• Local judges are dedicated and want to do what the person needs and what is best without worrying about how funding will impact the court. 

• Encourage movement toward a collaborative model

• Develop a Committee made up of all branches of government to replace the panel. 

• Funding formula needs to be changed.

• Need rules to help guide the ethical considerations for the judges and how to address information gathered through the drug court process.

• Propose that the Executive Branch be the contractor for treatment and the Supreme Court be the program manager. 

• Importance of a central data collection system where in order to:  study the effectiveness of drug court vs. no drug court; analyze the effect of the money on the system; determine outcomes; require accountability. 

• Examine the role of the drug court panel and clarify its function.

• Clarify the relationship between the judiciary and executive branches.

• Determine the Court’s function in the administration of the drug court.

• Develop a permanent funding stream.  Monitor start-up courts but when its up and going, guarantee continued funding.

• Focus on the similarities between the courts, standardize them, and begin to track outcomes. 

• Drug courts have real successes in WY and across county in dealing with addiction.

• This Committee represents the succession in the development but it is critical to have a discussion with the judiciary as to how to facilitate their involvement.  

• Address gathering data on other sentencing options in comparison to drug courts. 

• Discuss this model for a variety of other issues to include domestic violence, mental health, child welfare and other areas where addition and mental health issues bring clients before the courts.

• Ethical and Due Process

• Review current resources and determine the extent to which there should be collaboration between the local providers and drug courts. 

• Looking at expansion of drug court treatment to include residential.  Interested in how the drug court and expansion of treatment to include residential  will come together

• Discuss the administration of local drug courts and determining who is financially and legally liable, and who employs the drug court staff.

 

Review of Drug Courts-

Power Point Presentation by Dr. Cary Heck.  Refer to handout for presentation review. 

 

Progress and value of the Department of Health’s Substance Abuse Division’s case management system (CMS) and means for improvement-

Dr. Heck reported on the status of the CMS.  Development began three years ago when WySAC received a grant.  It is a case management tool first, and a data reporting tool second.  The system is not set up specifically for each individual drug court.  Rather, it is premised on the individual client and designed around the caseload.   For state purposes, it helps the court maintain and provide state mandated information.  It is currently functional and operation for drug courts, although some coordinators do not use it as they state that the reporting function is limited.  Dr. Heck created a user group to review the system, make suggested improvements and strive for consistent data definitions for consistent data.  Some improvements will be made by July 1, 2007.  Other improvements and suggestions will be discussed when developing the next generation.  Contract work on the next generation has already begun. 

 

Committee recommendation

The Committee did not provide recommendations to forwarded to the Joint Judiciary on this topic.

 

 

Performance measures, as developed by the Committee, for evaluation on a statewide basis-

Enrolled Act No. 94 directs the Committee to develop performance measures for evaluation on a statewide basis.  Dr. Heck reported that outcome measures have been developed at the national level.  They are as follows: 

1.      Participant retention and graduation  

2.      Participant Recidivism

3.      Participant Sobriety

4.      Units of service provided to participants

Mr. Bohling stated that he would like the performance measures to include items such as increased ability to pay child support, increased employment and other supports developed by Drug Courts.  Dr. Heck remarked that these types of outcomes are difficult to measure and document.  Performance measures need to be scientifically liked to the outcomes. Committee members also pointed to the Legislative initiatives that failed due to no supportive information on outcomes. 

 

There was some discussion on how the performance measures should be used.  Some Committee members cautioned that the measurements should not be used to sanction or reward courts or as an indicator for funding.  They argued that they should be used as guidelines for program improvement.  The performance measures should be used to determine if the participant’s needs identified by effective assessment and evaluation upon admission to the program are being met.  Performance measures can also determine what type of client is best served by this model.  Dr. Heck indicated that the research is unambiguous in that drug courts do better with difficult clients.   

 

Mr. Lewis asked to what was the outcome compared.  Dr. Heck replied that in order to build a comparison group the justice system needs to be measuring these same outcomes on everyone who enters.  Assessment is an important component of that.  Some Committee members indicated the need for a standardization of an assessment tool.  That discussion was tabled.

 

There was an inquiry as to how other states assess the success of their drug courts and what do they require for assessment.  Dr. Heck reported that many states have accepted the performance measures, but the determination of the assessment is made by the Substance Abuse agency.

 

Committee Recommendation

The Committee recommended deleting the five goals listed in statute and replace with national outcome measures.  They will revisit this topic in May by presenting and approving language.

 

Drug court participation by county and the best means to increased drug court participation by counties not participating due to revenue issues-

Chairman Gingery reported that there appears to be adequate amount of money available and asked if counties not participating because of other reasons.  Dr. Heck indicated that federal funding has decreased substantially so local courts are depending more on the state general fund.

 

Chairman Gingery asked for what does the funding pay.  The answer depended on the local drug court.  Mr. Lindly reported that some drug courts have funding for probation officers; some do not and rely on their local DOC office.   Director Lampert noted that it is important to remember that probation officers are required team members.  The Committee should take into account the extra positions that are needed when implementing new courts.  Most drug courts use their funding to buy treatment through contractual agreements while other drug court’s treatment services are provided through referral or in-house treatment. 

 

Ms. Hansen also remarked that if we look at the counties that don’t have drug courts, part of the reason is related to choice.  The Panel hasn’t received applications from those areas.

 

The Committee then moved into a discussion on funding and identified the following issues:

• Cash and in-kind match requirements-Committee members expressed concern with drug courts using state salaries as part of its in-kind match to leverage state funding. Mr. McDaniel stated that it is important to note that the match policy was implemented to encourage collaboration and to recognize the increased time and case load for the team members.  The gradual increase cash match requirement was to force courts to obtain support from local communities.   Senator Sessions suggested that the cash match be based on the number of clients.  Mr. Lewis express concern that the courts are stretched very thin and having to come up with in-kind will add to the pressure of the judges.  Ms. Hansen commented that she has been vocal on the panel express continuing concerns with using state resources as a match for other state programming.   She and Chairman Gingery remarked that it begins to look like a state program controlled locally and if the Committee wants it to be a state program, then make it a state program.  The coordinators remarked that it puts them in an awkward position.  In Laramie and Park Counties, all office space is provided by the county.  The cash match creates tension between the programs.  If the county is providing something, it should be given credit.

 

• Funding model-Panel members are concerned about the lack of guidance given to the panel when making award decisions.  It was suggested that the Division explore the possibility contract for services at the state level by increasing local contracts to include additional money for drug court treatment programs.   Committee members were concerned with how that would affect the ability of the community to define and access appropriate services for clients.  Dr. Heck reported that he is working on a funding formula study and presented several suggestions when making funding determinations.

• Use a trend analysis to determine a break even point (economy of scale)

• Fund drug courts based on a formula that considers the number of clients the court is serving

• Fund a number of slots to encourage growth (economy of scale)

• Shift to a cost reimbursement system rather than an upfront grant

• Develop a rate sheet for range and standardization of operation costs (administrative, treatment, etc.

• Include a calculation for a baseline operational amount with additional dollars per client or slot

• New programs could get that amount or a portion of that amount for start-up

 

Chairman Gingery remarked that potentially the Committee could recommend that the funding formula be some amount times the number slots on a cost reimbursement system and some parameters around those costs.  Director Lampert cautioned against a pure cost based system.  He recommended an administrative or fixed cost investment as a base and then formula per slot after that.  Committee members remarked that this would allow local programs to choose their own treatment providers.  It was pointed out that stability in the treatment provider is important.  If drug courts are required to use a state contracted provider, courts could lose some of the consistency in the treatment team. 

 

Committee recommendation

The issue is increasing county participation and the recommendation is to not increase the number of drug courts until funding is stabilized.  The Committee will consider the concept of funding a given amount on a cost reimbursement basis with a base amount built into the formula.  The topic on funding will be furthered discussed at the next meeting. 

 

Collaboration between agencies and government in the operation of drug courts-

Chairman Gingery introduced the discussion by suggesting that the roles of the three branches of government can be resolved by a permanent steering committee with representatives from the three branches.  He also expressed the need to talk about the judiciary, specifically what is their role and where they see themselves in this process.  Some judges have expressed concern about this being an executive branch program so how can judges be empowered to feel they are a part of a system.  One way to do that is to encourage the Board of Judicial policy to adopt rules to address the basic of how the drug courts should work. 

 

Dr. Heck co-authored a paper analyzing funding three basic models for state level drug court operations. (See handout from April 18 meeting.)  The researchers surveyed other state drug court programs on their impression of drug court funding stability based on their state model.  There are pros and cons.

• Executive branch management of program.  Pros-Executive agencies are better equipped to manage programs than the judicial branch.  Cons- The separation of powers issue leave judges feeling isolated in decision making and practice in the field without support of the Supreme Court.  This is unprotected territory for many of the judges. 

 

• Judicial branch management of program.  Pros-Support and guidance for the judiciary.  Cons-This branch is often not well equipped to manage programs as it is not their primary business.  There is no consensus on the role of the judiciary in relation in drug courts.  Some believe that it’s inappropriate for judges to take off the robe and act as a social worker.  Priority should be handling the business of the court, not managing these programs.  Others are very supportive believe that drug courts do produce positive outcomes.  Another problem is that the judicial system is bifurcated system in that the District Court judges have a lot of autonomy.  Committee consensus indicated that this is not a feasible option.

 

• Collaborative model.  Pros-Allows each branch to manage a portion of the program that’s applicable to them.  Judge Lavery indicated that when the district court judges were polled in the Children & Families Initiative they reported they would like to see the collaborative model.  The judicial part of the court is best managed by judges conversely treatment professionals can make those decisions best.  This model gives deference to the science behind addiction.  Cons-Difficult to engage the judiciary. 

 

Representative Gingery inquired if partnering with the judiciary in developing judicial rules would create a dialogue.  Judge Lavery responded that it would but that there are statutory issues that would also need judicial support (i.e., change in juvenile codes to allow magistrates and commissioner handle more of the caseload).  Mr. Bohling suggested that Committee quit calling it a court, leave it in the executive branch and write judicial rules to allow the executive branch to run the program.  Senator Sessions stressed the need to support those courts and judges that exist and let the others do what they want.  Need to figure out how to implement rules for those judges who do want to participate and give them a level of security.  Chairman Gingery indicated the best [the committee] can hope for is to give them a voice on the Steering Committee and develop rules.  Mr. McDaniel pointed out that all judges are inundated with clients that have addiction.  The judges have ultimate control and if they don’t want to implement a drug court, they won’t.  With some judges it’s a question of addressing their concerns like administration, etc. as a lot of the ethical issues have been addressed.  Caution a little bit that we need a separate set of rules for drug courts.  Chairman Gingery stated that the Committee needs to be cognizant of the opposition and work to engage all of the judiciary.  Director Lambert stressed that collaboration between agencies and judges is essential to making drug courts work.   If [the committee] wants to drive collaboration, need to adopt the collaborative model as the state model for drug courts.  Ms. Hanesn suggested that if this Steering Committee continues on, set meeting dates as soon as possible as judges need a lot of lead time to get meetings on the calendars. 

 

Committee recommendation

The Committee supports the idea of expanding the Steering Committee to a permanent body and ensuring the judiciary is involved, perhaps by encouraging the development of judicial rules. The Committee stated that a high level of agency cooperation already exists. 

 

Alternative adjudication procedures for drug courts, including the use of court commissioners, magistrates, administrative law judges and hearing officers-

The Committee listed alternative adjudication procedures considering the benefits and shortfalls of each option.  In general, Mr. McDaniel said that one of the issues is the ability of the presiding officer to be able to use sanctions/rewards.  Need to spell out the limitation on officers other than judges to impose sanctions. 

• Court commissioners.  They simply make recommendations to the judge.  The judge still makes the decision.  Some concern that sanctions and rewards cannot be imposed immediately using this model.  Judge Lavery suggested amending the statute to allow commissioners to impose up to a certain level of sanction, beyond that the case needs to go back before the Judge.

• Magistrates serve the same purpose as court commissioners but for circuit court judges.  County Commissioners name the magistrate.

• Administrative Law Judges/Hearing officers.  Discussion if these officers have authority to serve as a drug court judge.  Mr. McDaniel cited the recent work of Laramie County to determine if they can preside.  Mr. Lindly pointed to the Intensive Supervised Probation program, where the statute was written to allow a hearing officer to sanction offenders outside the court system.  It’s one way to get into the ability to provide immediate sanctions.  Chairman Gingery believes it would take a lot of statutory change and goes against the Steering Committee’s desire to support the collaborative model.

 

Dr. Heck remarked that the robe represents more than the ability to make those decisions.  That person needs to be in some level of authority and there also needs to be consistency.

 

Committee recommendation

The Committee supported the recommendation that commissioners who act as the drug court judge have the same ability as magistrates to sanction (within parameters) without asking a supervising judge.  The Committee also support that magistrates act as drug court judges and that circuit court judges can reside over district court cases that appear in drug court.

 

Miscellaneous topics discussed-

• The Committee had a discussion on alternative problem solving court models, including mental health courts. 

• The Committee would like to have more discussion on the possibility of piloting a mental health court.  

• The Committee also discussed the role of residential treatment as part of the drug court treatment regimen but with no recommendation. 

• Mr. Lewis requested a list of drug court treatment providers and the treatment modalities they use. 

• Ms. Orr recommended that Committee review the issue of numerous drug courts in one county, each receiving its own funding.   

• The Committee expressed concern with who assumes liability, who signs the contracts and for who does drug court staff work.  The Coordinators responded that it varies.  Some are employees of the government entity which signs the contracts but are supervised by the Judge.  Others are employees of the drug courts themselves. 

 

Next steps and closing-

Chairman Gingery encouraged the Committee to further consider the collaborative model.  He also reminded that the Committee did not discuss in full the funding model, which will need to be addressed at the next meeting.  He proposed to meet on May 24 for one more day, draft the report, and meet via teleconference in June to finalize the draft.  Another idea is to present a final draft of the report to Board of Judicial Policy when they meet on June 21.  Their recommendations would be forwarded to the Committee and the report updated appropriately.  Chairman Gingery proposed the following agenda items for the May 24 meeting:

• Proposed statutory changes

• Further discussion of judicial rules

• Review of funding formula

• Review of standards

• Creation of the Steering Committee to replace the panel

 

Other Business-

The next Drug Court Steering Committee meeting is set for May 24, 2007 in Casper.  Location TBD.

 

Meeting Adjournment-

There being no further business, meeting adjourned at 5:00.