III. Drug Court Management Information Systems

Drug courts are information-driven to a very significant extent, and their needs for information are significantly greater than existing court-based management information systems have been able to provide. The greatest concern of focus group participants was that the management information systems currently in use in most American courts and criminal justice systems do not provide the basic information needed by drug courts for:

> operational decisionmaking in individual drug court cases

> overall management of the drug court caseload

> sound program monitoring

> useful evaluation

Decisionmaking in drug court cases requires information about many aspects of individuals' life histories and current behavior. The information needed for operational decisionmaking in individual cases is not limited to the criminal justice sphere or the treatment sphere; it encompasses both, and also includes data about the education, employment, physical and mental health, housing, and family situations of drug court participants. Courts do not routinely collect and store most of the needed data on individual participants in court cases, and in the past they have rarely had links with other agencies that would enable them to rapidly obtain such data on a routine basis.

The problems of drug court data collection, access, and retrieval are further complicated
by several other factors:

• The organizations and agencies that routinely collect certain types of information relevant to drug court operations rarely have protocols for sharing the information with courts and criminal justice agencies.

• Privacy laws and confidentiality regulations restrict the transferability of certain kinds of information between and among treatment providers, courts, and other agencies. While it is possible to deal with the privacy and confidentiality regulations through appropriate waivers, this is a legal thicket for many drug court programs.

• Many of the items of information needed by a drug court are not routinely kept in automated form. Even if the information can be obtained, it often cannot be obtained quickly or in a form that is readily retrievable for purposes of analysis, monitoring, and evaluation.

• To the extent that monitoring and evaluation requirements make it necessary to obtain information about persons not in the drug court program (e.g., graduates, persons who have been terminated from the program, persons never admitted into the program who are members of a comparison group), the information acquisition problems are further compounded. Responding to such demands will involve maintaining data files on many more individuals, none of whom are under the supervisory authority of the drug court.

Despite the problems, significant progress has been made in developing information systems that meet at least some of the needs of drug courts. For understandable reasons, the developments to date have focused principally on collection and provision of information about prospective and actual drug court participants. These are the persons about whom judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, and treatment providers must make decisions on a day-to-day basis. To some extent, the databases developed by these operationally focused systems can provide information useful for monitoring and evaluation purposes, but they generally do not have information about (a) postprogram behavior of drug court participants, or (b) the behavior of nonparticipants who are members of comparison groups. Four automated prototype systems, all developed largely with public funds, were demonstrated at the September 1997 focus group meeting.

A. Drug Court MIS Prototypes

Three of the four management information systems demonstrated at the September focus group meeting had been developed by local-level practitioners, primarily to meet the need for information with which to make decisions about individual drug court participants. All four systems were developed with public funds and are available to drug courts for the cost of software and whatever adaptation is required. Other information systems are being used successfully by drug courts across the country and the Drug Court Clearinghouse has compiled information on some of the other systems in use. The four systems are as follows:

1. Jacksonville and Buffalo Drug Court MIS. This is a stand-alone personal computer system that uses the Microsoft Access software to collect, store, and distribute extensive information about each drug court client, about the case, and about the treatment services provided. In Jacksonville, representatives of each of the agencies participating in the drug court (State's Attorney, Public Defender, treatment providers, Department of Corrections) can enter the data system and review the entire case record of a client, and can input data about individual clients by providing a disk containing the information to the drug court's administrative assistant. The administrative assistant is responsible for updating and maintaining the records; she imports all of the data provided by the participating agencies into her computer, then distributes updated disks to the agency representatives to load onto their respective laptops. The judge has a laptop computer on the bench and can access both the drug court information system and the court's own mainframe-based system, which has other information about cases and caseloads that may be relevant to drug court case decisionmaking. The Buffalo City Court also uses the Access software in its drug court. In the months following the September 1997 focus group meeting, staff from the Jacksonville and Buffalo drug courts worked collaboratively on further development of the system, with technical assistance provided by the American University Drug Court Clearinghouse and Technical Assistance Project. As of April 1998, this improved system, which can be networked -- known as DCDMIS-98 -- is available, free of charge, to local drug courts though the AU Clearinghouse.

2. Brooklyn Treatment Court MIS. This system, adapted from a management system originally developed for the Midtown Community Court, is designed to provide a wide range of information relevant to case decisionmaking in a user-friendly form. It focuses on two main categories of information: (1) information relevant to initial case decisionmaking concerning program eligibility and suitability, and (2) information relevant to ongoing treatment and supervision. At the initial decisionmaking stages, the system provides information about current charge, prior record, employment and family situation, drug use history, and other factors relevant to the judge's decisions about program admission and treatment referral. Once the individual has been admitted to the drug court program, the system permits the electronic exchange of information between treatment agencies and the court concerning drug test results, progress in treatment, and other behaviors or events that may affect supervision and court decisionmaking. The Brooklyn Treatment Court has approximately 470 active participants, and the information system currently links the court with more than 30 treatment providers as well as key criminal justice and social service agencies. The system is designed to support monitoring and evaluation as well as day-to-day operations. It was designed by the New York-based Center for Court Innovation in cooperation with New York State's Office of Court Administration. Initial work is now under way to adapt the system for use in other drug courts, beginning with the drug court in Birmingham, Alabama.

3. Washington, D.C., Pretrial Real-time Information System Manager (PRISM). This system was developed by the District of Columbia Pretrial Services Agency to collect information about all defendants under some type of court-ordered pretrial supervision. On any given day, there are approximately 12,000 defendants under the agency's supervision, and more than 500 drug tests are conducted. The information system is not limited to use solely by the drug court, and at this time does not have all the types of information about drug court participants that drug court judges and others involved in the operation of the drug court would like. However, it is especially effective at collecting and rapidly providing information about drug test results. The system is linked directly to drug testing equipment and is programmed to provide very rapid information about test results to agency personnel, judges, and others involved in drug court operations. It also provides a wide range of other infor-mation about defendants, including locator information and information about previous court appearances and drug tests.

4. Washington/Baltimore High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA) Treatment Tracking System. Although HIDTA is not a drug court, the HIDTA program in the Washington-Baltimore area includes a significant treatment component for addicts and has many of the same information needs as drug courts. The Washington/Baltimore HIDTA Treatment Tracking System focuses on information related to assessments, referrals, and tracking, and should be adaptable to address drug court needs. In developing the system, considerable attention has been paid to confidentiality issues, including protocols that limit the release of information to persons explicitly authorized to receive it. The HIDTA system is very strong on the treatment-related information components needed by a drug court and may provide a core around which other automated information components can be developed. Protection of the confidentiality of data on individuals is a significant issue in development of drug court man-agement information systems, and the HIDTA system appears to deal effectively with these issues. Preliminary work has already begun on possible ways to combine components of the D.C. PRISM system and the HIDTA system.

The four demonstrations at the September 1997 focus group showed how drug courts have begun to develop practical responses to their information needs and highlighted the importance, in the MIS development process, of paying close attention to the accuracy of the information that comes into the system and the security of the data once they are in the system. There was a general sense that all four of the systems demonstrated valuable features, although none would at present meet all the needs of a full-service drug court management information system. The demonstrations also generated a number of questions regarding the adaptability of these systems, and other management information systems currently in use, to other jurisdictions. Questions that were raised about adaptability of currently operational management information systems included the following:

• What capabilities do these systems have for addressing local drug court needs in jurisdictions that might consider adapting them?

• What resources (hardware, software, and staff) are needed to adapt the system?

• What would be the costs to adapt and implement the system, in terms of --

  * system software?

  u* hardware?

  * dedicated staff?

  What are the costs of maintaining the system?

  What would be the costs of modifying the system, after initial adaptation and implementation, to meet evolving needs in the local jurisdiction? What restrictions would there be on a recipient jurisdiction making these modifications on its own or by using expertise available locally?

The American University Drug Court Clearinghouse and Technical Assistance Project has undertaken initial efforts to develop answers to these questions, in communication with the four presenters, and will continue to provide information to the field about drug court MIS approaches and options.

B. Management Information Needs of the Drug Court Team

For operational decisionmaking purposes, drug court teams need information about individuals for two main functions: (1) deciding on initial admission to the drug court program and, if admitted, the initial testing and treatment regimen to be ordered, and (2) once an individual is admitted to the program, monitoring the individual's behavior and deciding on changes with respect to supervision and treatment, including recognition of progress when appropriate and imposition of sanctions if necessary.

1. Information Needed for Initial Decisionmaking. The types of information needed for initial decisions about program admission and levels of treatment and testing vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but generally include information about at least the following:

> Current charge, including circumstances
of the case

> Individual's criminal history

> Individual's drug abuse history, including drug of choice, nature and severity of current substance abuse, and history of any prior substance abuse treatment

> Detoxification needs

> Individual's eligibility for insurance (may affect what treatment services are available if admitted to drug court)

> Date of birth

> Gender

> Race/ethnicity

> Employment status

> Family situation

> Housing situation

> Education

> Willingness of the individual to participate in the drug court program

> Other special types of information relevant to program admission and initial treatment placement (e.g., mental health, pregnancy, child care needs)

> Assessment information, in summary form (NOTE: Participants recognized that some types of information relevant to treatment placement cannot be obtained before entry into the drug court program in many jurisdictions but stressed the need for early assessments in all cases. They also noted that, for initial decisionmaking and court action, it is ordinarily neither necessary nor helpful for the court to have the very detailed medical-psychosocial data used by treatment providers.)

2. Information Needed for Ongoing Supervision of Drug Court Participants. Drug court judges need a core of key information at the time of each court appearance by a drug court participant:

> Drug test results

> Level and types of treatment services being provided to the individual

> Participation in treatment (e.g., attendance at required treatment sessions, extent of active participation in treatment groups)

> Compliance with other program requirements (e.g., participation in 12-step program, job training, obtaining a job, participation in educational program)

> Medical issues and status

> Family issues and status

> Ancillary services that may be needed by the participant

> Milestones and major life events for the participant (e.g., completion of a phase of the program, birthday; significant event such as marriage, birth of a child, obtaining a job)

> Evidence of relapse or danger of imminent relapse

> Any new arrest

> Record of previous sanctions and rewards while a participant in the drug court

3. Information Needed by Substance Abuse Treatment Providers. Treatment providers at the focus group meeting noted that, as members of the drug court team, they needed and would like to receive all of the information noted above. In addition, it is important to them to know what decisions have been made in court at the time of any client's court appearance, because these decisions can affect decisions about treatment.

C. Key MIS Issues for System Managers and Funding Authorities

Chief judges and court administrators in jurisdictions where drug courts are operating will tend to focus on some of the same impact evaluation questions that are of interest to the GAO. However, they are also likely to be especially interested in the impact of the drug court on the operation of the rest of the court and in learning how successful drug court strategies can be incorporated into ongoing court operations. Questions likely to be of particular interest to these court leaders include the following:

• How does the drug court affect case pro-cessing times? (Note that time from arrest to disposition for drug court participants may be longer than for "normal" case processing, because of the length of the drug court program. However, the time from arrest to entry into the drug court program [effectively a "disposition"] is usually very short, and imposition of sanctions for noncompliance is very rapid.)

• How does the drug court affect overall court workload, including judge time, staff resources, and courtroom utilization? (Note that drug court typically requires numerous appearances before the drug court judge. However, an effective drug court reduces the number of subsequent cases involving the same individuals and reduces the number of probation violation hearings and related court services.)

• How will the drug court's information needs affect the court's existing MIS configuration? How can the drug court's MIS needs be accommodated within the limited resources available for the court's own basic management information system? What will a drug court MIS cost? How will the court as a whole benefit from investment in a management information system that meets drug court information needs?

Policymakers in the justice system, in the treatment and public health systems, in the community, and in general government will also be interested in broader issues of system impact, costs, and benefits. Their primary concerns include reductions in recidivism, reductions in substance abuse, improvements in drug court participants' life circumstances (e.g., employment, family stability, education) and related cost benefits. These policymakers will also be likely to be interested in a number of questions about the nature and level of activity of the program -- for example, the number of participants, number of graduates, number of persons in particular phases of the program and in particular types of treatment modalities, number and types of sanctions used, program termination and retention rates, and the like. The management information system used by the drug court should be capable of producing the data needed to answer these questions.

A number of problems will be encountered in trying to develop a comprehensive information system to support a drug court program. Early on there must be a decision as to whether it is feasible to adapt existing court information systems to support the added information needs of the drug court program. The time and expense that would be required to adapt many of the "legacy" court information systems to handle added drug court data needs may be prohibitive. If so, a separate drug court system will be needed. It will then be necessary to develop an interface between the systems to permit the download of basic case and defendant information from the court's main information system, avoiding costly reentry of substantial amounts of existing automated information. Decisions must be made about how long data will be retained and about archiving historical data. Policies and procedures must be developed regarding who will have access to what data and what (if any) of the information will be public record. Technical staff must be assigned to support the maintenance, reporting capability, and operation of the drug court information system, regardless of whether it is part of the court information system or a stand-alone system.

The drug court needs to receive data from treatment provider(s) in a timely fashion, and treatment providers also need information from the drug court. Many treatment providers do not have automated information systems and will need to develop forms and transmit paper documents for subsequent (and labor-intensive) drug court data entry. Providers with sophisticated information systems will need to arrange for an interface between the court system and their own (not a simple task) and will probably need to negotiate the permissible limits of data sharing in light of the confidentiality of some of the information.

There was consensus that the short-term goal for a jurisdiction's drug court information system should be to get a system in place that supports the operation and management of the drug court. The longer-term goal should be to work toward a fully integrated system that uses modern computer technology to enable the electronic interchange of information between and among the drug court and all of the agencies involved in the drug court program and provides operational, management, evaluation, and national reporting capability.

Optimally, a drug court's management information system will be able to meet the drug court's needs for operational data and also meet at least many of the broader needs for monitoring and evaluation of the drug court program. The software for any automated drug court management system should be capable of supporting day-to-day courtroom operations, overall drug court docketing and caseload management, funding body reporting, and general research about drug court operations and impact. It should also have an easy-to-use report-generation capability, to enable rapid response to questions about drug court operations from a variety of sources, and should have the capability of being easily modified to accommodate program changes in eligibility criteria, treatment providers, and reporting requirements. It should be able to tap into multiple sources of relevant information and should provide for real-time electronic communication between the court and treatment providers as well as between and among criminal justice agencies involved in the drug court program.

In considering future policy and program development with input to drug court management information systems, it will be important to bear in mind two key areas in which there was not a consensus among the members of the focus group. These are areas in which there should be further discussion and debate in the near future. They are:

• The role of the private sector. While many focus group members expressed strong support for the idea of "public domain" software that would be available to all drug courts, others took the position that the most effective long-term policy would be to encourage private sector development and allow market forces to help shape future MIS development.

• Drug Court MIS v. Community Court MIS. Focus group members differed on the questions of appropriate scope of an MIS development effort. Some argued for focusing it strictly on drug courts, noting that for the foreseeable future the types of cases handled by drug courts would continue to be a significant segment of court caseloads. Others argued for an MIS approach that would include drug courts within a much broader array of court activities. Proponents of this view note that other types of courts or court functions -- including domestic violence courts and courts handling other types of offenses or situations that require considerable infor-mation about both the individual defendant and community resources and supervision activities -- have many of the same needs as drug courts, and that new MIS development should be broad enough to address these needs.

Regardless of the views taken on these two areas in which focus group participants did not come to consensus, there is no doubt about the main thrust of the discussions with respect to management information systems generally. The key characteristics of such systems are:

> Ability to rapidly record and transmit a wide range of information about individuals subject to the court's authority

> Effective integration with existing criminal justice, treatment, public health, and social welfare agency information systems, to enable rapid retrieval and exchange of information between and among courts and other agencies

> Ability to provide comprehensive infor-mation about individuals at very early stages of a court case -- generally within hours following arrest or other event that warrants court action

> Designed to enable rapid operational decisionmaking in court, at pre-court stages, and during periods of supervision

> Capable of being expanded and modified to meet emerging needs

> Capable of being easily programmed to provide for operational decisionmaking and for a wide range of reports for monitoring and evaluation purposes

> User friendly -- suitable for users who have widely varying levels of computer sophistication

> Appropriate in scale and cost to the size and scope of the drug court

D. Approaches to MIS Development

There are five main obstacles to obtaining needed information from automated management information systems:

> Drug court information needs not incorporated into existing court-based management information systems

> Lack of integration of existing criminal justice, treatment, and drug court management information systems

> Unavailability of source codes used by some currently operating drug court management information systems, which makes it difficult, if not impossible, for jurisdictions to adapt and modify such systems to meet their own needs

> Confidentiality of some information

> Costs of developing and maintaining a drug court MIS

To overcome these obstacles, the following specific steps could be taken by individual jurisdictions:

• Develop clear and measurable goals for the drug court. An information system should be able to provide information that will enable assessment of the drug court's performance in relation to the goals.

• Develop clear and realistic goals with respect to what is expected of an information system to support drug court operations. Focus particularly on what information is needed for what purposes.

• Make sure that all of the relevant stake-holders are at the table and remain engaged in the system development process from initiation through full implementation.

• Engage judicial leadership in development of drug court management information systems, recognizing that the types of information needed by drug courts will also be needed for many other types of court operations in the future. Drug court MIS development, because it focuses on the information needed for courtroom decisions but also takes account of monitoring and evaluation needs, should be a forerunner of the next generation of court-centered information systems.

• Ascertain what relevant information each stakeholder has, what information each needs, and what options are available for information interchange. Consider con-ducting an "information audit" to identify what information is now being captured and what additional information needs must be met in order for the drug court to function effectively and be able to comply with monitoring and evaluation demands.

• Ensure that a person who is highly knowledgeable about computer technology and management information systems is a member of the drug court team for all planning, implementation, and system maintenance functions. Develop written policies and procedures for data entry, maintenance, exchange, archiving, and purging, with input and review by all stakeholders.

• Study other successfully operating drug court management information systems, making site visits if possible. Consider which features of each system may be most useful for adaptation in your own jurisdic- tion and which are nonessential. Do not try to simply adapt another jurisdiction's system without first carefully assessing your own jurisdiction's information needs and existing capabilities.

• Educate drug court practitioners -- judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, treatment providers, administrative coordinators, and others involved in day-to-day operations -- about information system needs, opportunities, and constraints. Ensure that all of these practitioners understand how to use whatever system is put in place.

• Educate everyone involved in the drug court's operations about relevant confidentiality regulations and about ways to address these requirements through appropriate waivers. Draft the necessary consent forms, waiver forms, and memo-randums of understanding concerning sharing of information.

• Seek to integrate the drug court MIS with existing court-based management information systems and with the management information systems of other groups and agencies that have data relevant to drug court operations. Recognize that it may not be possible to obtain all the necessary data through an automated system, and develop the capacity to collect it manually, if necessary.