Data Digest: Issue 3 – Statewide Coordinator Data

ISSUE 3

Statewide Coordinator Data

Introduction In 2022, the National Treatment Court Resource Center (NTCRC) conducted the Painting the Current Picture: A National Report on Treatment Courts in the United States biennial survey, which examined the structure and operation of treatment courts, the outcomes produced, challenges experienced, resources needed, etc. Additionally, treatment court statewide and territory coordinators were asked to report on critical aspects of treatment court operations, including management information system (MIS) capabilities, treatment court legislation, training initiatives, certification processes for treatment courts, etc. The survey was disseminated to statewide coordinators in all 50 states, as well as to coordinators in the District of Columbia and territories of Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Northern Mariana Islands. A total of 48 states/ territories responded to the survey, resulting in an overall response rate of 88.9%.

The insights gathered from this survey provided a valuable overview of the current treatment court landscape and support ongoing efforts to enhance and expand these programs nationwide.

Survey Findings Respondents were asked to indicate whether their state/territory had a unified court system (see Figure 1).

Overall, 64.6% (n=31) of respondents reported having a unified court system as of 2022. While there is not one definition of a unified court system, the Bureau of Justice Assistance1 (1988, p. 1) offers four guiding components: “1) simplified state trial court structure, 2) judicial system rule-making authority covering practice, procedure, and administration, vested in the supreme court or judicial council, 3) judicial system governance authority and responsibility vested in the chief justice or supreme court, aided by a professional administrator and staff; and 4) state funding of all or a substantial portion of the judicial system, with a unified judicial system budget prepared by the administrative office of the courts.”2 According to the Bureau of Justice Assistance (1988), a unified court system offers several key advantages.

For example, having a unified court system can simplify judicial operations by reducing overlapping jurisdictions and inconsistent local rules in favor of uniform, streamlined judicial processes. Under a unified court system, resources and funding are used more efficiently, and hiring and retaining qualified personnel becomes easier. Additionally, standardized procedures and centralized information systems improve case management processes, reduce operational costs, and support more informed decision-making across all levels of the judiciary.

1 https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/Digitization/116320NCJRS.pdf 2 Benefits noted for a unified court system include reduction overlapping jurisdictions, efficient allocation of resources and funding as well as standardized procedures and centralized information systems (BJA, 1988).

3

Figure 1: Percentage of States/Territories with a Unified Court System (n=48) (2022)

Survey respondents were asked if their state/territory currently has a statewide management information system (MIS) for collecting data from treatment courts. More than two-thirds (70.8%, n=34) of states/ territories that completed the survey reported having a MIS as of 2022, while 29.2% (n=14) did not have a statewide system in place (see Figure 2).

Figure 2: Percentage of States/Territories with a MIS (n=48) (2022)

29.2%

More than two-thirds of states/territories have a Manangement Information System (MIS)

Yes No

70.8%

The 34 states/territories with a reported MIS were asked to indicate the name of the statewide MIS utilized.

Slightly less than one-fifth (17.6%, n=6) of respondents specified using the Drug Court Case Management (DCCM) system, while AutoMon Involvement Management System (AIMS) and Caseworx were each reported by 8.8% (n=3) of respondents. Fewer states/territories reported using systems such as DIMS (n=2) and Odyssey (n=2). The majority (52.9%, n=18) of states/territories reported using a MIS other than those listed above, most of which were homegrown and specific to the state/territory (see Figure 3).

4

Figure 3: Type of System Used among States/Territories with a MIS (n=34) (2022)

Among the 34 state/territory respondents with a reported MIS, 52.9% (n=18) reported that all programs are required to enter treatment court data into the system. Additionally, 20.6% (n=7) reported that entering data into the MIS is only mandatory for programs receiving state funding, while 17.6% (n=6) of those with a MIS specified other data entry requirements, such as only mandating a specific type of treatment court in the state/territory to utilize the system. Finally, 8.8% (n=3) of states/territories with a MIS report that entering data into the system is not mandatory (see Figure 4).

Figure 4: States/Territories with MIS Data Entry Requirements (n=34) (2022)

Figure 5 shows the year a MIS was implemented among the 34 states/territories with a MIS as of 2022. The earliest MIS was implemented in 1994, while the most recent systems were implemented in 2021. Thus, states/territories have been utilizing these systems for almost three decades.

5

Figure 5: Year of State/Territory MIS Implementation (n=34) (2022)

According to the Center for Justice Innovation (2023),3 state/territory-specific treatment court certification programs are implemented to monitor whether programs have “the components, policies, and practices in place” (p. 1) that demonstrate adherence to the All Rise Adult Drug Court Best Practice Standards.4 Among the 48 states/territories that completed the survey, 25.0% (n=12) reported having a certification process in place as of 2022 and 22.9% (n=11) were developing a process. Over one-half of these states/ territories (52.1%, n=25) did not have a treatment court certification process in place nor was one in development (see Figure 6). Among the twelve states/territories with a certification process, the • Earliest implemented: 2003 earliest was implemented in 2003, with the most • Most recent implemented: 2022 recent certification process being implemented • 50% implemented between: 2016-2022 in 2022. One-half (50.0%, n=6) of these states/ territories implemented their treatment court certification processes between 2016 and 2022.

Among the 12 states/territories with a certification process:

3 https://www.innovatingjustice.org/resources/statewide-drug-court-certification-toolkit-a-practical-guide-to-establishing-a-statewidedrug-court-certification-program/ 4 https://allrise.org/publications/standards/

6

Figure 6: Percentage of States/Territories with a Treatment Court Certification Process (n=48) (2022)

Figure 7 shows whether states/territories indicated hosting a training conference for treatment court team members. Among the 48 survey respondents, the majority (83.3%, n=40) indicated hosting a training conference, while the remaining 16.7% (n=8) do not host a training conference.

Figure 7: Percentage of States/Territories with a Training Conference for Treatment Court Staff (n=48) (2022)

7

The status of state legislation authorizing treatment courts was reported by 47 states/territories.

Three-quarters (76.6%, n=36) of respondents reported having current legislation authorizing the development and implementation of treatment courts (see Figure 8). The legislation varied across states/territories, with some authorizing treatment courts in general and others having legislation for specific treatment court types. The status of appropriations, or funding, legislation was reported by 45 states/territories. Among these respondents, 62.2% (n=28) reported that their state/territory had this type of legislation (see Figure 8). It is worth noting that 51.1% (n=23) states/territories reported having both authorizing legislation and appropriations legislation.

34 states/territories have both authorizing and appropriations legislation

Figure 8: Percentage of States/Territories with Authorization and/or Appropriations Legislation for Treatment Courts (n=47; n=45) (2022)

8

.Research.Create.Dissem e t a r o inate ollab . Re s e a r c h .C r e a t e . D i s C . e s e m i n .Colla te at a r n i o bor ate. m a t e . D i s s e m i n a t e .C llab e e r C o C ate . s h o s C c ollab . r i l a l e e a t D s . b o .Res e a o ra .Create.Dissem h c r e R a n . e t s i e e i n a t e t e . R r a t e ea e.R t ea s e m o r a t a r r e s e . R rc h .Co .C D i s l l a b ollabo e.Collaborate.Research.Creat l h a rc e s e .C l a t e c e . Co e.C b a .

D r n o i e ea e a t t e . inat issem .Research.Creat .Disseminate.C issemi rate h .Cr a rch reat s Re .Cr i n a sem ate.D borate ch.Create.Disseminate.Colla ollabo nate. .Res e a t .Cr e. bora rat Co ea e. D e ch s e m Dis .Cre olla .Resear .D i s e t s e a t m e r e i C n . ate.C .Res e.Re llab rch i is te. rch te.C rate esearch o e s ll o . ea sea ina llabo rate.R seminate.Collaborate.Resea abora arch. earc rat C e C m o t Re sse te.C llabo te.Dis .Disseminate.Collaborate rch.Cr e.Re rea h.C i na r a e t s i e.Co .Cre .Creat orate.Research.Crea .Resea eate. earc e.D m at ch rch te.D rch Di h llab reate.Dissem r o a n i ea se inate isse .Cre sse . .C rch.C e t .Co mi at es .Re ina esea Create.Collabora n l e l e t . a a e R h t em e. . c b D t r e o i a ss orat Rese .Create.Disseminate.Co ssem rat . b te. arch te.Collaborate.Re llab ina e sea ora t ra ese mina r e r a .R isse search.C te.Disse ch.C te mi r D e.Re na t ra

a o laborate ina m i n l l a b e.Coll inate.Col em is s e .Co inat issem rate.Research s e s D bo Di te.D i n a t ssem eate. .Colla search.Create a em .Di .Cr nate rate.Re rate.Re o i b h e a o l s l c t b s a ar sem olla .Co e t e e s a earch.Cre r es Di e.C s n i e R . .R ate. inat issem orate orate. Resea e sem e.D ollab ollab re a is eat e.C ate.C esearch.C Cr inat min ate. R ate.Dissem m isse abor h.Cre Research .D oll earc rate.

C es labo .Create.Dis .R Col arch inate.C . m e e e es iss .R e.D aborate.R t l ea .Col te

.Co esearch.Cre l l a R e s e b o r olla at eminate.Co e.Dissem borat a rc h a t e. bor R lla a e nate.Collabo borate inate .Res .Cre ese te. .R .C ra e a a llaborate.R te.Rese esear olla arc t e. r h D ar b es c ate.Disse earch. ch.Cr h.Cr orat .Cr mi C e e e .Create.D nate.C reate ate. ate . i s s e min ollab .Dis Diss .D o ra t e a .

R e t se e. or se e a r c re a t e . D h. Col ate m i s s e mi Crea labo .R e. D n i s s e a m te te ra in eminate ate.C .Co .Di .C l o inate.C ollab llab la ol o o minate labor rate .C o l ate. l a b o

eminate.Disseminate.C te.Diss o l l a bora .Crea e a r c h .C r e a t e . D i s s t e m e a rc h b o r a t e . R e s . i nat Re ese e . a C e t o a l n l i l a b m . l o e D s r a t i s s s e a rc e . te .R .C o Re te.Dis ora i n a t e h .C r e a te.Disseminate.Collabora s e a r c h e m i n h.Cr ab a a e c t . e e C t .

R e r e oll s e m e a r e Create.Diss h.Cr s . . at e h m s e s c i n i a a t r c a t e C o e.D e. esearc Re e.C ear at e . D a t e . .Res orate.R h.Create.Disseminate.Co Collabo h.Cr . D i s l l a b isse in a t e b e r c l l t a e b ora rate. ate s e m ora mi olla e s e a r b o ra eminate.Collabo em r s r R R C o a C s t i a . . t e . e D l e . e . b R e e . e R s .Di i n te s e e a ch Co l lla inat orat .Creat s rc e ear s s a t . minate.Collabor e a h s t e .

R e . .Co em llab earc es h.Cre arc ch em e. e . D is te iss e.Co .Res .Creat eminate.Collaborate.Rese earch ate.D h.Di .Cre in .C e s h a D t s a r c h e. na rat arc e.Dis .C reat isse sem e.Disseminate.Colla t i o t b e a o r r e at m ab es rea .Cre a e. m oll te.R h.C earch ate.Disseminate.Collabo e.Res te.D Dis in ra earc .Res h.Cre rate.Research.Crea rate. earc iss se t R c o h e e .

D es ate ar llab is ese .D h.Create.D i s s or ese e.Co .Researc e mi sem arc is R e. inat rate reate.Disseminate.C nate ina h C o l l m labo rch. ab .Co te eminate.Colla ol esea te.Diss .Collabo borate ora ll rat a .R te ate .R e e n r i .

R es es h.C ssem e ar Di

ab C te s e.Research.C reate .Colla e a r c h o ra reat te .D b e h.Create.Dis s e m i iss e m o r a t . D i s . R e . D i nate i na e . D s e m s e s s e.Disseminat . te e.C C a i esearch.Cre ollabor ollab .Col ssem i na r ate. D ate ora lab i t . n i D eate. Disse s mina semin isse te. D orat a te.C arch.Creat ate min iss e.D o a e . ate.Dissem issem llabo Coll te.C a in in r minate.Co ate.C ate. ate bo C .R lla o h.Create.D borat llab olla o b e i sseminate ssemi .Dis rat n .C s Collabora ollab ate. e te C o Research .Rese rate .Cr arc ea te .

r lla ab e a llaborate. abo oll Cr Co .Coll inate.Co ate.Dis e .C h . t e . e te rc n a nat issem arch.Cr issem na sea m i emi te.D .Rese reate.D e Re is s iss ina rate arch.C nate.C D e.D sem labo .Rese .Dissemi at .Dis .Col orate orate .Research.Cr te ate llab llab rate esearc in .Co e.Co llabo borate.R olla o t a .C e at ina e.C Coll minate m nat ate. isse esearch. i R D m min te. ate. .Crea se rea bor search .C olla e.Re reate.Di .C rat rch.C .Disse o a e ab se reat .Re ch.C ate. Diss r e ea h.Cr c

ntcrc.org ntcrc@uncw.edu

National Treatment Court Resource Center University of North Carolina Wilmington 680 S. College Road Wilmington, North Carolina 28403-5978