Adult Drug Court Standards, Best Practices, and Promising Practices

State Court Administrative Office

Court Services

Problem-Solving Courts

Michigan Association of Treatment Court Professionals

Adult Drug Court

Standards, Best Practices,

and Promising Practices

March 2021

INDEPENDENCE ∙ ACCESSIBILITY ∙ ENGAGEMENT ∙ EFFICIENCY

Introduction

Purpose

This manual was written by staff from the State Court Administrative Office and board members

of the Michigan Association of Treatment Court Professionals. It is designed to assist

Michigan’s adult drug and DWI courts in complying with the drug court statute,

best practices,

the 10 Key Components of Drug Courts, and the 10 Guiding Principles of DWI Courts. The

content in this manual comes from many sources, but it leans most heavily on statute and the

National Association of Drug Court Professionals Adult Drug Court Best Practice Standards,

Volume I and Volume II. The manual pulls important pieces from all of these sources in order to

best represent Michigan’s practices. This manual is intended for all adult drug court team

members, and the team should use it to ensure that their program is following the statute and

implementing best practices.

Definitions

The chapters in this manual include three types of information:

• Standard: Standards are from the drug court statute, the 10 Key Components, the 10

Guiding Principles, federal and state confidentiality laws, and case law and other

precedent that are binding on Michigan courts.

• Best Practice: Best practices are supported by scientific research and data or nonbinding

case law, and are proven methods to follow. The best practices have either been shown

by empirical research to produce better outcomes than other practices or they are

regarding compliance with confidentiality, due process, or other rules. Their use results

in higher-quality programs.

• Promising Practice: Promising practices are not yet supported by scientific research or

data, but anecdotal evidence and experience suggest they are helpful in adhering to the

model. Promising practices are recommendations for courts to follow to operate a

higher-quality program.

See Appendix A.

How to Use This Manual

Each chapter is divided into relevant topics. Included within each topic are the standards, best

practices, and promising practices, as well as the supporting authority or research. Not all topics

have all three subdivisions; some topics have only best practices while some do not have

promising practices.

There are two kinds of best practices in this manual: best practices that a program must follow in

order to become a certified drug court (bolded) and best practices that a program should be

following.

There are footnotes throughout the manual that refer to additional research. The 15 appendices

are referenced in the chapters, including model documents that courts can use to comply with

certain standards and required best practices. If you would like to request training or technical

assistance, please contact your regional administrator. If you have questions, please contact

[email protected].

Certification

In order for a program to become a certified adult drug court under MCL 600.1062, it must

comply with the standards and required best practices in this manual. All standards and required

best practices are in bold.

iii

Chapter 1: Roles and Responsibilities of the Drug Court Judge.................................................... 1

I. General .................................................................................................................................... 1

A. Standards .......................................................................................................................... 1

B. Best Practices ................................................................................................................... 1

II. Staffing Meetings and Review Hearings ................................................................................ 2

A. Standards .......................................................................................................................... 2

B. Best Practices ................................................................................................................... 2

III. Works Cited ......................................................................................................................... 4

Chapter 2: Participant Supervision and Compliance ..................................................................... 5

I. Caseload .................................................................................................................................. 5

A. Best Practices ................................................................................................................... 5

B. Promising Practices .......................................................................................................... 6

II. Monitoring and Review Hearings ........................................................................................... 6

A. Standards .......................................................................................................................... 6

B. Best Practices ................................................................................................................... 6

C. Promising Practices .......................................................................................................... 7

III. Services to Participants ........................................................................................................ 7

A. Standards .......................................................................................................................... 7

B. Best Practices ................................................................................................................... 7

IV. Ignition Interlock ................................................................................................................. 8

A. Standards .......................................................................................................................... 8

B. Best Practices ................................................................................................................... 9

V. Incentives and Sanctions ......................................................................................................... 9

A. Standards .......................................................................................................................... 9

B. Best Practices ................................................................................................................... 9

C. Promising Practices ........................................................................................................ 11

VI. Payments ............................................................................................................................ 11

A. Standards ........................................................................................................................ 11

VII. Phase Promotion and Graduation....................................................................................... 12

A. Best Practices ................................................................................................................. 12

VIII. Program Discharge ......................................................................................................... 13

A. Standards ........................................................................................................................ 13

B. Best Practices ................................................................................................................. 13

IX. Works Cited ....................................................................................................................... 15

Chapter 3: Confidentiality ............................................................................................................ 17

I. Confidentiality ...................................................................................................................... 17

A. Standards ........................................................................................................................ 17

B. Best Practices ................................................................................................................. 20

II. Works Cited .......................................................................................................................... 22

Chapter 4: Due Process ................................................................................................................ 23

I. Waiver of Rights ................................................................................................................... 23

A. Standards ........................................................................................................................ 23

II. 1st Amendment ..................................................................................................................... 23

A. Standards ........................................................................................................................ 23

B. Best Practices ................................................................................................................. 24

III. 4th Amendment .................................................................................................................. 24

A. Best Practices ................................................................................................................. 24

IV. 14th Amendment ................................................................................................................ 25

A. Standards ........................................................................................................................ 25

V. Sanctions and Termination ................................................................................................... 25

A. Best Practices ................................................................................................................. 25

VI. Works Cited ....................................................................................................................... 27

Chapter 5: The Drug Court Team ................................................................................................ 28

I. Team Composition ................................................................................................................ 28

A. Standards ........................................................................................................................ 28

B. Best Practices ................................................................................................................. 28

C. Promising Practices ........................................................................................................ 29

II. Staffing Meetings and Review Hearings .............................................................................. 30

A. Best Practices ................................................................................................................. 30

III. Communication and Decision Making .............................................................................. 30

A. Best Practices ................................................................................................................. 30

IV. Works Cited ....................................................................................................................... 32

Chapter 6: Drug Court Population and Admission ...................................................................... 33

I. Screening............................................................................................................................... 33

A. Standards ........................................................................................................................ 33

B. Best Practices ................................................................................................................. 34

II. Eligible Offenses ................................................................................................................... 34

A. Standards ........................................................................................................................ 34

B. Best Practices ................................................................................................................. 35

III. Clinical Substance Use and Mental Health Assessments .................................................. 35

A. Standards ........................................................................................................................ 35

B. Best Practices ................................................................................................................. 36

IV. Risk and Need Assessment ................................................................................................ 36

A. Best Practices ................................................................................................................. 36

V. Legal Outcome ...................................................................................................................... 38

A. Standards ........................................................................................................................ 38

VI. Admission Factors ............................................................................................................. 39

A. Standards ........................................................................................................................ 39

B. Best Practices ................................................................................................................. 39

VII. Findings on the Record or in the Court File ...................................................................... 40

A. Standards ........................................................................................................................ 40

VIII. Program Entry ................................................................................................................ 40

A. Best Practices ................................................................................................................. 40

IX. Works Cited .......................................................................................................................... 42

Chapter 7: Drug and Alcohol Testing .......................................................................................... 44

I. General .................................................................................................................................. 44

A. Best Practices ................................................................................................................. 44

II. Randomization ...................................................................................................................... 44

A. Standards ........................................................................................................................ 44

III. Frequency and Breadth of Testing ..................................................................................... 45

A. Standards ........................................................................................................................ 45

B. Best Practices ................................................................................................................. 45

IV. Scientifically Valid Drug Testing Methods ....................................................................... 46

A. Best Practices ................................................................................................................. 46

V. Witnessed Collection ............................................................................................................ 48

A. Best Practices ................................................................................................................. 48

VI. Chain of Custody and Results ............................................................................................ 50

A. Standards ........................................................................................................................ 50

B. Best Practices ................................................................................................................. 50

C. Promising Practices ........................................................................................................ 50

VII. Works Cited ....................................................................................................................... 51

Chapter 8: Treatment .................................................................................................................... 53

I. General and Definition of Drug Treatment Courts and DWI Courts .................................... 53

A. Standards ........................................................................................................................ 53

B. Best Practices ................................................................................................................. 53

II. Treatment Entry .................................................................................................................... 54

A. Best Practices ................................................................................................................. 54

III. Treatment Services ............................................................................................................. 54

A. Standards ........................................................................................................................ 54

B. Best Practices ................................................................................................................. 55

IV. Evidence-Based Models of Treatment ............................................................................... 56

A. Best Practices ................................................................................................................. 56

V. Treatment Duration ............................................................................................................... 57

VI. Medication-Assisted Treatment ......................................................................................... 57

A. Best Practices ................................................................................................................. 57

VII. Works Cited ....................................................................................................................... 59

Chapter 9: Education .................................................................................................................... 60

I. General .................................................................................................................................. 60

A. Standards ........................................................................................................................ 60

B. Best Practices ................................................................................................................. 60

II. Works Cited .......................................................................................................................... 62

Chapter 10: Program Evaluation ................................................................................................. 63

I. Collection and Maintenance of Information ......................................................................... 63

A. Standards ........................................................................................................................ 63

B. Best Practices ................................................................................................................. 65

II. Evaluation and Program Modification .................................................................................. 65

A. Best Practices ................................................................................................................. 65

B. Promising Practices ........................................................................................................ 67

III. Works Cited ....................................................................................................................... 69

Chapter 11: Equity and Inclusion ................................................................................................. 70

I. Equity and Inclusion ............................................................................................................. 70

A. Best Practices ................................................................................................................. 70

II. Works Cited .......................................................................................................................... 73

Appendix A Michigan Drug Court Statute .................................................................................. 75

Appendix B Model Drug Court Discharge Statement ................................................................. 90

Appendix C Model Multi-Party Consent for Release of Information ........................................ 91

Appendix D New Staff and Team Member Orientation .............................................................. 96

Appendix E Model Confidentiality Policies and Procedures ...................................................... 98

Appendix G Model Confidentiality MOU .................................................................................. 106

Appendix H Model Visitor Confidentiality and Consent for Release of Information ............ 114

vii

Appendix I Model Program MOU .............................................................................................. 119

Appendix J Model Drug Court Agreement to Participate and Waiver ..................................... 128

Appendix L Drug Court Admission Conditions ......................................................................... 131

Appendix N Ten Principles of a Good Testing Program ........................................................... 133

Appendix O Minimum Standard Data ....................................................................................... 134

Chapter 1: Roles and Responsibilities of the Drug

Court Judge

This chapter discusses the judge’s roles on a drug court team. The judge serves as the leader of

the team and plays an important part in guiding participants through the program. Specific topics

include the term as a drug court judge, staffing meetings, and review hearings. Confidentiality is

mentioned, but discussed in further detail in Chapter 3. The judge is also important in ensuring

participants’ due process rights are protected; best practices regarding due process are discussed

in Chapter 4.

I. General

A. Standards

1. A drug treatment court shall comply with the 10 key components

promulgated by the national association of drug court professionals,

which include all of the following essential characteristics:

Ongoing close judicial interaction with each participant and

supervision of progress for each participant. (MCL

600.1060(c)(vii))

2. An independent and honorable judiciary is indispensable to justice in our

society. A judge should participate in establishing, maintaining, and

enforcing, and should personally observe, high standards of conduct so

that the integrity and independence of the judiciary may be preserved. A

judge should always be aware that the judicial system is for the benefit of

the litigant and the public, not the judiciary. (Michigan Code of Judicial

Conduct, Canon 1)

B. Best Practices

1. Participants ordinarily appear before the same judge throughout their

enrollment in the drug court.

Drug courts that rotated the judicial assignment or where

participants appeared before alternating judges had the poorest

outcomes in several research studies. (Finigan, Carey, & Cox,

2007) (National Institute of Justice, 2006)

The Michigan drug court statute refers to the 10 Key Components of Drug Courts. The National Center for DWI

Courts, a division of the National Association of Drug Court Professionals, has also promulgated the 10 Guiding

Principles of DWI Courts. Judges in DWI/Sobriety courts should also respect Guiding Principle #6, which reads,

“Judges are a vital part of the DWI Court team. As leader of this team, the judge’s role is paramount to the success

of the DWI court program. The judge must be committed to the sobriety of program participants, possess

exceptional knowledge and skill in behavioral science, own recognizable leadership skills as well as the capability to

motivate team members and elicit buy-in from various stakeholders. The selection of the judge to lead the DWI

Court team, therefore, is of utmost importance.”

2. The judge presides over the drug court for no less than two consecutive years.

When judges preside over drug courts for at least two years, those

programs have significant cost savings and significantly lower

recidivism. (Carey, Pukstas, Waller, Mackin, & Finigan, 2008)

(Carey, Mackin, & Finnegan, 2012)

Even greater reductions in recidivism were found in courts where

the judges oversaw the drug court on a voluntary basis and the

term was indefinite. (Carey, Mackin, & Finnegan, 2012)

3. The judge bases interaction with drug court participants on the four principles

of procedural fairness: voice, neutrality, respectful treatment, and trustworthy

authorities.

Drug use, probation violations, and recidivism rates were all

reduced in drug courts that applied the four principles of

procedural fairness. (MacKenzie, 2016)

II. Staffing Meetings and Review Hearings

A. Standards

1. In the performance of judicial duties, the following standards apply:

A judge should be faithful to the law and maintain professional

competence in it. A judge should be unswayed by partisan

interests, public clamor, or fear of criticism. (Michigan Code

of Judicial Conduct, Canon 3(A)(1))

A judge should be patient, dignified, and courteous to litigants,

jurors, witnesses, lawyers, and others with whom the judge

deals in an official capacity, and should require similar

conduct of lawyers and of staff, court officials, and others

subject to the judge’s direction and control. (Michigan Code

of Judicial Conduct, Canon 3(A)(3))

Without regard to a person’s race, gender, or other protected

personal characteristic, a judge should treat every person

fairly, with courtesy, and respect. (Michigan Code of Judicial

Conduct, Canon 3(A)(10))

B. Best Practices

1. The judge regularly attends staffing meetings during which the drug

court team reviews each participant’s progress and discusses potential

consequences for performance.

Research has consistently shown that when the drug court judge

regularly attends staffing meetings, cost savings increase and

recidivism is reduced. (Carey, Pukstas, Waller, Mackin, &

Finigan, 2008) (Carey, Mackin, & Finnegan, 2012)

2. The judge considers the perspectives of all team members before making

final decisions that affect participants’ welfare or liberty interests. The

judge relies on the expert input of duly trained treatment professionals

when imposing treatment-related conditions.

The collaborative nature of drug courts brings together experts

from various disciplines. Their expertise and shared information

allow the judge to make better-informed decisions. (National

Association of Drug Court Professionals, 2018) (Hora & Stalcup,

2008)

3. The judge spends sufficient time during status review hearings reviewing each

participant’s progress in the program. Evidence suggests judges should spend

a minimum of three minutes interacting with each participant in court.

Recidivism was significantly reduced, by as much as 153 percent,

in drug courts where the judge spent at least three minutes

interacting with each participant. The same study showed that cost

savings were also improved when the judge spent the minimum

three minutes with each participant. (Carey, Mackin, & Finnegan,

2012)

4. The judge offers supportive comments to participants, stresses the importance

of their commitment to treatment and other program requirements, and

expresses optimism about their ability to improve their health and behavior.

The judge does not humiliate participants or subject them to foul or abusive

language. The judge allows participants a reasonable opportunity to explain

their perspectives concerning factual controversies and the imposition of

sanctions, incentives, and therapeutic adjustments.

Research has consistently shown that the perceived quality of

interactions between participants and the drug court judge is

among the most influential factors for success in the program.

(National Association of Drug Court Professionals, 2018)

Significantly greater reductions in crime and substance use resulted

when the judges were independently rated as being more fair,

attentive, caring, and enthusiastic. (Zweig, Lindquist, Downey,

Roman, & Rossman, 2012)

III. Works Cited

Carey, S., Mackin, J., & Finnegan, M. (2012). What Works? The Ten Key Components of Drug Court:

Research-Based Best Practices. Drug Court Review, 8(1), pp. 6-42. Retrieved from

https://www.ndci.org/wp-content/uploads/DCR_best-practices-in-drug-courts.pdf

Carey, S., Pukstas, K., Waller, M., Mackin, R., & Finigan, M. (2008). Drug Courts and State Mandated

Drug Teatment Programs: Outcomes, Costs, and Consequences. NPC Research, Portland, OR.

Retrieved from https://npcresearch.com/publication/drug-courts-and-state-mandated-drug-

treatment-programs-outcomes-costs-and-consequences-drug-court-and-proposition-36-in-

california/

Hora, P., & Stalcup, T. (2008). Drug Treatment Courts in the Twenty-First century: The Evolution of the

Revolution in Problem-Solving Courts. Georgia Law Review, pp. 717-811. Retrieved from

https://www.ndci.org/wp-content/uploads/Hora-Stalcup.pdf

National Association of Drug Court Professionals. (2018). Adult Drug Court Best Practice Standards.

Volume 1. Retrieved from https://www.nadcp.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Adult-Drug-

Court-Best-Practice-Standards-Volume-I-Text-Revision-December-2018-1.pdf

National Institute of Justice. (2006). Drug courts: The second decade. Washington, D.C.:: Office of Justice

Programs, US Department of Justice. Retrieved from

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/211081.pdf

Zweig, J., Lindquist, C., Downey, P., Roman, J., & Rossman, S. (2012). Drug court policies and practices:

How program implementation affects offender substance use and criminal behavior outcomes.

Drug Court Review, 43-79. Retrieved from

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/52d5cb6fe4b030d390971273/t/52ea89d0e4b0d62f9ff55

8fd/1391102416292/Best_practices_in_drug_courts_2012.pdf

Chapter 2: Participant Supervision and Compliance

This chapter discusses participant supervision and compliance with program requirements.

Specific topics include the drug court supervision caseload, frequency of monitoring events,

services provided to participants, incentives and sanctions, phase promotion and graduation from

drug court, and termination from drug court. Several topics are addressed in additional detail in

other chapters.

I. Caseload

A. Best Practices

1. The number of individuals participating in the program as a cohort or a track

should be fewer than 125.

Programs that have fewer than 125 individual participants at one

time have statistically significant reductions in recidivism. (Carey,

Mackin, & Finnegan, 2012)

Drug courts can serve more than 125 participants with effective

results if the programs have sufficient personnel and resources to

accommodate larger numbers of individuals. (Carey, Mackin, &

Finnegan, 2012) (Shaffer, 2010)

2. Supervision caseloads should not exceed 50 active participants per

supervision officer (most commonly a probation officer).

Probationers on 50:1 caseloads received significantly more

probation office sessions, field visits, employer contacts, telephone

check-ins, and substance use disorder and mental health treatment.

As a consequence of receiving more services, they also had

significantly better probation outcomes, including fewer positive

drugs tests and other technical violations. (Jalbert & Rhodes,

2012)

3. The caseload for a treatment provider administering individual therapy should

not exceed a 40:1 ratio.

Treatment providers serve principally as treatment providers,

administering individual therapy or counseling and perhaps

facilitating or co-facilitating group interventions. They may also

refer participants for ancillary services such as mental health

treatment or vocational training. The caseload census guideline is

derived from expert consensus. (Case Management Society of

America & National Association of Social Workers., 2008)

(National Association of Drug Court Professionals, 2018)

State rules on mental health and substance use disorder services

say that the equivalent of one or more full-time counselors shall be

available for approximately 40 clients. (Michigan Mental Health

and Substance Abuse Services Rules, Part 7, R 325.14701)

B. Promising Practices

1. The caseload for a clinical case manager should not exceed a 75:1 ratio.

Case managers assess participant needs, broker referrals for

services, and report progress information to the team. The

caseload census guideline is derived from expert consensus.

(Rodriguez, 2011) (National Association of Drug Court

Professionals, 2018) Research is based on outcomes in the context

of general probation, particularly high-risk, high-need

probationers.

II. Monitoring and Review Hearings

A. Standards

1. A drug treatment court shall provide a drug court participant with all of

the following:

Consistent, continual, and close monitoring of the participant

and interaction among the court, treatment providers,

probation, and the participant. (MCL 600.1072(1)(a))

Periodic evaluation assessments of the participant’s

circumstances and progress in the program. (MCL

600.1072(1)(c))

B. Best Practices

1. Participants appear before the judge for status hearings at least once

every two weeks during the first phase of the program. The frequency of

status review hearings may be reduced gradually after participants have

initiated abstinence from alcohol and illicit drugs and are regularly

engaged in treatment. Status review hearings are scheduled at least once

every four weeks until participants are in the last phase of the program.

A substantial body of research demonstrates the importance of

scheduling status hearings no less frequently than every two weeks

during the first phase of a drug court. Participants had

significantly better treatment attendance, substance use abstinence,

and graduation rates when they were required to appear before the

judge every two weeks. (National Association of Drug Court

Professionals, 2018) (Festinger, et al., 2002)

2. Participants meet individually with a clinical case manager or comparable

treatment professional at least weekly during the first phase of drug court.

Studies consistently find that drug courts reduce recidivism and are

more cost-effective when participants meet individually with a

clinical case manager or comparable treatment professional at least

weekly during the first phase of the program. (Carey, Mackin, &

Finnegan, 2012) (Cissner, et al., 2013)

C. Promising Practices

1. Drug court participants meet with a supervision officer (most commonly a

probation officer) at least twice per month in the early phases of the program.

Many courts require weekly meetings in early phases.

While there is no specific research available on this topic, research

on frequency of review hearings and meetings with clinical case

managers is relevant. More frequent meetings allow for closer

supervision.

III. Services to Participants

A. Standards

1. A drug treatment court shall provide a drug court participant with all of

the following:

Substance use disorder treatment services, relapse prevention

services, education, and vocational opportunities as

appropriate and practicable. (MCL 600.1072(1)(e))

2. A drug treatment court shall comply with the 10 key components

promulgated by the national association of drug court professionals,

which include all of the following essential characteristics:

Integration of alcohol and other drug treatment services with

justice system case processing. (MCL 600.1060(c)(i))

B. Best Practices

1. Participants regularly attend self-help or peer-support groups in addition to

professional counseling. The peer-support groups follow a structured model

or curriculum such as 12-step or Smart Recovery and offer non-faith-based

options.

Participation in self-help or peer-support groups is consistently

associated with better long-term outcomes, including greater

abstinence and lower mortality rates, when used in conjunction

with substance use disorder treatment. (Kelly, Stout, Zywiak, &

Schneider, 2006) (Moos & Timko, 2008)

2. In the first phase of drug court, participants receive services designed

primarily to address responsivity needs such as deficient housing; mental

health symptoms; and substance-related cravings, withdrawal, or anhedonia.

In the interim phases of drug court, participants receive services designed to

resolve criminogenic needs that co-occur frequently with substance use, such

as criminal thinking patterns, delinquent peer interactions, and family conflict.

In the later phases of drug court, participants receive services designed to

maintain treatment gains by enhancing their long-term adaptive functioning,

such as vocational or educational counseling.

Outcomes, including graduation rates, recidivism rates, and

engagement in treatment, are improved when rehabilitation

programs address ancillary needs in this specific sequence.

(National Association of Drug Court Professionals, 2018)

3. Participants with deficient employment or academic histories receive

vocational or educational services beginning in a late phase of drug court.

At least two studies of drug courts have reported improved

program retention, graduation rates, and treatment retention when

unemployed or underemployed participants received a manualized,

cognitive-behavioral vocational intervention. (Deschenes, Ireland,

& Kleinpeter, 2009) (Leukefeld, Webster, Stanton-Tindall, &

Duvall, 2007)

4. Where indicated, participants receive assistance finding safe, stable, and drug-

free housing beginning in the first phase of drug court and continuing as

necessary throughout their enrollment in the program.

Participants are unlikely to succeed in treatment if they do not have

a safe, stable, and drug-free place to live. (Quirouette, Hannah-

Moffat, & Maurutto, 2015)

IV. Ignition Interlock

A. Standards

1. Before the secretary of state issues a restricted license to a program

participant under section 304 of the Michigan vehicle code, 1949 PA 300,

MCL 257.304, the DWI/sobriety court judge shall certify to the secretary

of state that the individual seeking the restricted license has been

admitted into the program and that an interlock device has been placed

on each motor vehicle owned or operated, or both, by the individual.

(MCL 600.1084(6))

2. If any of the following occur, the DWI/sobriety court judge shall

immediately inform the secretary of state of that occurrence:

The court orders that a program participant be removed from

the DWI/sobriety court program before he or she successfully

completes it. (MCL 600.1084(6)(a))

The court becomes aware that a program participant operates

a motor vehicle that is not equipped with an interlock device or

that a program participant tampers with, circumvents, or

removes a court-ordered interlock device without prior court

approval. (MCL 600.1084(6)(b))

A program participant is charged with a new violation of

section 625 of the Michigan vehicle code, 1949 PA 300, MCL

257.625. (MCL 600.1084(6)(c))

B. Best Practices

1. Ignition interlock devices and restricted driver licenses are made

available to eligible participants. Drug courts should utilize the National

Center for DWI Courts’ ignition interlock device guidelines when

incorporating the use of these devices into their programs.

An evaluation of Michigan’s Ignition Interlock Pilot Program

showed that, compared to non-interlock offenders in

DWI/sobriety court and to standard probationers, interlock

program participants have the lowest recidivism rates after

one, two, three, and four years of follow up. This is true for

both drunk driving-related reoffending and for general

criminal reoffending. (Kierkus & Johnson, 2016)

V. Incentives and Sanctions

A. Standards

1. A drug treatment court shall provide a drug court participant with all of

the following:

A regimen or strategy of appropriate and graduated but

immediate rewards for compliance and sanctions for

noncompliance, including, but not limited to, the possibility of

incarceration or confinement. (MCL 600.1072(1)(d))

2. A drug treatment court shall comply with the 10 key components

promulgated by the national association of drug court professionals,

which include all of the following essential characteristics:

Use of a coordinated strategy with a regimen of graduated

sanctions and rewards to govern the court’s responses to

participants’ compliance. (MCL 600.1060(c)(vi))

B. Best Practices

1. The drug court places as much emphasis on incentivizing productive

behaviors as it does on reducing crime, substance use, and other

infractions.

Drug courts are able to reduce substance use and better prevent

criminal behavior when they focus as much on incentivizing

productive behaviors as they do on reducing noncompliant or

undesirable behaviors. (Zweig, Lindquist, Downey, Roman, &

Rossman, 2012)

2. The drug court has a range of sanctions of varying magnitudes that may

be administered in response to program infractions.

Drug courts are able to reduce substance use and recidivism when

the sanctions for failing to meet difficult goals increase

progressively in magnitude over successive infractions. This gives

treatment a chance to take effect, and prepares participants to meet

steadily increasing responsibilities in the program. (National

Association of Drug Court Professionals, 2018)

Sanctions that are weak in magnitude can cause habituation in

which the individual becomes accustomed, and thus less

responsive, to punishment. Imposing high-magnitude sanctions

when a participant fails to meet an easy goal helps to avoid

habituation. (National Association of Drug Court Professionals,

2018)

3. Sanctions are imposed as quickly as possible after noncompliant

behavior. Drug courts do not wait for the next review hearing to impose

a sanction if the behavior can be addressed more immediately.

The value of having sanctions imposed immediately after

noncompliant behavior is a central tenet of behavior modification.

Study results show that recidivism and cost savings do not improve

when drug courts wait until the next scheduled court appearance

for noncompliant participants instead of bringing them in earlier.

(Carey, Mackin, & Finnegan, 2012)

If teams wait too long (two weeks or more) before applying a

sanction, the participants may have other issues that are more

relevant by then, or they may even have worked to improve their

behavior by then, in which case they are receiving a sanction at the

same time as they are doing well, providing them with a message

that is unclear and may even be defeating. (Carey, Mackin, &

Finnegan, 2012)

4. Jail sanctions are definite in duration and typically last no longer than five

days. Participants are given access to counsel and a fair hearing if a jail

sanction might be imposed as a liberty interest is at stake.

Drug courts significantly lower recidivism and improve cost

savings when they use jail sanctions sparingly. (Carey, Pukstas,

Waller, Mackin, & Finigan, 2008)

Research indicates that jail sanctions produce diminishing returns

after approximately three to five days. (Carey, Mackin, &

Finnegan, 2012)

5. Participants do not receive punitive sanctions if they are otherwise compliant

with their treatment and supervision requirements but are not responding to

the treatment interventions. The appropriate course of action may be to

reassess the individual and adjust the treatment plan accordingly.

If a drug court imposes substantial sanctions for substance use

early in treatment, the team is likely to run out of sanctions and

reach a ceiling effect before treatment has taken effect. Therefore,

drug courts should ordinarily adjust participants’ treatment

requirements in response to positive drug tests early in the

program. (Chandler, Fletcher, & Volkow, 2009)

6. Participants are not incarcerated to achieve clinical or social service objectives

such as obtaining access to detoxification services or sober living quarters.

Relying on in-custody substance use disorder treatment can reduce

the cost-effectiveness of a drug court by as much as 45 percent.

(Carey, Mackin, & Finnegan, 2012)

7. Team members have a written schedule of sanctions for infractions.

Drug courts where team members are given a copy of the

guidelines for sanctions had 72% greater cost savings. (Carey,

Mackin, & Finnegan, 2012)

Multistate research showed the most effective programs with

regard to recidivism included greater predictability of sanctions.

(Rossman & Zwieg, 2012)

C. Promising Practices

1. Immediate and tangible rewards help a drug court demonstrate the benefits of

abstinence. Courts should seek to include tangible or token rewards, such as

coins, gifts, certificates, or entry into a drawing in an incentives program.

Frequently, the benefits of abstinence, such as better health and

lifestyle, are abstract and distant to the abuser. The point of

motivational incentives is to bring the benefits of abstinence

forward in less time. Both voucher- and prize-based reinforcement

systems have been repeatedly shown to be effective interventions

among substance users. (Stitzer, 2008) These tangible rewards

can be used in drug court to more quickly improve behaviors.

VI. Payments

A. Standards

1. The drug treatment court may require an individual admitted into the

court to pay a reasonable drug court fee that is reasonably related to the

cost to the court for administering the drug treatment court program as

provided in the memorandum of understanding.

(MCL 600.1070(4))

See Appendix I. This model document is also available at http://courts.mi.gov/Administration/admin/op/problem-

solving-courts/Documents/DTC_ProgramMOU.pdf.

Courts can use the State Court Administrative (SCAO) Drug Court

Fee Calculator to help determine what a reasonable fee would be.

This calculator should be used only as a guide to help determine a

program fee; it is not intended to determine an exact or required

amount. Courts can determine the amount of the fee as it is

reasonably related to the cost for administering the drug treatment

court program.

2. In order to continue to participate in and successfully complete a drug

treatment court program, an individual shall comply with all of the

following:

Pay all court-ordered fines and costs, including minimum state

costs. (MCL 600.1074(1)(a))

Pay the drug treatment court fee allowed under section

1070(4). (MCL 600.1074(1)(b))

Pay all court-ordered restitution. (MCL 600.1074(1)(c))

Pay all crime victims rights assessments under section 5 of

1989 PA 196, MCL 780.905. (MCL 600.1074(1)(d))

3. The court shall not sentence a defendant to a term of incarceration, nor

revoke probation, for failure to comply with an order to pay money

unless the court finds, on the record, that the defendant is able to comply

with the order without manifest hardship and that the defendant has not

made a good-faith effort to comply with the order. (MCR 6.425(3)(a))

4. If the court finds that the defendant is unable to comply with an order to

pay money without manifest hardship, the court may impose a payment

alternative, such as a payment plan, modification of any existing payment

plan, or waiver of part or all of the amount of money owed to the extent

permitted by law. (MCR 6.425(E)(3)(b))

VII. Phase Promotion and Graduation

A. Best Practices

1. Phase promotion is predicated on the achievement of realistic and defined

behavioral objectives, such as completing a treatment regimen or

remaining drug-abstinent for a specific period of time.

Drug courts have significantly better outcomes when they have a

clearly defined phase structure and concrete behavioral

requirements for advancement through the phases. (Carey,

Mackin, & Finnegan, 2012)

Phase advancement should not be based simply on the amount of

time that participants have been enrolled in the program. (National

Association of Drug Court Professionals, 2018)

2. In order to graduate, participants who are able to join the labor force must

have a job or be in school, in instances where health insurance and other

social benefits are not at risk.

Both having a job and being in school are connected to cost

savings and reduced recidivism after the participant leaves the

program. If the participant is engaged in positive activities that

lead to higher and legal income, they are less likely to engage in

drug use and other criminal activities. (Carey, Mackin, &

Finnegan, 2012)

3. A period of greater than 90 continuous days of negative drug test results is

required before a participant is eligible to graduate.

Drug courts where participants were expected to have greater than

90 days clean (demonstrated by negative drug tests) before

graduation had 164 percent greater reductions in recidivism

compared with programs that expected less clean time. (Carey,

Mackin, & Finnegan, 2012)

VIII. Program Discharge

A. Standards

1. The drug treatment court must be notified if the participant is accused of

a new crime, and the judge shall consider whether to terminate the

participant's participation in the drug treatment program in conformity

with the memorandum of understanding under section 1062. If the

participant is convicted of a felony for an offense that occurred after the

defendant is admitted to drug treatment court, the judge shall terminate

the participant's participation in the program. (MCL 600.1074)

2. Upon completion or termination of the drug treatment court program,

the court shall find on the record or place a written statement in the court

file as to whether the participant completed the program successfully or

whether the individual's participation in the program was terminated

and, if it was terminated, the reason for the termination.

(MCL

600.1076(1))

3. The court shall send a record of the discharge and dismissal [under MCL

600.1070, and as outlined in MCL 600.1076(4)] to the criminal justice

information center of the department of state police, and the department

of state police shall enter that information into the law enforcement

information network with an indication of participation by the individual

in a drug treatment court. (MCL 600.1076(6))

B. Best Practices

1. Unless termination is required under MCL 600.1074 or the participant

can no longer be managed safely in the community, drug courts do not

terminate participants based only on drug or alcohol use or possession.

See Appendix B. This model document is also available at http://courts.mi.gov/Administration/admin/op/problem-

solving-courts/Documents/DTC-DischargeStatement.pdf.

Drug courts have significantly poorer outcomes and are

considerably less cost-effective when they terminate participants

based only on drug or alcohol use. Drug courts that had a policy of

terminating participants for positive drug tests or new arrests for

drug possession offenses had 50 percent higher criminal recidivism

and 48 percent lower cost savings than drug courts that responded

to new use by increasing treatment or applying sanctions of lower

severity. (Carey, Mackin, & Finnegan, 2012)

Drug courts that terminate participants merely for drug or alcohol

use have significantly poorer recidivism rates and are less cost-

effective. (Carey, Mackin, & Finnegan, 2012)

IX. Works Cited

Carey, S., Mackin, J., & Finnegan, M. (2012). What works? The Ten Key Components of Drug Court:

Research-Based Best Practices. Drug Court Review, 8(1), pp. 6-42. Retrieved from

https://www.ndci.org/wp-content/uploads/DCR_best-practices-in-drug-courts.pdf

Carey, S., Pukstas, K., Waller, M., Mackin, R., & Finigan, M. (2008). Drug Courts and State Mandated

Drug Teatment Programs: Outcomes, Costs, and Consequences. NPC Research, Portland, OR.

Retrieved from https://npcresearch.com/publication/drug-courts-and-state-mandated-drug-

treatment-programs-outcomes-costs-and-consequences-drug-court-and-proposition-36-in-

california/

Case Management Society of America & National Association of Social Workers. (2008). Case

management caseload concept paper: Proceedings of the Caseload Work Group. Retrieved from

cmsa.org: http://www.cmsa.org/portals/0/pdf/CaseloadCalc.pdf

Chandler, R., Fletcher, B., & Volkow, N. (2009). Treating drug abuse and addiction in the criminal justice

system: Improving public health and safety. Journal of the American Medical Association, 183-

190.

Cissner, A., Rempel, M., Franklin, A., Roman, J., Bieler, S., & Cohen, R. (2013). A Statewide Evaluation of

New York's Adult Drug Courts: Identifying Which Policies Work Best. New York: Center for Court

Innovation.

Deschenes, E., Ireland, C., & Kleinpeter, C. (2009). Enhancing Drug Court Success. Journal of Offender

Rehabilitation, 19-36.

Festinger, D., Marlowe, D., Lee, P., Kirby, K., Bovasso, J., & McLellan, A. (2002). Status Hearings in Drug

Court: When More is Less and Less is More. Drug & Alcohol Dependence, 151-157.

Jalbert, S., & Rhodes, W. (2012). Reduced Caseloads Improve Probation Outcomes. Journal of Crime and

Justice, 221-238.

Kelly, J., Stout, R., Zywiak, W., & Schneider, R. (2006). A Three-Year Study of Addiction Mutual-Help

Group Participation Following Intensive Outpatient Treatment. Alcoholism: Clinical and

Experimental Research, 1381-1392.

Kierkus, C., & Johnson, B. (2016). Michigan DWI/Sobriety Court Ignition Interlock Evaluation. Lansing,

Michigan: Michigan Association of Treatment Court Professionals. Retrieved from

https://courts.michigan.gov/Administration/admin/op/problem-solving-

courts/Drug/Documents/2016%20Ignition%20Interlock%20Final%20Report%20(2).pdf

Leukefeld, C., Webster, J., Stanton-Tindall, M., & Duvall, J. (2007). Employment and Work Among Drug

Court Clients: 12-Month Outcomes. Substance Use & Misuse, 1109-1126.

Moos, R., & Timko, C. (2008). Outcome Research on 12-step and Other Self-Help Programs. In M. Kleber,

Textbook of Substance Abuse Treatment (pp. 511-521). Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric

Publishing.

National Association of Drug Court Professionals. (2018). Adult Drug Court Best Practice Standards.

Volume 1. Retrieved from https://www.nadcp.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Adult-Drug-

Court-Best-Practice-Standards-Volume-I-Text-Revision-December-2018-1.pdf.

National Association of Drug Court Professionals. (2018). Adult Drug Court Best Practices Standards

Volume II. Retrieved from https://www.nadcp.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Adult-Drug-

Court-Best-Practice-Standards-Volume-2-Text-Revision-December-2018-1.pdf.

Quirouette, M., Hannah-Moffat, K., & Maurutto, P. (2015). 'A Precarious Place': Housing and Clients of

Specialized Courts. British Journal of Criminology.

Rodriguez, P. (2011). Case Managment for Substance Abusing Offenders. Handbook of Evidence Based

Substance Abuse Treatment in Criminal Justice Settings, 173-181.

Rossman, S., & Zwieg, J. (2012, May). The Multistate Adult Drug Court Evaluation. Need to Know, 3.

Shaffer, D. (2010). Looking Inside the Black Box of Drug Courts: A Meta-Analytic Review. Justice

Quarterly, 28(3), 493-531.

Stitzer, M. (2008). Motivational Incentives in Drug Courts. Quality Improvement for Drug Court Evidence-

Based Practices, 99.

Zweig, J., Lindquist, C., Downey, P., Roman, J., & Rossman, S. (2012). Drug court policies and practices:

How program implementation affects offender substance use and criminal behavior outcomes.

Drug Court Review, 43-79. Retrieved from

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/52d5cb6fe4b030d390971273/t/52ea89d0e4b0d62f9ff55

8fd/1391102416292/Best_practices_in_drug_courts_2012.pdf

Chapter 3: Confidentiality

This chapter addresses confidentiality issues in drug court and shares some information with

Chapter 4 (Due Process), so readers should review chapters 3 and 4 together. Specific

information in this chapter includes the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act

(HIPAA), 42 CFR Part 2, redisclosure, records management, and staff training.

I. Confidentiality

A. Standards

1. Drug courts are required to comply with Title 42 of the United States

Code, Section 290dd-2, which is the federal law that protects the

confidentiality of the identity, diagnosis, prognosis, or treatment of any

patient records that are maintained in connection with the performance

of any federally assisted program or activity relating to substance abuse

education, prevention, training, treatment, rehabilitation, or research. 42

CFR, Part 2, contains the regulations implementing the alcohol and

substance abuse confidentiality law. Full text of the law is available here.

2. Drug courts are required to comply with the Health Insurance Portability

and Accountability Act (HIPAA). HIPAA is a federal law that protects

confidentiality and the security of protected health information. While it

does not directly apply to drug treatment courts, HIPAA does apply to

the treatment agencies partnering with drug treatment courts, so drug

courts must also comply with HIPAA. Full text of the HIPAA privacy

law is available here.

3. Except as otherwise permitted in the Michigan drug court statute, any

statement or other information obtained as a result of participating in a

preadmission screening and evaluation assessment is confidential and is

exempt from disclosure under the freedom of information act, 1976 PA

442, MCL 15.231 to 15.246, and shall not be used in a criminal

prosecution, unless it reveals criminal acts other than, or inconsistent

with, personal drug use. (MCL 600.1064(4) and MCL 600.1072(2))

4. Information in the record of a recipient, and other information acquired

in the course of providing mental health services to a recipient, shall be

kept confidential and shall not be open to public inspection. The

information may be disclosed outside the department, community mental

health services program, licensed facility, or contract provider, whichever

is the holder of the record, only in the circumstances and under the

conditions set forth in MCL 330.1748 section 748 or section 748a. MCL

330.1748(1). Full text is available here.

5. Confidential treatment court information and records may not be used to

initiate or to substantiate any criminal charges against a participant or to

conduct any investigation of a participant. (42 CFR, Section 2.35(d),

MCL 600.1064(4), and MCL 600.1072(2))

6. State law may neither authorize nor compel any disclosure prohibited by

the federal regulations, but where state law prohibits disclosure that

would be permissible under the federal regulations, the stricter standard

applies. (42 CFR, Section 2.20)

7. Treatment courts may receive or release information or records of

participants only with the specific knowing, voluntary, and written

consent of the participant, or under certain very limited exceptions. (42

CFR, Sections 2.22 and 2.31(a))

Consent may be paper or electronic, and must include the

following under 42 CFR, Sections 2.14-2.35:5

i. The name of the participant permitting disclosure.

ii. The specific name of the program(s) or person(s)

permitted to make the disclosure.

iii. The name of the program(s) or person(s) to which

disclosure is to be made.

iv. How much and what kind of information is to be

disclosed.

v. The purpose of the disclosure. In accordance with

§2.13(a), the disclosure must be limited to that

information which is necessary to carry out the stated

purpose.

vi. A statement that the consent is subject to revocation at

any time except to the extent that the program or

person which is to make the disclosure has already

acted in reliance on it. Acting in reliance includes the

provision of treatment services in reliance on a valid

consent to disclose information to a third-party payer.

vii. Date, event, or condition upon which the consent will

expire. The date, event, or condition must ensure that

the consent will last no longer than reasonably

necessary to serve the purpose for which it is given.

viii. The participant’s signature and, if applicable, the

signature of a person authorized to give consent for a

minor.

ix. The date on which consent is signed.

8. The participant must be advised, orally and in writing, of their rights

regarding confidential information about their substance use disorder.

The notice must cite Section 290dd-2 and the implementing regulations

(Sections 2.1 through 2.67 of Title 42 of the code of Federal Regulations),

and must state the following:

Federal law and regulations protect the confidentiality of

substance use disorder treatment records;

It is a crime to violate this confidentiality requirement, which

the participant may report to appropriate authorities, with the

authority’s name and contact information provided;

Notwithstanding this confidentiality requirement, covered

information may be released under specified circumstances

(which should be listed for the participant); and

The restrictions on disclosure and use in the regulations in 42

CFR part 2 do not apply to communication with law

enforcement agencies or officials regarding crimes committed

on the premises of the program, and/or crimes against

program personnel, or to reporting of incidents of suspected

child abuse and neglect to the appropriate state or local

authorities, under state law. However, the restrictions

continue to apply to the original substance use disorder patient

records maintained by the part 2 program including their

disclosure and use for civil or criminal proceedings which may

arise out of the report of suspected child abuse and neglect.

9. Treatment courts may not disclose protected health information in

response to a subpoena or a search warrant or any other form of request,

even if signed by a judge, unless that client signs a consent form

authorizing such disclosure, or a court of competent jurisdiction enters

an authorizing order under the standards set forth in the Federal

regulations. (42 CFR, Section 2.61)

10. Any documented treatment information distributed on the basis of the

treatment participant’s consent should be accompanied by a Notice of

Prohibition against Redisclosure. (42 CFR, Section 2.32)

11. Drug courts must have in place formal policies and procedures to protect

against unauthorized uses and disclosures of confidential information (42

CFR, Section 2.16). The policies and procedures must address the

following:

Paper records, including:

i. Transferring and removing such records;

ii. Destroying such records, including sanitizing the hard

copy media associated with the paper printouts, to

render the patient identifying information non-

retrievable;

See Appendix C. This model document is also available at http://courts.mi.gov/Administration/admin/op/problem-

solving-courts/Documents/ReleaseInfoMultiParty.pdf.

See Appendix C. This model document is also available at http://courts.mi.gov/Administration/admin/op/problem-

solving-courts/Documents/ReleaseInfoMultiParty.pdf.

See appendices E and F.

iii. Maintaining such records in a secure room, locked file

cabinet, safe, or other similar container, or storage

facility when not in use;

iv. Using and accessing workstations, secure rooms, locked

file cabinets, safes, or other similar containers, and

storage facilities that use or store such information; and

v. Rendering patient identifying information non-

identifiable in a manner that creates a very low risk of

re-identification (e.g., removing direct identifiers).

Electronic records, including:

i. Creating, receiving, maintaining, and transmitting such

records;

ii. Destroying such records, including sanitizing the

electronic media on which such records are stored, to

render the patient identifying information non-

retrievable;

iii. Using and accessing electronic records or other

electronic media containing patient identifying

information; and

iv. Rendering the patient identifying information non-

identifiable in a manner that creates a very low risk of

re-identification (e.g., removing direct identifiers).

B. Best Practices

1. Drug court teams are familiar with relevant federal and state laws and

regulations in order to develop appropriate policies and procedures.

Because drug court programs are integrally involved with

supervising the participation of drug offenders in substance use

disorder treatment, the programs must take into account federal

requirements as well as applicable state laws. (Holland, 1999)

2. Program personnel’s access to confidential records is restricted after

consent expires or is revoked.

All file storage systems include procedures for limiting access to

records after the participant’s consent expires or is revoked. Thus,

paper records that can be accessed by all drug court personnel

during the duration of the participant’s consent are transferred to a

more restricted storage facility as soon as the consent is

terminated. Records on computers are sealed by changing the

password or other access. (Tauber, Weinstein, & Taube, 1999)

3. Treatment courts establish a memorandum of understanding (MOU) on

confidentiality and have all team members and replacement team

members sign and agree to follow confidentiality procedures.

(Tauber,

Weinstein, & Taube, 1999)

4. Pre-court staffing meetings may be closed to participants and the public.

(State v. Sykes, 2014) If open, compliance with consent requirements must

be obtained.

5. Treatment courts receive training on federal confidentiality requirements and

how they affect treatment court practitioners and contractors. (Myer, 2011)

6. Treatment courts designate a team member as their confidentiality compliance

officer. The confidentiality compliance officer should be aware of, and

consulted about, all third-party inquiries pertaining to mandated disclosures

and permitted disclosures under the federal regulations. (Myer, 2011)

See Appendix G. This model document is also available at http://courts.mi.gov/Administration/admin/op/problem-

solving-courts/Documents/ConfidentialityMOU.pdf.

See Appendix H. This model document is also available at http://courts.mi.gov/Administration/admin/op/problem-

solving-courts/Documents/VisitorConfidentialityForm.pdf.

II. Works Cited

Holland, S. (1999). Practical guide for applying federal confidentiality laws to drug court

operations. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs.

Kelly v Allegan Circuit Judge, 382 Mich 425 (Michigan Supreme Court 1969).

Meyer, W. G. (2011). Confidentiality. In N. D. Institute, The Drug Court Judicial Benchbook

(pp. 181- 194). Alexandria: National Drug Court Institute.

State of Washington v. Sykes, 339 P. 3d 972 (Washington Supreme Court December 18, 2014).

Tauber, J., Weinstein, S., & Taube, D. (1999). Federal confidentiality laws and how they affect

drug court practitioners. Alexandria: National Drug Court Institute

Chapter 4: Due Process

This chapter addresses procedural due process in drug court. Specific information in this chapter

includes the participant waiver of rights, the 1st Amendment, 4th Amendment, and 14th

Amendment, as well as sanctions and termination. Please also see the Michigan Court Rules and

Code of Judicial Conduct.

I. Waiver of Rights

A. Standards

1. Before an individual is admitted into a drug treatment court, the court

shall find on the record or place a statement in the court file pertaining

to . . . the individual understands the consequences of entering the drug

treatment court and agrees to comply with all court orders and

requirements of the court’s program. (MCL 600.1066(b))

2. If the individual being considered for admission to a drug treatment

court is charged in a criminal case . . . his or her admission is subject to

all of the following conditions:

The individual must waive, in writing, the right to a speedy

trial, the right to representation at drug court treatment

review hearings by an attorney, and, with the agreement of the

prosecutor, the right to a preliminary examination. (MCL

600.1068(1)(c))

The individual must sign a written agreement to participate in

the drug treatment court. (MCL 600.1068(1)(d))

3. The surrendering of any rights by the participant must be done

knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently. (Kelly v. Allegan Circuit Judge,

1969)

II. 1st Amendment

A. Standards

1. The mandating of an individual to attend Alcoholics Anonymous/

Narcotics Anonymous (AA/NA) is a violation of the 1st Amendment

Establishment Clause prohibitions. The 1st Amendment applies to the

states via the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. (Hanas v. Inner

City Christian Outreach, Inc., 2008)

See Appendix J. This model document is also available at http://courts.mi.gov/Administration/admin/op/problem-

solving-courts/Documents/DTC-AgreementParticipate.pdf.

2. All court proceedings under the Michigan drug court statute shall be

open to the public. (MCL 600.1076(9))

Although the 6th Amendment right “is the right of the

accused,” a member of the public can invoke the right to a

public trial under the 1st Amendment. (United States

Constitution, 1st Amendment and 6th Amendment)

The sittings of every court within this state shall be public

except that a court may, for good cause shown, exclude from

the courtroom other witnesses in the case when they are not

testifying and may, in actions involving scandal or immorality,

exclude all minors from the courtroom unless the minor is a

party or witness. This section shall not apply to cases involving

national security. (MCL 600.1420)

The party seeking to close the hearing must advance an

overriding interest that is likely to be prejudiced, the closure

must be no broader than necessary to protect that interest, the

trial court must consider reasonable alternatives to closing the

proceeding, and it must make findings adequate to support the

closure. (People v Vaughn, 2012)

3. Drug court conditions of participation, such as area and association

restrictions, must be reasonable and must be narrowly drawn.

Analogizing to probation conditions in MCL 771.3(3)), “…a

sentencing court must be guided by factors that are lawfully

and logically related to the defendant’s rehabilitation.” (People

v Johnson, 1995)

B. Best Practices

1. If it is appropriate and beneficial to order 12-step self-help programs,

offenders who object to the deity-based 12-step programs cannot be

ordered to attend them. In those instances, secular alternatives must be

made available. (Meyer, 2011)

III. 4th Amendment

A. Best Practices

1. The drug court conducts home visits on participants, without reasonable

suspicion, as part of a standard monitoring program.

Home visits are a critical function of community supervision.

(Harberts, 2011)

Home visits as a condition of probation in the absence of

reasonable suspicion are justified. (United States vs Reyes,, 2002)

“[A] home visit is not a search, even though a visit may result in

seizure of contraband in plain view.” (United States v Newton,

2002)

2. A waiver against unreasonable searches and seizures may be made as a

condition of probation.

Analogizing to probation law, “a waiver of one’s constitutional

protections against unreasonable searches and seizures may

properly be made a condition of a probation order where the

waiver is reasonably tailored to a defendant’s rehabilitation.”

(People v. Hellenthal, 1990) (MCL 791.236(19))

A warrantless search of a probationer’s home by a probation

officer who had reasonable suspicion was upheld based on a

‘special needs’ balancing test. (Griffin v. Wisconsin, 1987)

IV. 14th Amendment

A. Standards

1. There are objective standards that require recusal when “the probability

of actual bias on the part of the judge or decision maker is too high to be

constitutionally tolerable.” (Withrow v Larkin, 1975)

2. Disqualification of a judge is warranted for reasons that include, but are

not limited to, the following:

The judge is biased or prejudiced for or against a party or

attorney. (MCR 2.003(C)(1)(a))

The judge, based on objective and reasonable perceptions, has

either (i) a serious risk of actual bias impacting the due process

rights of a party as enunciated in Caperton v Massey, [556 US

868]; 129 S Ct 2252; 173 L Ed 2d 1208 (2009), or (ii) has failed

to adhere to the appearance of impropriety standard set forth

in Canon 2 of the Michigan Code of Judicial Conduct. (MCR

2.003(C)(1)(b))

The judge has personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary

facts concerning the proceeding. (MCR 2.003(C)(1)(c))

V. Sanctions and Termination

A. Best Practices

See also United States v Tessier, U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit (02/18/16), citing with favor Reyes, supra;

United States v LeBlanc, 490 F3d 361, 370 (5th Cir. 2007) cases upholding less invasive “home visits” where there

was no reasonable suspicion.

1. Drug court termination hearings, and sanction hearings involving a

liberty interest where the participant is contesting the facts of the

violation, require procedural protections under due process and under

MCR 6.445, including, but not limited to, the following:

The court must hold a hearing similar to an arraignment

hearing,

The court must ensure that the participant receives written

notice of the alleged violation,

The court must advise the participant that the participant has

a right to contest the charge at a hearing, and

The court must advise the participant that the participant is

entitled to a lawyer’s assistance at the hearing and at all

subsequent court proceedings, and that the court will appoint a

lawyer at public expense if the participant wants one and is

financially unable to retain one.

i. This best practice is based on analogy to due process

requirements in termination from probation; supported by

several state supreme courts that have ruled on drug court

terminations; and it complies with the probation violation

rulings in Gagnon v Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778, 92 S.Ct. 1756,

36 L.Ed.2d 656 (1973), and People v Belanger, 227 Mich

App 637 (1998). See MCR 6.445 for additional information

regarding procedural protections under the court rule.

See Appendix K. This model document is also available at

http://courts.mi.gov/Administration/admin/op/problem-solving-courts/Documents/ModelProgVioAdviceRights.pdf

VI. Works Cited

Griffin v. Wisconsin, 483 U.S. 868 (U.S. Supreme Court June 26, 1987). Retrieved from

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/483/868/

Hanas v. Inner City Christian Outreach, Inc., 542 F. Supp. 2d 683 (E.D. Mich Feb 29, 2008). Retrieved

from https://casetext.com/case/hanas-v-inner-city-christian-outreach

Harberts, H. (2011). Chapter 5: Community Supervision. In D. B. Marlowe, & W. G. Meyer, The Drug

Court Judicial Benchbook (pp. 97-112). Alexandria, VA: National Drug Court Institute. Retrieved

from https://www.ndci.org/sites/default/files/nadcp/14146_NDCI_Benchbook_v6.pdf

Kelly v. Allegan Circuit Judge, 382 Mich. 425 (1969) (Supreme Court of Michigan September 3, 1969).

Retrieved September 1, 2020, from https://law.justia.com/cases/michigan/supreme-

court/1969/382-mich-425-2.html

Meyer, W. G. (2011). Chapter 8: Constitutional and Legal Issues in Drug Court. In D. B. WMarlowe, & W.

G. Meyer, The Drug Court Judicial Benchbook (pp. 159-180). Alexandria, VA: National Drug Court

Institute. Retrieved from

https://www.ndci.org/sites/default/files/nadcp/14146_NDCI_Benchbook_v6.pdf

People v Johnson, 210 Mich App 630, 634 (Michigan Court of Appeals May 19, 1995). Retrieved from

https://casetext.com/case/people-v-johnson-4185

People v Vaughn, 491 Mich 642 (Michigan Supreme Court July 9, 2012). Retrieved from

https://cite.case.law/mich/491/642/

People v Hellenthal, 186 Mich. App. 484 (Michigan Court of Appeals August 16, 1990). Retrieved from

https://www.leagle.com/decision/1990670186michapp4841615#

United States v Newton, 181 F.Supp.2d 157, 161 (United States District Court, Eastern District of New

York Jan 3, 2002). Retrieved from https://casetext.com/case/us-v-newton-12

United States vs Reyes, 283 F.3d 446, 462 (2nd Circuit Court of Appeals March 7, 2002). Retrieved from

https://www.leagle.com/decision/2002729283f3d4461689

Withrow v Larkin, 421 U.S. 35, 47, 95 S.Ct. 1456, 43 L. Ed. 2d 712 (United States Supreme Court April 16,

1975). Retrieved from https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/casebrief/p/casebrief-withrow-

v-larkin

Chapter 5: The Drug Court Team

This chapter discusses the various members on a drug court team and the importance of

collaboration among those members. Specific topics include team composition, roles of team

members, participation in staffing meetings and review hearings, and communication and

decision-making. The role of the judge is discussed in additional detail in Chapter 1 of this

manual. Confidentiality is mentioned briefly here but discussed in detail in Chapter 3. Various

members of the team work to ensure participants’ due process rights are protected; best practices

regarding due process are discussed in Chapter 4. Teams should also engage in training as a

team; training and education are discussed in Chapter 9.

I. Team Composition

A. Standards

1. A drug treatment court shall comply with the 10 key components

promulgated by the national association of drug court professionals,

which include all of the following essential characteristics:

Use of a nonadversarial approach by prosecution and defense

that promotes public safety while protecting participant’s due

process rights. (MCL 600.1060(c)(i))

The forging of partnerships among other drug courts, public

agencies, and community-based organizations to generate local

support. (MCL 600.1060(c)(x))

2. The drug treatment court shall cooperate with, and act in a collaborative

manner with, the prosecutor, defense counsel, treatment providers, the

local substance abuse coordinating agency for that circuit or district,

probation departments, and, to the extent possible, local law enforcement,

the department of corrections, and community corrections agencies.

(MCL 600.1070(3))

B. Best Practices

1. A dedicated multidisciplinary team of professionals manages the day-to-

day operations of the drug court, including reviewing participant

progress during pre-court staff meetings and status hearings,

contributing observations and recommendations within the team

members’ respective areas of expertise, and delivering or overseeing the

delivery of legal, treatment, and supervision services. (National

Association of Drug Court Professionals, 2018)

2. The drug court team comprises representatives from all partner agencies

involved in creating the program, including but not limited to a judge or

judicial officer, program coordinator, prosecutor, defense counsel

representative, treatment representative, community supervision officer, and

law enforcement officer.

Drug courts enjoy significantly greater reductions in recidivism

and significantly higher cost savings when all of the above-

mentioned team members regularly participate in staffing meetings

and review hearings. (Carey, Mackin, & Finnegan, 2012)

(Cissner, et al., 2013)

When law enforcement is a member of the drug court team, drug

courts can reduce recidivism by 87 percent and increase cost

savings by 44 percent. (Carey, Mackin, & Finnegan, 2012)

3. Successful courts had significantly more departmental representation at

staffing and court than in less successful courts. Often, the overabundance of

one department, i.e. treatment or legal, appeared clustered and proved to be

unproductive to the collective goals for the court docket.

When too many treatment providers wanted their own view

expressed, the team made no conclusions on how to treat the

participant most effectively. When too many legal representatives

attempted to protect their own clients’ rights at a crowded staffing,

the judge appeared bogged down by details and the staffing slowed

considerably. (Bullard, 2014)

C. Promising Practices

1. An independent evaluator serves as a member of the drug court team.

The evaluator is responsible for developing reliable and valid

methodologies to study the effectiveness of the drug court. It is

necessary for all drug courts to regularly evaluate program

effectiveness. This is primarily done through three evaluations:

process, outcome, and cost-benefit. While an evaluator is an

essential team member of any drug court, it is not necessarily a

position for a full-time employee in every program. Instead, the

role can be filled at the regional or local level. The evaluator,

while generally considered a part of the drug court team, does not

participate in drug court team reviews as it compromises the

objectivity of the evaluator and the integrity of the evaluation

process. (Minnesota Supreme Court, 2006)

Courts should consider partnering with local colleges or

universities to find a qualified evaluator.

2. The drug court communicates with a medical doctor, particularly one with a

specialty in addictionology and especially for those drug courts using

medication-assisted treatment.

II. Staffing Meetings and Review Hearings

A. Best Practices

1. Team members consistently attend pre-court staff meetings to review

participant progress, determine appropriate actions to improve

outcomes, and prepare for status hearings in court.

When all team members consistently attend staffing meetings, drug

courts can lower recidivism by 50 percent, and are nearly twice as

cost-effective as those programs where not all team members

attend. (Carey, Mackin, & Finnegan, 2012)

When a representative from treatment attended staffing meetings,

recidivism was reduced by 105 percent. (Carey, Mackin, &

Finnegan, 2012)

2. Team members attend status review hearings on a consistent basis.

During the status review hearings, team members contribute relevant

information or recommendations when requested by the judge or as

necessary to improve outcomes or protect participants’ legal rights.

Drug courts were able to significantly reduce recidivism and

improve cost savings when the judge, attorneys, treatment,

probation, and coordinator all attended status review hearings.

(Carey, Mackin, & Finnegan, 2012)

When a representative from treatment attended status review

hearings, recidivism was reduced 100 percent over drug courts that

did not have a treatment representative attend. (Carey, Mackin, &

Finnegan, 2012)

When a law enforcement officer attended status review hearings,

recidivism was reduced 83 percent over drug courts that did not

have a law enforcement officer attend. (Carey, Mackin, &

Finnegan, 2012)

III. Communication and Decision Making

A. Best Practices

1. Team members share information as necessary to assess participants’

progress in treatment and compliance with the conditions of drug

treatment court. Defense attorneys make it clear to participants and

other team members whether they will share communications from

participants with the team.

Several studies have indicated that participants and staff alike rate

communication among team members as one of the most important

factors for success in drug court. (National Association of Drug

Court Professionals, 2018)

Please also see Chapter 3, Confidentiality, for information on

appropriate scope for information sharing.

2. Team members and the agency they represent execute memoranda of

understanding specifying what information will be shared among team

members.

Assuming a participant has executed a valid waiver of his or her

privacy and confidentiality rights, drug court team members are

permitted, and indeed may be required, to share covered

information in the course of performing their professional duties.

Confidentiality and privacy rights belong to the participant, not to

staff, and may be waived freely and voluntarily in exchange for

receiving anticipated benefits, such as gaining access to effective

treatment or avoiding a criminal record or jail sentence (Melton,

Petrila, Poythress, & Slobogin, 2007). Failing to abide by a valid

confidentiality waiver could, under some circumstances, be a

breach of a staff person’s professional responsibilities to the

participant. (National Association of Drug Court Professionals,

2018)

Staff persons also have ethical obligations to other Drug Court

team members. If a staff person knowingly withholds relevant

information about a participant from other team members, this

omission could inadvertently interfere with the participant’s

treatment goals, endanger public safety, or undermine the

functioning of the Drug Court team. All agencies involved in the

administration of a Drug Court should, therefore, execute MOUs

specifying what data elements will be shared among team

members (Hardin & Fox, 2011). The data elements listed above

might be included in such MOUs to clarify the obligations of each

professional on the team (National Association of Drug Court

Professionals, 2018).

3. Team members contribute relevant insights, observations, and

recommendations based on their professional knowledge, training, and

experience. The judge should consider all team members’ perspectives

before making decisions that affect participants’ welfare or liberty

interests, and should explain the rationale for such decisions to team

members and participants.

Studies in more than 10 drug courts found that implementing a

model designed to improve team communication skills increased

job satisfaction and improved program measures such as admission

rates, wait times for treatment, and no-show rates (National

Association of Drug Court Professionals, 2018).

See Appendix G. This model document is also available at

http://courts.mi.gov/Administration/admin/op/problem-solving-courts/Documents/ConfidentialityMOU.pdf

IV. Works Cited

Bullard, C. E. (2014). Evaluting mental health court by impact on jurisdictional crime rates. Criminal

Justice Policy Review, 27(3), 227-246.

Carey, S., Mackin, J., & Finnegan, M. (2012). What works? The Ten Key Components of Drug Court:

Research-Based Best Practices. Drug Court Review, 8(1), pp. 6-42. Retrieved from

https://www.ndci.org/wp-content/uploads/DCR_best-practices-in-drug-courts.pdf

Cissner, A., Rempel, M., Franklin, A., Roman, J., Bieler, S., & Cohen, R. (2013). A Statewide Evaluation of

New York's Adult Drug Courts: Identifying Which Policies Work Best. New York: Center for Court

Innovation.

Hardin, C., & Fox, C. (2011). Chapter 2: Getting Started. In N. D. Institute, The Drug Court Judicial

Benchbook (pp. 19-33). Alexandria, VA: National Drug Court Institute. Retrieved from

https://www.ndci.org/sites/default/files/nadcp/14146_NDCI_Benchbook_v6.pdf

Melton, G. B., Petrila, J., Poythress, N. G., & Slobogin, C. (2007). Psychological Evaluations for the Courts:

A handbook for Mental Health Professionals and Lawyers (3rd ed.). New York: The Guilford

Press.

Minnesota Supreme Court. (2006, May 16). Drug Court Roles and Responsibilities. Retrieved September

15, 2020, from mncourts.gov:

https://www.mncourts.gov/documents/0/Public/Problem_Solving_Courts/Drug_Court_Roles.p

National Association of Drug Court Professionals. (2018). Adult Drug Court Best Practices Standards

Volume II. Retrieved from https://www.nadcp.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Adult-Drug-

Court-Best-Practice-Standards-Volume-2-Text-Revision-December-2018-1.pdf

State v. Sykes, 87946-0, 87947-8 (Supreme Court of Washington December 18, 2014). Retrieved from

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/wa-supreme-court/1687397.html

Chapter 6: Drug Court Population and Admission

This chapter discusses screening and eligibility criteria for drug courts. It can be used to ensure

that programs are targeting the proper population among offenders. Specific topics include

screening, eligible offenses, assessments, and admission to the program and legal outcomes.

Drug courts can use this chapter to address their target population, screening and assessment

practices, program eligibility requirements, and admission practices.

I. Screening

A. Standards

1. To be admitted to a drug treatment court, an individual must cooperate

with and complete a preadmissions screening and evaluation assessment

and must agree to cooperate with any future evaluation assessment as

directed by the drug treatment court. A preadmission screening and

evaluation assessment shall include all of the following:

A complete review of the individual's criminal history, and a

review of whether or not the individual has been admitted to

and has participated in or is currently participating in a drug

treatment court . . . and the results of the individual's

participation. A review of the law enforcement information

network may be considered sufficient for purposes of this

subdivision unless a further review is warranted. The court

may accept other verifiable and reliable information from the

prosecution or defense to complete its review and may require

the individual to submit a statement as to whether or not he or

she has previously been admitted to a drug treatment court

and the results of his or her participation in the prior program

or programs. (MCL 600.1064(3)(a))

An assessment of the risk of danger or harm to the individual,

others, or the community. (MCL 600.1064(3)(b))

2. The court may request that the department of state police provide to the

court information contained in the law enforcement information network

pertaining to an individual applicant's criminal history for the purposes

of determining an individual's admission into the drug treatment court

and general criminal history review, including whether the individual has

previously been admitted to and participated in a drug treatment court

under this act, or under section 11 of chapter II of the code of criminal

procedure, 1927 PA 175, MCL 762.11, section 7411 of the public health

code, 1978 PA 368, MCL 333.7411, section 4a of chapter IX of the code of

criminal procedure, 1927 PA 175, MCL 769.4a, section 1 of chapter XI of

the code of criminal procedure, 1927 PA 175, MCL 771.1, section 350a of

the Michigan penal code, 1931 PA 328, MCL 750.350a, or section 430 of

the Michigan penal code, 1931 PA 328, MCL 750.430, and the results of

the individual's participation. The department of state police shall

provide the information requested by a drug treatment court under this

subsection. (MCL 600.1064(5))

B. Best Practices

1. Use clinical assessments instead of screening tools to determine diagnoses.

Substance use screening tools do not accurately identify diagnoses.

(Greenfield & Hennessy, 2008)

II. Eligible Offenses

A. Standards

1. “Violent offender” means an individual who is currently charged with or

has pled guilty to . . . an offense involving the death of or serious bodily

injury to any individual, whether or not any of the circumstances are an

element of the offense, or an offense that is criminal sexual conduct of any

degree. (MCL 600.1060(g))

2. Each drug treatment court shall determine whether an individual may be

admitted to the drug treatment court. No individual has a right to be

admitted into a drug treatment court. However, an individual is not

eligible for admission into a drug treatment court if he or she is a violent

offender. (MCL 600.1064(1))

3. In addition to admission to a drug treatment court under this act, an

individual who is eligible for admission pursuant to this act may also be

admitted to a drug treatment court under any of the following

circumstances:

The individual has been assigned the status of youthful trainee

under section 11 of chapter II of the code of criminal

procedure, 1927 PA 175, MCL 762.11. (MCL 600.1064(2)(a))

The individual has had criminal proceedings against him or

her deferred and has been placed on probation under any of

the following:

i. Section 7411 of the public health code, 1978 PA 368,

MCL 333.7411. (MCL 600.1064(2)(b)(i))

ii. Section 4a of chapter IX of the code of criminal

procedure, 1927 PA 175, MCL 769.4a. (MCL

600.1064(2)(b)(ii))

iii. Section 430 of the Michigan penal code, 1931 PA 328,

MCL 750.430. (MCL 600.1064(2)(b)(iii))

iv. Section 350a of the Michigan penal code, 1931 PA 328,

MCL 750.350a. (MCL 600.1064(2)(b)(iv))

4. In order to be considered for placement in the [DWI/sobriety court

interlock] program, an individual must have been convicted of either of

the following:

Two or more convictions for violating section 625(1) or (3) of

the Michigan vehicle code, 1949 PA 300, MCL 257.625, or a

local ordinance of this state substantially corresponding to

section 625(1) or (3) of the Michigan vehicle code, 1949 PA 300,

MCL 257.625. (MCL 600.1084(4)(a))

One conviction for violating section 625(1) or (3) of the

Michigan vehicle code, 1949 PA 300, MCL 257.625, or a local

ordinance of this state substantially corresponding to section

625(1) or (3) of the Michigan vehicle code, 1949 PA 300, MCL

257.625, preceded by 1 or more convictions for violating a local

ordinance or law of another state substantially corresponding

to section 625(1), (3), or (6) of the Michigan vehicle code, 1949

PA 300, MCL 257.625, or a law of the United States

substantially corresponding to section 625(1), (3), or (6) of the

Michigan vehicle code, 1949 PA 300, MCL 257.625. (MCL

600.1084(4)(b))

B. Best Practices

1. The drug court allows charges other than substance use or possession.

If drug courts do not serve individuals whose future crimes are

likely to involve high victimization or incarceration costs, the drug

court’s cost savings are minimal because the investment costs of

treatment are not outweighed by the reduction in recidivism

achieved through drug court. (Downey & Roman, 2010).

Drug court participants who self-report that they sold drugs

perform as well as other participants in drug court programs.

(Marlowe, Festinger, Dugosh, Arabia, & Kirby, 2008).

III. Clinical Substance Use and Mental Health Assessments

A. Standards

1. To be admitted to a drug treatment court, an individual must cooperate

with and complete a preadmissions screening and evaluation assessment

and must agree to cooperate with any future evaluation assessment as

directed by the drug treatment court. A preadmission screening and

evaluation assessment shall include all of the following:

As much as practicable, a complete review of the individual's

history regarding the use or abuse of any controlled substance

or alcohol and an assessment of whether the individual abuses

controlled substances or alcohol or is drug or alcohol

dependent. It is the intent of the legislature that this

assessment should be a clinical assessment as much as

practicable. (MCL 600.1064(3)(c))

A review of any special needs or circumstances of the

individual that may potentially affect the individual's ability to

receive substance use disorder treatment and follow the court's

orders. (MCL 600.1064(3)(c))

2. A drug treatment court may hire or contract with licensed or accredited

treatment providers, in consultation and cooperation with the local

substance abuse coordinating agency, and other such appropriate persons

to assist the drug treatment court in fulfilling its requirements under this

chapter, such as the investigation of an individual's background or

circumstances, or the clinical evaluation of an individual, for his or her

admission into or participation in a drug treatment court. (MCL

600.1063)

B. Best Practices

1. Clinical assessments use validated tools.

The predictive criterion validity of actuarial assessments of major

risk and/or need factors greatly exceeds the validity of unstructured

clinical judgment. (Andrews, Bonta, & Wormith, 2006).

Drug courts that use better assessment practices have better

outcomes (Shaffer, 2010).

2. Drug courts do not exclude participants with serious mental health issues.

Drug courts that excluded offenders with serious mental health

issues were significantly less cost-effective and had no better

impact on recidivism than drug courts that did not exclude such

individuals. (Carey, Mackin, & Finnegan, 2012).

IV. Risk and Need Assessment

A. Best Practices

1. The drug court program accepts participants who are both high risk and

high need.

Drug courts that focus on high-risk and high-need participants

reduce crime nearly twice as much as those focusing on less

serious participants (Lowenkamp, Holsinger, & Latessa, 2005),

and approximately 50 percent greater cost savings to their

communities (Bhati et al., 2008; Carey et al., 2008, 2012; Downey

& Roman, 2010).

If a program has low-risk participants, the program should keep the

low-risk population separate from the high-risk population.

(National Association of Drug Court Professionals, 2018).

2. Use a standardized risk and needs assessment to identify the expected

likelihood of a particular outcome (e.g., recidivism) over a specified

period of time (e.g., one year) for an individual.

Standardized assessment tools are reliable and valid with regard to

identifying those who are likely to succeed on probation. (Miller

& Shutt, 2001)

3. If a drug court is unable to target only high-risk and high-need offenders, the

program develops alternative tracks with services that are modified to meet

the risk and need levels of its participants, and does not mix participants with

different risk or need levels in the same counseling groups, residential

treatment milieu, or housing unit.

Mixing participants with different risk or need levels together in

treatment groups or residential facilities can make outcomes worse

for the low-risk or low-need participants by exposing them to

antisocial peers or interfering with their engagement in productive

activities, such as work or school (DeMatteo et al., 2006;

Lowenkamp & Latessa, 2004; McCord, 2003; Petrosino et al.,

2000). A free publication from the National Drug Court Institute

(NDCI) provides evidence-based recommendations for developing

alternative tracks in Drug Courts for low-risk and low-need

participants.

Providing substance use disorder treatment for non-addicted

substance users can lead to higher rates of reoffending or substance

use or a greater likelihood of these individuals eventually

becoming addicted (Lovins et al., 2007; Lowenkamp & Latessa,

2005; Szalavitz, 2010; Wexler et al., 2004)

The lowest criminogenic risk (LSI-R score) Mental Health Court

(MHC) participants had the highest rate of felony recidivism (20

percent). Recidivism rates in MHC participants decreased as risk

scores increased; the highest risk MHC participants had the lowest

rate of felony recidivism (7 percent). This finding underscores the

importance of admitting high risk and high need applicants and

suggests that MHCs have the greatest benefit with higher risk

participants.

4. Ensure that the validation sample of the risk and needs assessment is similar

to the drug court’s population.

Different racial or ethnic groups interpret the same assessment

questions differently. (Carle, 2009)

Males and females show differences in the prediction of substance

use dependence. (Perez & Wish, 2011)

DWI offenders require different assessments than drug court

offenders. (Vlavianos, Floerke, Harrison, & Carey, 2015)

5. Reexamine dynamic risk factors after program admission.

Assessments completed within the month preceding the

participant’s failure have greater accuracy than ones done much

earlier. (Lloyd, Hanson, & Serin, 2015)

V. Legal Outcome

A. Standards

1. The circuit court in any judicial circuit or the district court in any

judicial district may adopt or institute a drug treatment court, pursuant

to statute or court rules. However, if the drug treatment court will

include in its program individuals who may be eligible for discharge and

dismissal of an offense, delayed sentence, or deviation from the sentencing

guidelines, the circuit or district court shall not adopt or institute the

drug treatment court unless the circuit or district court enters into a

memorandum of understanding with each participating prosecuting

attorney in the circuit or district court district, a representative of the

criminal defense bar, and a representative or representatives of

community treatment providers. The memorandum of understanding

also may include other parties considered necessary, such as any other

prosecutor in the circuit or district court district, local law enforcement,

the probation departments in that circuit or district, the local substance

abuse coordinating agency for that circuit or district, a domestic violence

service provider program that receives funding from the state domestic

violence prevention and treatment board, and community corrections

agencies in that circuit or district. The MOU shall describe the role of

each party.

(MCL 600.1062(1))

In the case of an individual who will be eligible for discharge

and dismissal of an offense, delayed sentence, or deviation

from the sentencing guidelines, the prosecutor must approve of

the admission of the individual into the drug treatment court

in conformity with the memorandum of understanding under

section 1062. (MCL 600.1068(2))

2. An individual shall not be admitted to, or remain in, a drug treatment

court pursuant to an agreement that would permit a discharge or

dismissal of a traffic offense upon successful completion of the drug

treatment court program. (MCL 600.1068(3))

See Appendix I. This model document is also available at http://courts.mi.gov/Administration/admin/op/problem-

solving-courts/Documents/DTC_ProgramMOU.pdf.

VI. Admission Factors

A. Standards

1. If the individual being considered for admission to a drug treatment

court is charged in a criminal case . . . his or her admission is subject to

all of the following conditions:

The offense or offenses allegedly committed by the individual

must be related to the abuse, illegal use, or possession of a

controlled substance or alcohol. (MCL 600.1068(1)(a))

The individual, if an adult, must plead guilty to the charge or

charges on the record. (MCL 600.1068(1)(c))

2. In addition to rights accorded a victim under the William Van

Regenmorter crime victim's rights act, 1985 PA 87, MCL 780.751 to

780.834, the drug treatment court must permit any victim of the offense

or offenses of which the individual is charged, any victim of a prior

offense of which that individual was convicted, and members of the

community in which either the offenses were committed or in which the

defendant resides to submit a written statement to the court regarding

the advisability of admitting the individual into the drug treatment court.

(MCL 600.1068(4))

3. An individual who has waived his or her right to a preliminary

examination and has pled guilty . . . as part of his or her application to a

drug treatment court and who is not admitted to a drug treatment court,

shall be permitted to withdraw his or her plea and is entitled to a

preliminary examination. (MCL 600.1068(5))

B. Best Practices

1. Use only objective criteria when determining eligibility for drug court.

Some drug courts may screen candidates for their suitability for the

program based on the team’s subjective impressions of the

offender’s motivation for change or readiness for treatment.

Suitability determinations have been found to have no impact on

drug court graduation rates or post program recidivism (Carey &

Perkins, 2008; Rossman et al., 2011).

Removing subjective eligibility restrictions and applying evidence-

based selection criteria significantly increases the effectiveness and

cost-effectiveness of drug courts by allowing them to serve the

most appropriate target population (Bhati et al., 2008; Sevigny et

al., 2013).

See Appendix J. This model document is also available at http://courts.mi.gov/Administration/admin/op/problem-

solving-courts/Documents/DTC-AgreementParticipate.pdf.

VII. Findings on the Record or in the Court File

A. Standards

1. Before an individual is admitted into a drug treatment court, the court

shall find on the record, or place a statement in the court file pertaining

to, all of the following:

The individual is dependent upon or abusing drugs or alcohol

and is an appropriate candidate for participation in the drug

treatment court. (MCL 600.1066(a))

The individual understands the consequences of entering the

drug treatment court and agrees to comply with all court

orders and requirements of the court's program and treatment

providers. (MCL 600.1066(b))

The individual is not an unwarranted or substantial risk to the

safety of the public or any individual, based upon the screening

and assessment or other information presented to the court.

(MCL 600.1066(c))

The individual is not a violent offender. (MCL 600.1066(d))

The individual has completed a preadmission screening and

evaluation assessment under section 1064(3) and has agreed to

cooperate with any future evaluation assessment as directed by

the drug treatment court. (MCL 600.1066(e))

The individual meets the requirements, if applicable, under

section 7411 of the public health code, 1978 PA 368, MCL

333.7411, section 11 of chapter II of the code of criminal

procedure, 1927 PA 175, MCL 762.11, section 4a of chapter IX

of the code of criminal procedure, 1927 PA 175, MCL 769.4a,

section 1 of chapter XI of the code of criminal procedure, 1927

PA 175, MCL 771.1, section 350a of the Michigan penal code,

1931 PA 328, MCL 750.350a, or section 430 of the Michigan

penal code, 1931 PA 328, MCL 750.430. (MCL 600.1066(f))

The terms, conditions, and the duration of the agreement

between the parties, especially as to the outcome for the

participant of the drug treatment court upon successful

completion by the participant or termination of participation.

(MCL 600.1066(g))

VIII. Program Entry

A. Best Practices

1. Expedite the court process to quickly accept participants into the drug court.

When the time between arrest and program entry is 50 days or less,

programs see reductions in recidivism. (Carey, Mackin, &

Finnegan, 2012)

See Appendix L. This model document is also available at

http://courts.mi.gov/Administration/admin/op/problem-solving-courts/Documents/DTC-

AdmissionConditionStatement.pdf.

IX. Works Cited

Andrews, D. A., Bonta, J., & Wormith, J. S. (2006, January). The Recent Past and Near Future of Risk

and/or Need Assessment. Crime & Delinquency, 52(1), 7-27.

Bhati, A. S., Roman, J. K., & Chalfin, A. (2008). To Treat or Not To Treat: Evidence on the Prospects of

Expanding Treatment to Drug-Involved Offenders. Washington DC: Urban Institute Justice Policy

Center. Retrieved from https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/222908.pdf

Bruns, E., Pullman, M., Wiggins, E., & Watterson, K. (2011). King County Family Treatment Court

Outcome Evaluation: Final Report. Seattle, WA: Division of Public Behavioral Health and Justice

Policy.

Carey, S., & Perkins, T. (2008). Methamphetamine users in Missouri drug courts: Program elements

associated with success, final report. Portland, OR: NPC Research. Carey, S., Mackin, J., &

Finnegan, M. (2012). What works? The Ten Key Components of Drug Court: Research-Based Best

Practices. Drug Court Review, 8(1), pp. 6-42. Retrieved from https://www.ndci.org/wp-

content/uploads/DCR_best-practices-in-drug-courts.pdf

Carey, S., Pukstas, K., Waller, M., Mackin, R., & Finigan, M. (2008). Drug Courts and State Mandated

Drug Teatment Programs: Outcomes, Costs, and Consequences. NPC Research, Portland, OR.

Retrieved from https://npcresearch.com/publication/drug-courts-and-state-mandated-drug-

treatment-programs-outcomes-costs-and-consequences-drug-court-and-proposition-36-in-

california/

Carle, A. C. (2009). Assessing the adequacy of self-reported alcohol abuse measurement across time and

ethnicity: cross-cultural equivalence across Hispanics and Caucasians in 1992, non-equivalence

in 2001–2002. BMC Public Health. Retrieved from

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2653501/

Downey, P., & Roman, J. (2010). A Bayesian meta-analysis of drug court cost-effectiveness. Washington

DC: Urban Institute. Greenfield, S., & Hennessy, G. (2008). Assessment of the patient. In M.

Galanter, & H. Kleber, Textbook of substance abuse treatment (4th ed., pp. 55-78). Washington,

DC: American Psychiatric Publishing.

Grella, C., Needell, B., Shi, Y., & Hser, Y. (2009). Do drug treatment services predict reunification

outcomes of mothers and their children in child welfare? Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment,

36, 278-293.

Lloyd, C., Hanson, R., & Serin, R. (2015). "Dynamic" stipulates that re-assessment matters: Examining the

hypothesis that repeated measurement enhances the prediction of recidivism. American

Psychology-Law Society Annual Conference. San Diego, CA.

Lowenkamp, C., & Latessa, E. (2004). Understanding the risk principle: How and why correctional

interviews can harm low-risk offenders. Topics in Community Corrections, 3-8.

Lowenkamp, C., Holsinger, A., & Latessa, E. (2005). Are drug courts effective? A meta-analytic review.

Journal of Community Corrections(Fall), 5-28.

Marlowe, D., Festinger, D., Dugosh, K., Arabia, P., & Kirby, K. (2008). An effectiveness trial of contingency

management in a felony preadjudication drug court. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 41(4),

565-577.

Miller, J., & Shutt, J. (2001). Considering the need for empirically grounded drug court screening

mechanisms. Journal of Drug Issues, 31(1), 91-106.

Perez, D., & Wish, E. (2011). Gender differences in the validity of the Substance Abuse Subtle Screening

Inventory - 3 (SASSI-3) with a criminal justice population. International Journal of Offender

Therapy & Comparative Criminology, 476-491.

Rice, M., Harris, G., & Cormier, C. (1992). Evaluation of a Maximum Security Therapeutic Community for

Psychopaths and Other Mentally Disordered Offenders. Law and Human Behavior, 399-412.

Shaffer, D. (2010). Looking Inside the Black Box of Drug Courts: A Meta-Analytic Review. Justice

Quarterly, 28(3), 493-531.

State v. Sykes, 87946-0, 87947-8 (Supreme Court of Washington December 18, 2014). Retrieved from

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/wa-supreme-court/1687397.html

Vlavianos, R., Floerke, S., Harrison, P., & Carey, S. (2015). Retrieved October 12, 2016, from NPC

Research: http://npcresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/DWI-and-drug-court-research-

bestpractices_NADCP-2015.pdf

Worcel, S., Furrer, C., Green, B., & Rhodes, B. (2006). Family treatment drug court evaluation: Final

Phase I study report. Portland, OR: NPC Research

Chapter 7: Drug and Alcohol Testing

This chapter addresses drug and alcohol testing in drug court. Specific topics include

randomization, frequency, methods for collection and testing, the use of scientific information,

and chain of custody. In addition to following these standards and best practices, courts should

consult the Ten Principles of a Good Testing Program,

promulgated by the NDCI and

available in Appendix A of this manual. The Michigan Association of Treatment Court

Professionals published the MATCP Drug Testing Manual, 2nd Edition, as a reference for

treatment courts.

I. General

A. Best Practices

1. Upon entering the drug court, participants receive a clear and comprehensive

explanation of their rights and responsibilities related to drug and alcohol

testing. This information is described in a participant contract or handbook

and reviewed periodically with participants to ensure they remain cognizant of

their obligations.

Outcomes are significantly better when drug courts specify their

policies and procedures clearly in a participant manual or

handbook (Carey et al., 2012).

Drug courts can enhance participants’ perceptions of fairness

substantially and reduce avoidable delays from contested drug and

alcohol tests by describing their testing procedures and

requirements in a participant contract or handbook. (National

Association of Drug Court Professionals, 2018)

II. Randomization

A. Standards

1. A drug treatment court shall provide a drug court participant with all of

the following . . . mandatory periodic and random testing for the presence

of any controlled substance or alcohol in a participant’s blood, urine, or

breath, using to the extent practicable the best available, accepted, and

scientifically valid methods. (MCL 600.1072(1)(b))

See Appendix N.

2. The probability of being tested on weekends and holidays is the same as

other days.

Weekends and holidays are high-risk times for drug and alcohol

use. Providing a respite from detection during these high-risk

times reduces the randomness of testing and undermines the

central aims of a drug-testing program. (Kirby, Lamb, Iguchi,

Husband, & Platt, 1995) (Marlatt & Gordon, 1985) (American

Society of Addiction Medicine, 2013)

3. Urine tests are delivered no more than eight hours after a participant is

notified that a test has been scheduled. (National Association of Drug Court

Professionals, 2018) (Auerbach, 2007)

4. Tests with short detection windows such as oral fluid tests should be delivered

no more than four hours after being notified that a test was scheduled.

(National Association of Drug Court Professionals, 2018)

III. Frequency and Breadth of Testing

A. Standards

1. A drug treatment court shall comply with the 10 key components

promulgated by the national association of drug court professionals,

which include all of the following essential characteristics:

Monitoring of participants effectively by frequent alcohol and

other drug testing to ensure abstinence from drugs or alcohol.

(MCL 600.1060(c)(v))

B. Best Practices

1. Urine testing is performed at least twice per week until participants are in

the last phase of the program and preparing for graduation.

In a multisite study of approximately 70 drug courts, programs

performing urine testing at least twice per week in the first phase

lowered recidivism by 38 percent and were 61 percent more cost-

effective than programs testing less frequently. (Carey, Mackin, &

Finnegan, 2012)

The most effective drug courts perform urine drug testing at least

twice per week for the first several months of the program. (Carey

& Perkins, 2008)

2. Test specimens are examined for all unauthorized substances that are

suspected to be used by drug court participants. Randomly selected

specimens are tested periodically for a broader range of substances to

detect new substances that might be emerging in the drug court

population.

Participants can easily evade detection of their substance use by

switching to drugs that have similar effects but are not detected by

the test. (American Society of Addiction Medicine, 2013)

Because new drugs of abuse are constantly being sought out by

offenders to cheat drug tests, drug courts should frequently and

randomly examine samples for a wide range of potential

substances of abuse. (American Society of Addiction Medicine,

2013)

3. Tests that measure substance use over extended periods of time, such as ankle

monitors, are applied for at least 90 consecutive days followed by urine or

other intermittent test methods.

Research indicates that use of an alcohol tether device may deter

alcohol consumption and alcohol-impaired driving among

recidivist DWI offenders if it is worn for at least 90 days. (Flango

& Cheeseman, 2009) (Tison, Nichols, Casanova-Powell, &

Chaudhary, 2015)

IV. Scientifically Valid Drug Testing Methods

A. Best Practices

1. A drug court uses scientifically valid and reliable testing procedures.

To be admissible as evidence in a legal proceeding, drug and

alcohol test results must be derived from scientifically valid and

reliable methods. (Meyer, 2011)

Appellate courts have recognized the scientific validity of several

commonly used methods for analyzing urine, including gas

chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS); liquid

chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry (LC/MS/MS); the

enzyme multiple immunoassay technique (EMIT); and some

sweat, oral fluid, hair, and ankle-monitor tests. (Meyer, 2011)

Appellate courts have recognized the scientific validity of ethyl

glucuronide (ETG) testing. (Lawrence)

2. If a participant denies substance use in response to a positive screening

test, a portion of the same specimen is subjected to confirmatory analysis

using an instrumented test, such as GC/MS or LC/MS. Unless a

participant admits to using the drug identified by the screening

procedure, confirmation of presumptive positive tests should be

mandatory.

Gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC/MS) provides

chemical fingerprint identification of drugs and is recognized as

the definitive confirmation technology. (Cary, 2011)

Confirmation with an instrumented test virtually eliminates the

odds of a false positive result, assuming the sample was collected

and stored properly. (Auerbach, 2007)

It is necessary to validate positive screening results in order to rule

out the potential of a false positive by performing a confirmation

procedure. (Cary, 2011)

3. Confirmatory tests are not withheld due to the participant’s inability to

pay.

Drug courts commonly require participants to pay the cost of

confirmation tests if the initial screening result is confirmed.

(Cary, 2011) (Meyer, 2011)

4. Metabolite levels are not used as evidence of new substance use or

changes in participants’ substance use patterns.

Some drug courts interpret changes in quantitative levels of drug

metabolites as evidence that new substance use has occurred or a

participant’s substance use pattern has changed. Unless a drug

court has access to an expert trained in toxicology, pharmacology,

or a related discipline, such practices should be avoided. Most

drug and alcohol tests used in drug courts were designed to be

qualitative, meaning they were designed to determine whether a

drug or drug metabolite is present at levels above a prespecified

concentration level. The cutoff concentration level is calculated

empirically to maximize the true-positive rate, true-negative rate,

or classification rate. When drug courts engage in quantitative

analyses, they are effectively altering the cut-off score and making

the results less accurate. (National Association of Drug Court

Professionals, 2018)

Quantitative metabolite levels can vary considerably based on a

number of factors, including the total fluid content in urine or

blood (Cary, 2004; Schwilke et al., 2010). Moderate changes in

participants’ fluid intake or fluid retention could lead drug courts

to miscalculate substance use patterns. Numeric results do not

accurately discriminate between whether a participant’s overall

drug level is increasing or decreasing even if compared to previous

urine drug concentrations from the same client and for the same

drug. (Cary, 2004)

The routine use of urine drug levels by court personnel in an effort

to define substance use disorder behavior and formulate

appropriately measured sanctions is a practice that can result in

inappropriate, factually unsupportable conclusions and a decision-

making process that lacks a sound scientific foundation. (Cary,

2011)

5. Test specimens are examined routinely for evidence of dilution and

adulteration.

The temperature of each urine specimen should be examined

immediately upon collection to ensure it is consistent with an

expected human body temperature. An unusual temperature might

suggest the sample cooled down because it was collected at an

earlier point in time, or was mixed with water that was too cold or

too hot to be consistent with body temperature. (National

Association of Drug Court Professionals, 2018)

Under normal conditions, urine specimens should be between 90

and 100 degrees Fahrenheit within four minutes of collection; a

lower or higher temperature likely indicates a deliberate attempt at

deception. (American Society of Addiction Medicine, 2013)

Specimens should be tested for creatinine and specific gravity. A

creatinine level below 20 mg/dL is rare and is a reliable indicator

of an intentional effort at dilution or excessive fluid consumption.

(American Society of Addiction Medicine, 2013)

A creatinine level below 20 mg/dL is rare and is a reliable

indicator of an intentional effort at dilution or excessive fluid

consumption barring unusual medical or metabolic conditions

(ASAM, 2013; Cary, 2011; Jones & Karlsson, 2005; Katz et al.,

2007). (American Society of Addiction Medicine, 2013)

Specific gravity reflects the amount of solid substances that are

dissolved in urine. The greater the specific gravity, the more

concentrated the urine; and the lower the specific gravity, the

closer its consistency to water. The normal range of specific

gravity for urine is 1.003 to 1.030, and a specific gravity of 1.000

is essentially water. Some experts believe a specific gravity below

1.003 reflects a diluted sample (Katz et al., 2007). Although this

analysis, by itself, may not be sufficient to prove excessive fluid

consumption, dilution is likely to have occurred if the specific

gravity is low and accompanies other evidence of tampering or

invalidity, such as a low creatinine level or temperature.

(Dasgupta et al., 2004; Mikkelsen & Ash, 1988).

V. Witnessed Collection

A. Best Practices

1. Direct observed collection requires that an observer watch the donor

urinate into the collection container. The observer's gender must be the

same as the donor's gender, which is determined by the donor's gender

identity, with no exception to this requirement. (Substance Abuse and

Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), HHS, 2017)

Gender identity means an individual's internal sense of being male

or female, which may be different from an individual's sex

assigned at birth. (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services

Administration (SAMHSA), HHS, 2017)

i. Before an observer is selected the donor is informed that

the gender of the observer will match the donor's gender,

which is determined by the donor's gender identity. The

collector then selects the observer to conduct the

observation:

(1) The collector asks the donor to identify the donor's

gender on the Custody and Control Form (CCF) and

initial it.

(2) The donor will then be provided an observer whose

gender matches the donor's gender.

(3) The observer's name and gender is documented on

the CCF. (Substance Abuse and Mental Health

Services Administration (SAMHSA), HHS, 2017)

2. Collection of test specimens is witnessed directly by a staff person who

has been trained to prevent tampering and substitution of fraudulent

specimens.

The most effective way to ensure that the sample collection is valid

and to avoid tampering is to ensure the collection is witnessed

directly by someone who has been properly trained. (American

Society of Addiction Medicine, 2013) (Cary, 2011)

3. Breathalyzers must be calibrated according to certification standards

established by the U.S. Departments of Transportation (DOT) and Health

and Human Services (HHS) and/or the state toxicologist. The test must

be administered by breath alcohol technicians who are trained in the use

and interpretation of breath alcohol results. (U.S. Department of Justice,

Office of Justice Programs, Drug Courts Program Office & American

University, 2000)

4. Barring exigent circumstances, participants are not permitted to undergo

independent drug or alcohol testing in lieu of being tested by trained personnel

assigned to or authorized by the drug treatment court.

Because specialized training is required to minimize tampering of

test specimens, under most circumstances participants should be

precluded from undergoing drug and alcohol testing by

independent sources. In exigent circumstances, such as when

participants live a long distance from the test collection site, the

drug court might designate independent professionals or

laboratories to perform drug and alcohol testing. As a condition of

approval, these professionals should be required to complete

formal training on the proper collection, handling, and analyses of

drug and alcohol test samples among drug court participants or

comparable criminal justice populations. (National Association of

Drug Court Professionals, 2018)

Drug treatment courts are also required to follow generally

accepted chain-of-custody procedures when handling test

specimens (ASAM, 2013; Cary, 2011; Meyer, 2011). Therefore, if

independent professionals or laboratories perform drug and alcohol

testing, they must be trained carefully to follow proper chain-of-

custody procedures. (National Association of Drug Court

Professionals, 2018)

VI. Chain of Custody and Results

A. Standards

1. If the court determines that scientific, technical, or other specialized

knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to

determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge,

skill, experience, training, or education may testify thereto in the form of

an opinion or otherwise if (1) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or

data, (2) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods,

and (3) the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the

facts of the case. (Michigan Rules of Evidence, Rule 702. Adopted from

the Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 702. Based on Daubert v. Merrell

Dow Pharmaceuticals)

B. Best Practices

1. A chain-of-custody form is completed once a urine sample has been

collected. This form ensures the identity and integrity of the sample

through transport, testing, and reporting of results. (Kadehjian, 2010)

2. Test results, including the results of confirmation testing, are available to the

drug court within 48 hours of sample collection.

A study of approximately 70 drug courts reported significantly

greater reductions in recidivism and significantly greater cost

benefits when the teams received drug and alcohol test results

within 48 hours of sample collection. (Carey, Mackin, &

Finnegan, 2012)

C. Promising Practices

1. In order to comply with the 48-hour results best practice, drug courts that use

tethers or in-home units should require download at least three times per

week.

VII. Works Cited

American Society of Addiction Medicine (2013). Drug testing: A white paper of the American Society of

Addiction Medicine (ASAM). Chevy Chase:

Auerbach, K. (2007). Drug Testing Methods. In Drug Courts: A New Approach to Treatment and

Rehabilitation (pp. 215-233). New York: Springer.

Carey, S., & Perkins, T. (2008). Methamphetamine users in Missouri drug courts: Program elements

associated with success, final report. Portland, OR: NPC Research. Carey, S., Mackin, J., &

Finnegan, M. (2012). What works? The Ten Key Components of Drug Court: Research-Based Best

Practices. Drug Court Review, 8(1), pp. 6-42. Retrieved from https://www.ndci.org/wp-

content/uploads/DCR_best-practices-in-drug-courts.pdf

Cary, P. (2004). Urine drug concentrations: The scientific rationale for eliminated the use of drug test

levels in drug court proceedings. NDCI Drug Court Practitioner Fact Sheet 4(1), pp. 1-2.

Cary, P. (2011). The Fundamentals of Drug Testing. In N. D. Institute, The drug court judicial benchbook

(pp. 113-140). Alexandria: National Drug Court Institute.

Flango, V., & Cheeseman, F. (2009). The effectiveness of the SCRAM alcohol monitoring device: A

preliminary test. Drug Court Review, 109-134.

Kadehjian, L. D. (2010, June). Urine drug testing in drug court programs. Michigan Association of Drug

Court Professionals Newsletter.

Kirby, K., Lamb, R., Iguchi, M., Husband, S., & Platt, J. (1995). Situations occasioning cocaine use and

cocaine abstinence strategies. Addiction, 90(9), 1241-1252.

Lawrence, K. (n.d.). Retrieved September 9, 2016, from National Drug Court Resource Center:

http://www.ndcrc.org/sites/default/files/etg_case_lawdaubert1.pdf

Marlatt, G., & Gordon, J. (1985). Relapse prevention: Maintenance strategies in the treatment of

addictive behaviors. Clinical Chemistry, 34(3), 471-473.

Meyer, W. (2011). Constitutional and legal issues in drug court. In N. D. Institute, The drug court judicial

benchbook (pp. 159-180). Alexandria: National Drug Court Institute.

National Association of Drug Court Professionals. (2015). Adult Drug Court Best Practice Standards.

Volume II.

Tison, J., Nichols, J., Casanova-Powell, T., & Chaudhary, N. (2015). Comparative study and evaluation of

SCRAM use, recidivism rates, and characteristics (Report No. DOT HS 812 143). Washington,

D.C.: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Drug Courts Program Office & American

University. (2000, May). Drug testing in a drug court environment: Drug courts resource series.

Retrieved September 2, 2016, from National Criminal Justice Reference Service:

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojp/181103.pdf

Chapter 8: Treatment

This chapter discusses treatment in drug court. Specific topics include treatment entry, services,

treatment duration, and medication-assisted treatment. Some of the topics in this chapter are also

addressed in chapter 2 regarding participant supervision and compliance and in chapter 6

regarding population and admission.

I. General and Definition of Drug Treatment Courts and

DWI Courts

A. Standards

1. “Drug treatment court” means a court-supervised treatment program for

individuals who abused or are dependent upon any controlled substance

or alcohol. A drug treatment court shall comply with the 10 key

components promulgated by the national association of drug court

professionals. (MCL 600.1060(c))

2. "DWI/sobriety court" means the specialized court docket and programs

established within judicial circuits and districts throughout this state that

are designed to reduce recidivism among alcohol offenders and that

comply with the 10 guiding principles of DWI courts as promulgated by

the National Center for DWI Courts. (MCL 600.1084(9)(a))

B. Best Practices

1. A clinically trained treatment representative is a core member of the

drug court team and regularly attends team meetings and status

hearings.

Recidivism may be reduced twofold when representatives from the

drug court’s primary treatment agencies regularly attend staffing

meetings and status review hearings. (Carey, Mackin, & Finnegan,

2012)

2. Treatment should address major criminogenic needs. Eight major

criminogenic needs have been identified that contribute to the risk for

recidivism among offenders and that are dynamic or changeable via

programmatic interventions.

Reductions in recidivism are proportional to the number of

criminogenic needs addressed within offender treatment programs.

(Peters, 2011)

3. One or two treatment agencies are primarily responsible for managing the

delivery of treatment services for drug court participants.

Drug courts that worked with two or fewer treatment agencies

were able to reduce recidivism by 74 percent over drug courts that

used more agencies. (Carey, Mackin, & Finnegan, 2012)

II. Treatment Entry

A. Best Practices

1. Drug courts link participants to treatment as soon as possible.

Family dependency drug court participants are linked to treatment

more quickly than those who experience the traditional

dependency court system, stay in treatment longer, and are more

likely to complete treatment. (Bruns, Pullmann, Wiggins, &

Watterson, 2011)

People mandated to treatment by the criminal justice system

experience similar outcomes related to substance use and

recidivism as those seeking treatment voluntarily. Retention in

treatment is often higher among those coerced into treatment.

Such participants perform as well as voluntary participants across a

range of in-treatment indicators of progress (e.g., self-efficacy,

coping skills, clinical symptoms, 12-step involvement, motivation

for change). (Peters, 2011)

Participants who enter drug court quickly tend to enter treatment

more quickly. (Worcel, Furrer, Green, & Rhodes, 2006)

2. Drug courts consider using the Risk Needs Responsivity (RNR) Model.

The RNR model has led to better risk assessment instruments to

predict criminal behavior and better treatment programs that match

services to the level of risk and needs. As a result, the RNR

model, when properly applied, has led to a reduction in recidivism.

(Bonta & Andrews, 2007)

III. Treatment Services

A. Standards

1. A drug treatment court shall comply with the 10 key components

promulgated by the national association of drug court professionals,

which include all of the following essential characteristics:

Access to a continuum of alcohol, drug, and other related

treatment and rehabilitation services. (MCL 600.1060(c)(iv))

B. Best Practices

1. Mental illness and substance use disorders are treated concurrently using an

evidence-based curriculum that focuses on the mutually aggravating effects of

the two conditions.

Treating either disorder alone without treating both disorders

simultaneously is rarely, if ever, successful. Addiction and mental

illness are reciprocally aggravating conditions, meaning that

continued symptoms of one disorder are likely to precipitate

relapse in the other disorder (Chandler et al., 2004; Drake et al.,

2008). For this reason, best practice standards for drug courts and

other treatment programs require mental illness and addiction to be

treated concurrently as opposed to consecutively. (Drake et al.,

2004; Kushner et al., 2014; Mueser et al., 2003; Osher et al., 2012;

Peters, 2008; Steadman et al., 2013)

Whenever possible, both disorders should be treated in the same

facility by the same professional(s) using an integrated treatment

model that focuses on the mutually aggravating effects of the two

conditions. The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services

Administration (SAMHSA, 2010) has published therapist toolkits

to assist in delivering evidence-based integrated treatments for co-

occurring substance-use and mental health disorders.

2. The drug court offers a continuum of care for substance use disorder

treatment, including detoxification, residential, sober living, day treatment,

intensive outpatient, and outpatient services.

Outcomes, including graduation rates and recidivism, are

significantly better in drug courts that offer a continuum of care for

substance use disorder treatment, which includes residential

treatment and recovery housing in addition to outpatient treatment.

(Carey, Mackin, & Finnegan, 2012) (Koob, Brocato, & Kleinpeter,

2011)

Community aftercare treatment for offenders can significantly

reduce rates of substance use and recidivism. (Peters, 2011)

3. The drug court offers trauma-informed services.

Although some participants with trauma histories do not require

formal PTSD treatment, all staff members, including court

personnel and other criminal justice professionals, need to be

trauma-informed for all participants. (Bath, 2008) Staff members

should remain cognizant of how their actions may be perceived by

persons who have serious problems with trust, are paranoid or

unduly suspicious of others’ motives, or have been betrayed,

sometimes repeatedly, by important persons in their lives. Safety,

predictability and reliability are critical for treating such

individuals. Several practice recommendations should be borne in

mind. (Bath, 2008; Covington, 2003; Elliott et al., 2005; Liang &

Long, 2013) (National Association of Drug Court Professionals,

2018)

4. The drug court offers gender-specific substance use disorder treatment groups.

A study of approximately 70 drug courts found that programs

offering gender-specific services reduced criminal recidivism

significantly more than those that did not. (Carey, Mackin, &

Finnegan, 2012)

In a randomized controlled experiment, female drug court

participants with trauma histories who received manualized

cognitive-behavioral PTSD treatments—Helping Women Recover

(Covington, 2008) or Beyond Trauma (Covington, 2003)—in

gender-specific groups were more likely to graduate from drug

court, were less likely to receive a jail sanction in the program, and

reported more than twice the reduction in PTSD symptoms than

participants with trauma histories who did not receive PTSD

treatment. (Messina et al., 2012)

Given the design of these studies, separating the effects of the

PTSD treatments from the effects of the gender-specific groups is

not possible. Studies have reported superior outcomes when

women in the criminal justice system received various types of

substance use disorder treatment in female-only groups. (Grella,

2008; Kissin et al., 2013; Liang & Long, 2013; Morse et al., 2013)

5. The drug court offers mental health treatment.

Programs that excluded offenders with serious mental health issues

were significantly less cost-effective and had no better impact on

recidivism than drug courts that did not exclude such individuals.

(Carey, Mackin, & Finnegan, 2012)

6. Participants are not incarcerated to achieve clinical or social service objectives

such as obtaining access to detoxification services or sober living quarters.

Relying on in-custody substance use disorder treatment can reduce

the cost-effectiveness of a drug court by as much as 45 percent.

(Carey, Mackin, & Finnegan, 2012)

Some drug courts may place participants in jail as a means of

providing detoxification services or to keep them “off the streets”

when adequate treatment is unavailable in the community. This

practice is inconsistent with best practices, unduly costly, and

unlikely to produce lasting benefits. (National Association of Drug

Court Professionals, 2018)

IV. Evidence-Based Models of Treatment

A. Best Practices

1. Treatment providers use evidence-based models and administer

treatments that are documented in manuals and have been demonstrated

to improve outcomes for addicted persons involved in the criminal justice

system.

Outcomes from correctional rehabilitation are significantly better

when evidence-based models are used, and fidelity to the model is

maintained through continuous supervision of the treatment

providers. (National Association of Drug Court Professionals,

2018)

Examples of manualized cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT)

curricula that have been proven to reduce criminal recidivism

among offenders include Moral Reconation Therapy (MRT),

Reasoning and Rehabilitation (R&R), Thinking for a Change

(T4C), Relapse Prevention Therapy (RPT), and the Matrix Model.

(National Association of Drug Court Professionals, 2018)

V. Treatment Duration

a. Best Practices

1. Participants receive a sufficient dosage and duration of substance use

disorder treatment to achieve long-term sobriety and recovery from

addiction.

Providing continuous treatment for at least one year is associated

with reduced recidivism. (Warren, 2007)

The longer participants remain in treatment and the more sessions

they attend, the better their outcomes. (National Association of

Drug Court Professionals, 2018)

2. Participants ordinarily receive 6 to 10 hours of counseling per week during the

initial phase of treatment and approximately 200 hours of counseling over 9 to

12 months; however, the drug court allows for flexibility to accommodate

individual differences in each participant’s response to treatment.

The best outcomes are achieved when addicted offenders complete

a course of treatment extending over approximately 9 to 12

months. (Peters, 2011) (Cobbina & Huebner, 2007)

Assuming drug courts are treating individuals who are addicted to

drugs or alcohol, and are at a high risk for criminal recidivism or

treatment failure, studies show that, on average, participants will

require 6 to 10 hours of counseling per week in the first phase and

200 hours over the course of treatment. (National Association of

Drug Court Professionals, 2018)

VI. Medication-Assisted Treatment

A. Best Practices

1. Drug courts allow the use of medication-assisted treatment (MAT) when

appropriate, based on a case-specific determination and handle MAT

very similarly to other kinds of treatment.

Numerous controlled studies have reported significantly better

outcomes when addicted offenders received medication-assisted

treatments including opioid antagonist medications such as

naltrexone, opioid agonist medications such as methadone, and

partial agonist medications such as buprenorphine. (Chandler,

Fletcher, & Volkow, 2009) (Finigan, Perkins, Zold-Kilbourn,

Parks, & Stringer, 2011)

Buprenorphine or methadone maintenance administered prior to

and immediately after release from jail or prison has been shown to

significantly increase opiate-addicted inmates’ engagement in

treatment, reduce illicit opiate use, reduce rearrests, and reduce

mortality and hepatitis C infections. (National Association of Drug

Court Professionals, 2018)

2. The court does not determine the type, dosage, and duration of

medication-assisted treatment.

The basic purpose of probation is to provide an individualized

program of rehabilitation. (Roberts v United States, 1943)

VII. Works Cited

Bruns, E., Pullman, M., Wiggins, E., & Watterson, K. (2011). King County Family Treatment Court

Outcome Evaluation: Final Report. Seattle, WA: Division of Public Behavioral Health and Justice

Policy.

Carey, S., Mackin, J., & Finnegan, M. (2012). What works? The Ten Key Components of Drug Court:

Research-Based Best Practices. Drug Court Review, 8(1), pp. 6-42. Retrieved from

https://www.ndci.org/wp-content/uploads/DCR_best-practices-in-drug-courts.pdf

Chandler, R., Fletcher, B., & Volkow, N. (2009). Treating drug abuse and addiction in the criminal justice

system: Improving public health and safety. Journal of the American Medical Association, 183-

190.

Cobbina, J., & Huebner, B. (2007). The effect of drug use, drug treatment participation, and treatment

completion on probationer recidivism. Journal of Drug Issues, 619-641.

Koob, J., Brocato, J., & Kleinpeter, C. (2011). Enhancing residential treatment for drug court participants.

Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 252-271. Peters, R. (2011, November). Drug court treatment

services: Applying research findings to practice. Retrieved September 8, 2016, from

research2practice.org:

http://research2practice.org/projects/treatment/pdfs/Issues%20Commentary%20and%20Reso

urce %20Brief.pdf

Warren, R. K. (2007). Evidence-based practice to reduce recidivism: Implications for state judiciaries.

Williamsburg: Crime and Justice Institute and National Institute of Corrections and National

Center for State Courts.

Worcel, S., Furrer, C., Green, B., & Rhodes, B. (2006). Family treatment drug court evaluation: Final

Phase I study report. Portland, OR: NPC Research.

National Association of Drug Court Professionals. (2018). Adult Drug Court Best Practice Standards.

Volume 1. Retrieved from https://www.nadcp.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Adult-Drug-

Court-Best-Practice-Standards-Volume-I-Text-Revision-December-2018-1.pdf

National Association of Drug Court Professionals. (2018). Adult Drug Court Best Practices Standards

Volume II. Retrieved from https://www.nadcp.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Adult-Drug-

Court-Best-Practice-Standards-Volume-2-Text-Revision-December-2018-1.pdf

Chapter 9: Education

Education and training are important components in any drug court. This chapter discusses

standards, best practices, and promising practices regarding education of the drug court team.

I. General

A. Standards

1. A drug treatment court shall comply with the 10 key components

promulgated by the national association of drug court professionals,

which include all of the following essential characteristics:

Continued interdisciplinary education in order to promote

effective drug court planning, implementation, and operation.

(MCL 600.1060(c)(ix))

2. A court that is adopting a drug treatment court shall participate in

training as required by the state court administrative office and the

bureau of justice assistance of the United States department of justice.

(MCL 600.1062(3))

B. Best Practices

1. Team members participate in continuing education workshops at least

annually to gain up-to-date knowledge about best practices on drug court

topics.

A multisite study involving more than 60 drug courts found that

participation in annual training conferences was the single greatest

predictor of program effectiveness. (Shaffer, 2006) (Shaffer,

2010)

2. New team members complete a formal orientation training as soon as

practical after assuming their position

A multisite study of approximately seventy drug courts found that

programs were over 50 percent more effective at reducing

recidivism when they routinely provided formal orientation

training for new staff (Carey, Mackin, & Finnegan, 2012).

3. The drug court judge attends current training events on legal and

constitutional issues in drug courts, judicial ethics, evidence-based

substance use disorder and mental health treatment, behavior

modification, and community supervision. Attendance at annual training

conferences and workshops ensure contemporary knowledge about

advances in the drug court field.

See Appendix D New Staff/Team Member Orientation

Because judges have such a substantial impact on outcomes in

drug court, continued training is especially important. (Carey,

Mackin, & Finnegan, 2012)

Outcomes are significantly better when the drug court judge

attends annual training conferences on evidence-based practices in

substance use disorder and mental health treatment and community

supervision (Carey et al., 2008, 2012; Shaffer, 2010).

4. Before starting a drug court, team members attend a formal pre-

implementation training to learn from expert faculty about best practices in

drug courts and develop fair and effective policies and procedures for the

program.

In drug courts where the teams participated in formal training prior

to implementation, cost savings increased by two and a half times,

and the programs were 50 percent more effective at reducing

recidivism. (Carey, Pukstas, Waller, Mackin, & Finigan, 2008)

(Carey, Mackin, & Finnegan, 2012)

Drug courts that did not receive pre-implementation training had

outcomes that were only negligibly different from traditional

criminal justice programming. (Carey, Pukstas, Waller, Mackin, &

Finigan, 2008)

II. Works Cited

Carey, S., Mackin, J., & Finnegan, M. (2012). What works? The Ten Key Components of Drug Court:

Research-Based Best Practices. Drug Court Review, 8(1), pp. 6-42. Retrieved from

https://www.ndci.org/wp-content/uploads/DCR_best-practices-in-drug-courts.pdf

Carey, S., Pukstas, K., Waller, M., Mackin, R., & Finigan, M. (2008). Drug Courts and State Mandated

Drug Teatment Programs: Outcomes, Costs, and Consequences. NPC Research, Portland, OR.

Retrieved from https://npcresearch.com/publication/drug-courts-and-state-mandated-drug-

treatment-programs-outcomes-costs-and-consequences-drug-court-and-proposition-36-in-

california/

National Association of Drug Court Professionals. (2018). Adult Drug Court Best Practice Standards.

Volume 1. Retrieved from https://www.nadcp.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Adult-Drug-

Court-Best-Practice-Standards-Volume-I-Text-Revision-December-2018-1.pdf

National Association of Drug Court Professionals. (2018). Adult Drug Court Best Practices Standards

Volume II. Retrieved from https://www.nadcp.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Adult-Drug-

Court-Best-Practice-Standards-Volume-2-Text-Revision-December-2018-1.pdf

Shaffer, D. (2006). Reconsidering drug court effectiveness: A meta-analytic review. Cincinatti: University

of Cincinatti. Shaffer, D. (2010). Looking Inside the Black Box of Drug Courts: A Meta-Analytic

Review. Justice Quarterly, 28(3), 493-531.

Chapter 10: Program Evaluation

This chapter discusses program evaluation of a drug court. Specific topics include collection and

maintenance of information, evaluation, and program modification.

I. Collection and Maintenance of Information

A. Standards

1. Each drug treatment court shall collect and provide data on each

individual applicant and participant and the entire program as required

by the state court administrative office. (MCL 600.1078(1))

2. Each drug treatment court shall maintain files or databases on each

individual applicant or referral who is denied or refused admission to the

program, including the reasons for the denial or rejection, the criminal

history of the applicant, the preadmission evaluation and assessment, and

other demographic information as required by the state court

administrative office. (MCL 600.1078(2))

3. Each drug treatment court shall maintain files or databases on each

individual participant in the program for review and evaluation as well as

treatment, as directed by the state court administrative office. The

information collected for evaluation purposes must include a minimum

standard data set

developed and specified by the state court

administrative office. This information should be maintained in the court

files or otherwise accessible by the courts and the state court

administrative office and, as much as practicable, should include all of

the following:

Location and contact information for each individual

participant, both upon admission and termination or

completion of the program for follow-up reviews, and third

party contact information. (MCL 600.1078(3)(a))

Significant transition point dates, including dates of referral,

enrollment, new court orders, violations, detentions, changes in

services or treatments provided, discharge for completion or

termination, any provision of after-care, and after-program

recidivism. (MCL 600.1078(3)(b))

See Appendix O. The minimum standard data set for Michigan drug courts is also available at

http://courts.mi.gov/Administration/admin/op/problem-solving-courts/Documents/MinimumStandardDataAdult.pdf

The individual’s precipitating offenses and significant factual

information, source of referral, and all drug treatment court

evaluations and assessments. (MCL 600.1078(3)(c))

Treatments provided, including intensity of care or dosage,

and their outcomes. (MCL 600.1078(3)(d))

Other services or opportunities provided to the individual and

resulting use by the individual, such as education or

employment and the participation of and outcome for that

individual. (MCL 600.1078(3)(e))

Reasons for discharge, completion, or termination of the

program. (MCL 600.1078(3)(f))

4. Each year, all DWI/sobriety courts that participate in the [ignition

interlock] program, in cooperation with the state court administrative

office, shall provide to the legislature, the secretary of state, and the

supreme court documentation as to participants' compliance with court

ordered conditions. Best practices available must be used in the research

in question, as resources allow, so as to provide statistically reliable data

as to the impact of the program on public safety and the improvement of

life conditions for participants. The topics documented must include, but

not be limited to, all of the following:

The percentage of those participants ordered to place interlock

devices on their vehicles who actually comply with the order.

(MCL 600.1084(5)(a))

The percentage of participants who remove court-ordered

interlocks from their vehicles without court approval. (MCL

600.1084(5)(b))

The percentage of participants who consume alcohol or

controlled substances. (MCL 600.1084(5)(c))

The percentage of participants found to have tampered with

court-ordered interlocks. (MCL 600.1084(5)(d))

The percentage of participants who operated a motor vehicle

not equipped with an interlock. (MCL 600.1084(5)(e))

Relevant treatment information as to participants. (MCL

600.1084(5)(f))

The percentage of participants convicted of a new offense

under section 625(1) or (3) of the Michigan vehicle code, 1949

PA 300, MCL 257.625. (MCL 600.1084(5)(g))

Any other information found to be relevant. (MCL

600.1084(5)(h))

5. As directed by the state court administrative office, after an individual is

discharged either upon completion or termination of the program, the

drug treatment court should conduct, as much as practicable, follow-up

contacts with and reviews of participants for key outcome indicators,

such as drug use, recidivism, and employment, as frequently and for a

period of time determined by the state court administrative office based

upon the nature of the drug treatment court and the nature of the

participant. These follow-up contacts and reviews of former participants

are not extensions of the court’s jurisdiction over the individuals. (MCL

600.1078(4))

B. Best Practices

1. Maintain program data for evaluation purposes in an electronic database rather

than paper files.

Drug courts are 65 percent more cost effective when they enter

data for evaluations into an electronic database rather than storing

it in paper files. (Carey, Mackin, & Finnegan, 2012)

Michigan’s Drug Court Case Management Information System can

be accessed at https://dccmis.micourt.org/default.aspx.

2. Staff members are required to record information concerning the provision of

services and in-program outcomes within 48 hours of the respective events.

Timely and reliable data entry is required of each staff member and is a basis

for evaluating staff job performance.

After 48 hours, errors in data entry have been shown to increase

significantly. After one week, information is so likely to be

inaccurate that it may be better to leave the data as missing than

attempt to fill in gaps from faulty memory (Marlowe, 2010)

II. Evaluation and Program Modification

A. Best Practices

1. The drug court monitors its adherence to best practice standards on at

least an annual basis, develops a remedial action plan and timetable to

rectify deficiencies, and examines the success of the remedial actions.

Outcome evaluations describe the effectiveness of the drug court in the

context of its adherence to best practices.

Adherence to best practices is generally poor in most sectors of the

criminal justice and substance use disorder treatment systems

(Friedmann et al., 2007; Henderson et al., 2007; McLellan et al.,

2003; Taxman et al., 2007). Programs infrequently deliver

services that are proven to be effective and commonly deliver

services which have not been subjected to careful scientific

scrutiny. Over time, the quality and quantity of the services

provided may decline precipitously (Etheridge et al., 1995; Van

Wormer, 2010). The best way for a drug court to guard against

these prevailing destructive pressures is to monitor its operations

routinely, compare its performance to established benchmarks, and

seek to align itself continually with best practices

Studies reveal that drug courts are significantly more likely to

deliver effective services and produce positive outcomes when

they hold themselves accountable for meeting empirically

validated benchmarks for success. A multisite study involving

approximately seventy drug courts found that programs had more

than twice the impact on crime and were more than twice as cost-

effective when they monitored their operations on a consistent

basis, reviewed the findings as a team, and modified their policies

and procedures accordingly (Carey et al., 2008, 2012).

Understanding what distinguishes effective drug courts from

ineffective and harmful drug courts is now an essential goal for the

field. Unless evaluators describe each drug court’s adherence to

best practices, there is no way to place that program’s outcomes in

context or interpret the significance of the findings. (National

Association of Drug Court Professionals, 2018).

2. Enlist the services of independent evaluators and implement appropriate

recommended changes.

Programs that had external independent evaluators review their

program and suggest changes, and then implemented those

changes, were 100 percent more effective at reducing cost and 85

percent more effective in reducing recidivism than programs that

did not. (Carey, Mackin, & Finnegan, 2012)

3. Outcomes are examined for all eligible participants who entered the drug

treatment court regardless of whether they graduated, withdrew, or were

terminated from the program.

Outcomes must be examined for all eligible individuals who

participated in the drug court regardless of whether they graduated,

were terminated, or withdrew from the program. This is referred

to as an intent-to-treat analysis because it examines outcomes for

all individuals whom the program initially set out to treat.

Reporting outcomes for graduates alone is not appropriate because

such an analysis unfairly and falsely inflates the apparent success

of the program. For example, individuals who graduated from the

drug court are more likely than terminated participants to have

entered the program with less severe drug or alcohol problems, less

severe criminal propensities, higher motivation for change, or

better social supports. As a result, they might have been less likely

to commit future offenses or relapse to substance use regardless of

the services they received in drug court.

B. Promising Practices

1. Evaluate short-term outcomes frequently while participants are enrolled in the

program.

The National Research Advisory Committee developed a list of

performance measures that drug courts should use to measure their

efficiency, efficacy, and achievement of program goals. (National

Association of Drug Court Professionals, 2018)

Short-term outcomes provide significant information about

participants’ clinical progress and the likely long-term impacts of

the drug court on public health and public safety. Studies have

consistently determined that post program recidivism is reduced

significantly when participants attend more frequent treatment and

probation sessions, provide fewer drug-positive urine tests, remain

in the program for longer periods of time, have fewer in-program

technical violations and arrests for new crimes, and satisfy other

conditions for graduation (Gifford et al., 2014; Gottfredson et al.,

2007, 2008; Huebner & Cobbina, 2007; Jones & Kemp, 2011;

Peters et al., 2002). Drug courts should, therefore, monitor and

report on these in-program outcomes routinely during the course of

their operations. Several resources are available to help drug courts

define and calculate

2. Independent evaluators should examine the program’s three- to five-year

performance outcomes at least once every five years.

External evaluators should examine recidivism three years to five

years after participants’ program admission. Program admission

should be the latest start date for the evaluation because that is

when the drug court becomes capable of influencing participant

behavior. (National Association of Drug Court Professionals,

2018)

While no specific research exists with regard to how frequently a

program should be evaluated, a new evaluation is warranted when

a program significantly changes its operations or has staff

turnover.(National Association of Drug Court Professionals, 2018)

III. Works Cited

Carey, S., Mackin, J., & Finnegan, M. (2012). What works? The Ten Key Components of Drug Court:

Research-Based Best Practices. Drug Court Review, 8(1), pp. 6-42. Retrieved from

https://www.ndci.org/wp-content/uploads/DCR_best-practices-in-drug-courts.pdf

National Association of Drug Court Professionals. (2018). Adult Drug Court Best Practices Standards

Volume II. Retrieved from https://www.nadcp.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Adult-Drug-

Court-Best-Practice-Standards-Volume-2-Text-Revision-December-2018-1.pdf

Chapter 11: Equity and Inclusion

I. Equity and Inclusion

A. Best Practices

1. Individuals who have historically experienced sustained discrimination or

reduced opportunities because of their race, ethnicity, gender, sexual

orientation, sexual identity, physical or mental disability, religion, or

socioeconomic status receive the same opportunities as other individuals to

participate and succeed in drug treatment court.

Drug treatment courts are first and foremost courts, and the

fundamental principles of due process and equal protection apply

to their operations (Meyer, 2011). Drug treatment courts have an

affirmative legal and ethical obligation to provide equal access to

their services and equivalent treatment for all individuals.

2. Eligibility criteria for the drug treatment court are nondiscriminatory in intent

and impact. If an eligibility requirement has the unintended effect of

differentially restricting access for members of groups that have historically

experienced discrimination, the requirement is adjusted to increase the

representation of such persons unless doing so would jeopardize public safety

or the effectiveness of the drug treatment court.

Some commentators have suggested that unduly restrictive

eligibility criteria might be partly responsible for the lower

representation of minority persons in drug courts (Belenko et al.,

2011; O’Hear, 2009). Although there is no empirical evidence to

confirm this hypothesis, drug courts must ensure that their

eligibility criteria do not unnecessarily exclude minorities or

members of groups that have historically experienced

discrimination. If an eligibility criterion has the unintended impact

of differentially restricting access to the drug court for such

persons, then extra assurances are required that the criterion is

necessary for the program to achieve effective outcomes or protect

public safety.

3. The drug treatment court regularly monitors whether member of groups that

have historically experienced discrimination complete the program at

equivalent rates to other participants. If completion rates are significantly

lower for members of a group that have historically experienced

discrimination, the drug treatment court team investigates the reasons for the

disparity, develops a remedial action plan, and evaluates the success of the

remedial actions.

Numerous studies have reported that a significantly smaller

percentage of African-American or Hispanic participants graduated

successfully from drug court as compared to non-Hispanic

Caucasians (Finigan, 2009; Marlowe, 2013). These findings are

not universal, however. A smaller but growing number of

evaluations has found no differences in outcomes or even superior

outcomes for racial minorities as compared to Caucasians (Brown,

2011; Cissner et al., 2013; Fulkerson, 2012; Saum et al., 2001;

Somers et al., 2012; Vito & Tewksbury, 1998). Nevertheless,

African-Americans appear less likely to succeed in a plurality of

drug courts as compared to their nonracial minority peers. These

findings require drug courts to determine whether racial or ethnic

minorities or members of other groups that have historically

experienced discrimination are experiencing poorer outcomes in

their programs as compared to other participants and to investigate

and remediate any disparities that are detected.

4. Members of groups that have historically experienced discrimination receive

the same levels of care and quality of treatment as other participants with

comparable clinical needs. The drug treatment court administers evidence-

based treatments that are effective for use with members of groups that have

historically experienced discrimination who are represented in the drug

treatment court population.

The NADCP minority resolution directs drug courts to remain

vigilant to potential differences in the quality or intensity of

services provided to minority participants and to institute

corrective measures where indicated. In one study, outcomes were

improved significantly for young African-American male

participants when an experienced African-American clinician

delivered a curriculum that addressed issues commonly

confronting these young men, such as negative racial stereotypes

(Vito & Tewksbury, 1998). Similarly, a study of approximately 70

drug courts found that programs offering gender-specific services

reduced criminal recidivism significantly more than those that did

not (Carey et al., 2012). Studies indicate the success of culturally

tailored treatments depends largely on the training and skills of the

clinicians delivering the services (Castro et al., 2010; Hwang,

2006). Unless the clinicians attend comprehensive training

workshops and receive ongoing supervision on how to competently

deliver the interventions, outcomes are unlikely to improve for

women and minority participants.

5. Except where necessary to protect a participant from harm, members of

groups that have historically experienced discrimination receive the same

incentives and sanctions as other participants for comparable achievements or

infractions. The drug treatment court regularly monitors the delivery of

incentives and sanctions to ensure they are administered equivalently to all

participants.

The NADCP minority resolution places an affirmative obligation

on drug courts to continually monitor whether sanctions and

incentives are being applied equivalently for minority participants

and to take corrective actions if discrepancies are detected.

6. Members of groups that have historically experienced discrimination receive

the same legal dispositions as other participants for completing or failing to

complete the drug treatment court program.

Due process and equal protection require drug courts to remain

vigilant to the possibility of sentencing disparities in their

programs and to take corrective actions where indicated.

7. Each member of the drug treatment court team attends up-to-date training

events on recognizing implicit cultural biases and correcting disparate impacts

for members of groups that have historically experienced discrimination.

One of the most significant predictors of positive outcomes for

racial and ethnic minority participants in substance use disorder

treatment is culturally sensitive attitudes on the part of the

treatment staff, especially managers and supervisors (Ely &

Thomas, 2001; Guerrero, 2010). When managerial staff value

diversity and respect their clients’ cultural backgrounds, the clients

are retained significantly longer in treatment and services are

delivered more efficiently (Guerrero & Andrews, 2011). Cultural-

sensitivity training can enhance counselors’ and supervisors’

beliefs about the importance of diversity and the need to

understand their clients’ cultural backgrounds and influences

(Cabaj, 2008; Westermeyer, & Dickerson, 2008).

II. Works Cited

Belenko, S., Fabrikant, N., & Wolff, N. (2011). The long road to treatment: Models of screening and

admission into Drug Courts. Criminal Justice & Behavior, 38(1), 1222–1243.

Brown, R. (2011). Drug court effectiveness: A matched cohort study in the Dane County Drug Treatment

Court. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 50(4), 191–201.

Cabaj, R.P. (2008). Gay men and lesbians. In M. Galanter & H.D. Kleber (Eds), Textbook of Substance

Abuse Treatment (4th Ed.; pp. 623–638). Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Publishing.

Carey, S.M., Mackin, J.R., & Finigan, M.W. (2012). What works? The ten key components of Drug Court:

Research-based best practices. Drug Court Review, 8(1), 6–42.

Castro, F.G., Barrera, M., & Steiker, L.K.H. (2010). Issues and challenges in the design of culturally

adapted evidence-based interventions. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 6, 213–239.

Cissner, A., Rempel, M., Franklin, A.W., Roman, J.K., Bieler, S., Cohen, R., & Cadoret, C.R. (2013, March).

A statewide evaluation of New York’s adult drug courts: Testing which policies work best. Paper

presented at the New York Association of Drug Treatment Court Professionals Training.

Available at http://www.nyadtcp.org/userfiles/file/presentation/The%202012

%20New%20York%20State%20Drug%20Court%20Evaluation.pdf.

Ely, R.J., & Thomas, D.A. (2001). The effects of diversity perspectives on work group processes and

outcomes. Administrative Science Quarterly 46(2), 229–273.

Finigan, M.W. (2009). Understanding racial disparities in drug courts. Drug Court Review, 6(2), 135–142.

Fulkerson, A. (2012). Drug treatment court versus probation: An examination of comparative recidivism

rates. Southwest Journal of Criminal Justice, 8(2), 30–45.

Guerrero E. (2010). Managerial capacity and adoption of culturally competent practices in outpatient

substance abuse treatment organizations. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 39(4), 329–

339.

Guerrero E., & Andrews C.M. (2011). Cultural competence in outpatient substance abuse treatment:

Measurement and relationship to wait time and retention. Drug & Alcohol Dependence 119(1),

13–22.

Hwang, W. (2006). The psychotherapy adaptation and modification framework: Application to Asian

Americans. American Psychologist, 61(7), 702–715.

Marlowe, D.B. (2013). Achieving racial and ethnic fairness in drug courts. Court Review, 49(1), 40–47.

Marsh, S. (2009, summer). The lens of implicit bias. Juvenile & Family Justice Today, 18, 16–19.

Meyer, W.G. (2011). Constitutional and legal issues in drug courts. In D.B. Marlowe & W.G. Meyer (Eds.),

The drug court judicial benchbook (pp. 159–180). Alexandria, VA: National Drug Court Institute.

Available at http://www.ndci.org/sites/default/files/nadcp/14146_NDCI_Benchbook_v6.pdf.

National Association of Drug Court Professionals. (2018). Adult Drug Court Best Practice Standards;

Volume I. Alexandria, Virginia: National Association of Drug Court Professionals

O’Hear, M.M. (2009). Rethinking drug courts: Restorative justice as a response to racial injustice.

Stanford Law & Policy Review, 20(2), 101–137.

Saum, C.A., Scarpitti, F.R., & Robbins, C.A. (2001). Violent offenders in drug court. Journal of Drug Issues,

31(1), 107–128.

Somers, J.M., Rezansoff, S.N., & Moniruzzaman, A. (2012). Mediators of drug treatment court outcomes

in Vancouver Canada. British Columbia, Canada: Simon Fraser University.

Vito, G., & Tewksbury, R. (1998). The impact of treatment: The Jefferson County (Kentucky) Drug Court

program. Federal Probation, 62(2), 46–51.

Westermeyer, J., & Dickerson, D. (2008). Minorities. In M. Galanter & H.D. Kleber (Eds.), Textbook of

Substance Abuse Treatment (4th Ed.; pp. 639–651). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric

Publishing.

Appendix A

Michigan Drug Court Statute

600.1060 Definitions.

As used in this chapter:

(a) "Dating relationship" means that term as defined in section 2950.

(b) "Domestic violence offense" means any crime alleged to have been committed by an

individual against his or her spouse or former spouse, an individual with whom he or she has a

child in common, an individual with whom he or she has had a dating relationship, or an

individual who resides or has resided in the same household.

abuse or are dependent upon any controlled substance or alcohol. A drug treatment court shall

comply with the 10 key components promulgated by the national association of drug court

professionals, which include all of the following essential characteristics:

(i) Integration of alcohol and other drug treatment services with justice system case

processing.

(ii) Use of a nonadversarial approach by prosecution and defense that promotes public

safety while protecting any participant's due process rights.

(iii) Identification of eligible participants early with prompt placement in the program.

(iv) Access to a continuum of alcohol, drug, and other related treatment and rehabilitation

services.

(v) Monitoring of participants effectively by frequent alcohol and other drug testing to

ensure abstinence from drugs or alcohol.

(vi) Use of a coordinated strategy with a regimen of graduated sanctions and rewards to

govern the court's responses to participants' compliance.

(vii) Ongoing close judicial interaction with each participant and supervision of progress

for each participant.

(viii) Monitoring and evaluation of the achievement of program goals and the program's

effectiveness.

(ix) Continued interdisciplinary education in order to promote effective drug court

planning, implementation, and operation.

(x) The forging of partnerships among other drug courts, public agencies, and

community-based organizations to generate local support.

(d) "Participant" means an individual who is admitted into a drug treatment court.

(e) "Prosecutor" means the prosecuting attorney of the county, the city attorney, the village

attorney, or the township attorney.

(f) "Traffic offense" means a violation of the Michigan vehicle code, 1949 PA 300, MCL 257.1 to

257.923, or a violation of a local ordinance substantially corresponding to a violation of that act,

that involves the operation of a vehicle and, at the time of the violation, is a felony or misdemeanor.

(g) "Violent offender" means an individual who is currently charged with or has pled guilty to,

or, if the individual is a juvenile, is currently alleged to have committed or has admitted

responsibility for, an offense involving the death of or serious bodily injury to any individual,

whether or not any of the circumstances are an element of the offense, or an offense that is

criminal sexual conduct of any degree.

600.1062 Drug treatment court; adoption by circuit or district court; memorandum of

understanding; parties; adoption of juvenile drug treatment court by family division of

circuit court; training; transfer of participant from other jurisdiction; certification by state

court administrative office.

(1) The circuit court in any judicial circuit or the district court in any judicial district may adopt

or institute a drug treatment court, pursuant to statute or court rules. However, if the drug

treatment court will include in its program individuals who may be eligible for discharge and

dismissal of an offense, delayed sentence, or deviation from the sentencing guidelines, the circuit

or district court shall not adopt or institute the drug treatment court unless the circuit or district

court enters into a memorandum of understanding with each participating prosecuting attorney in

the circuit or district court district, a representative of the criminal defense bar, and a

representative or representatives of community treatment providers. The memorandum of

understanding also may include other parties considered necessary, such as any other prosecutor

in the circuit or district court district, local law enforcement, the probation departments in that

circuit or district, the local substance abuse coordinating agency for that circuit or district, a

domestic violence service provider program that receives funding from the state domestic

violence prevention and treatment board, and community corrections agencies in that circuit or

district. The memorandum of understanding shall describe the role of each party.

(2) The family division of circuit court in any judicial circuit may adopt or institute a juvenile

drug treatment court, pursuant to statute or court rules. However, if the drug treatment court will

include in its program individuals who may be eligible for discharge or dismissal of an offense,

or a delayed sentence, the family division of circuit court shall not adopt or institute a juvenile

drug treatment court unless the family division of circuit court enters into a memorandum of

understanding with each participating county prosecuting attorney in the circuit or district court

district, a representative of the criminal defense bar specializing in juvenile law, and a

representative or representatives of community treatment providers. The memorandum of

understanding also may include other parties considered necessary, such as any other prosecutor

in the circuit or district court district, local law enforcement, the probation departments in that

circuit, the local substance abuse coordinating agency for that circuit, a domestic violence

service provider program that receives funding from the state domestic violence prevention and

treatment board, and community corrections agencies in that circuit. The memorandum of

understanding shall describe the role of each party. A juvenile drug treatment court is subject to

the same procedures and requirements provided in this chapter for drug treatment courts created

under subsection (1), except as specifically provided otherwise in this chapter.

(3) A court that is adopting a drug treatment court shall participate in training as required by the

state court administrative office and the Bureau of Justice Assistance of the United States

Department of Justice.

(4) A court that has adopted a drug treatment court pursuant to this section may accept

participants from any other jurisdiction in this state based upon either the residence of the

participant in the receiving jurisdiction or the unavailability of a drug treatment court in the

jurisdiction where the participant is charged. The transfer is not valid unless it is agreed to by all

of the following:

(a) The defendant or respondent.

(b) The attorney representing the defendant or respondent.

(d) The judge of the receiving drug treatment court and the prosecutor of a court funding

unit of the drug treatment court.

(5) Beginning January 1, 2018, a drug treatment court operating in this state, or a circuit court in

any judicial circuit or the district court in any judicial district seeking to adopt or institute a drug

treatment court, must be certified by the state court administrative office. The state court

administrative office shall establish the procedure for certification. Approval and certification

under this subsection of a drug treatment court by the state court administrative office is required

to begin or to continue the operation of a drug treatment court under this chapter. The state court

administrative office shall not recognize and include a drug treatment court that is not certified

under this subsection on the statewide official list of drug treatment courts. The state court

administrative office shall include a drug treatment court certified under this subsection on the

statewide official list of drug treatment courts. A drug treatment court that is not certified under

this subsection shall not perform any of the functions of a drug treatment court, including, but

not limited to, doing any of the following:

(a) Charging a fee under section 1070.

(b) Discharging and dismissing a case as provided in section 1076.

(d) Certifying to the secretary of state that an individual is eligible to receive a restricted

license under section 1084 of this act and section 304 of the Michigan vehicle code, 1949

PA 300, MCL 257.304.

600.1063 Hiring or contracting with treatment providers.

A drug treatment court may hire or contract with licensed or accredited treatment providers, in

consultation and cooperation with the local substance abuse coordinating agency, and other such

appropriate persons to assist the drug treatment court in fulfilling its requirements under this

chapter, such as the investigation of an individual's background or circumstances, or the clinical

evaluation of an individual, for his or her admission into or participation in a drug treatment

court.

600.1064 Admission to drug treatment court; confidentiality of information obtained from

preadmission screening and evaluation assessment; criminal history contained in L.E.I.N.

(1) Each drug treatment court shall determine whether an individual may be admitted to the drug

treatment court. No individual has a right to be admitted into a drug treatment court. However,

an individual is not eligible for admission into a drug treatment court if he or she is a violent

offender.

(2) In addition to admission to a drug treatment court under this act, an individual who is eligible

for admission pursuant to this act may also be admitted to a drug treatment court under any of the

following circumstances:

(a) The individual has been assigned the status of youthful trainee under section 11 of

chapter II of the code of criminal procedure, 1927 PA 175, MCL 762.11.

(b) The individual has had criminal proceedings against him or her deferred and has been

placed on probation under any of the following:

(i) Section 7411 of the public health code, 1978 PA 368, MCL 333.7411.

(ii) Section 4a of chapter IX of the code of criminal procedure, 1927 PA 175,

MCL 769.4a.

(iii) Section 430 of the Michigan penal code, 1931 PA 328, MCL 750.430.

(iv) Section 350a of the Michigan penal code, 1931 PA 328, MCL 750.350a.

(3) To be admitted to a drug treatment court, an individual must cooperate with and complete a

preadmissions screening and evaluation assessment and must agree to cooperate with any future

evaluation assessment as directed by the drug treatment court. A preadmission screening and

evaluation assessment shall include all of the following:

(a) A complete review of the individual's criminal history, and a review of whether or not

the individual has been admitted to and has participated in or is currently participating in

a drug treatment court, whether admitted under this act or under section 11 of chapter II

of the code of criminal procedure, 1927 PA 175, MCL 762.11, section 7411 of the public

health code, 1978 PA 368, MCL 333.7411, section 4a of chapter IX of the code of

criminal procedure, 1927 PA 175, MCL 769.4a, section 1 of chapter XI of the code of

criminal procedure, 1927 PA 175, MCL 771.1, section 350a of the Michigan penal code,

1931 PA 328, MCL 750.350a, or section 430 of the Michigan penal code, 1931 PA 328,

MCL 750.430, and the results of the individual's participation. A review of the law

enforcement information network may be considered sufficient for purposes of this

subdivision unless a further review is warranted. The court may accept other verifiable

and reliable information from the prosecution or defense to complete its review and may

require the individual to submit a statement as to whether or not he or she has previously

been admitted to a drug treatment court and the results of his or her participation in the

prior program or programs.

(b) An assessment of the risk of danger or harm to the individual, others, or the

community.

use or abuse of any controlled substance or alcohol and an assessment of whether the

individual abuses controlled substances or alcohol or is drug or alcohol dependent. It is

the intent of the legislature that this assessment should be a clinical assessment as much

as practicable.

(d) A review of any special needs or circumstances of the individual that may potentially

affect the individual's ability to receive substance abuse treatment and follow the court's

orders.

(e) For a juvenile, an assessment of the family situation including, as much as practicable,

a comparable review of any guardians or parents.

(4) Except as otherwise permitted in this act, any statement or other information obtained as a

result of participating in a preadmission screening and evaluation assessment under subsection

(3) is confidential and is exempt from disclosure under the freedom of information act, 1976 PA

442, MCL 15.231 to 15.246, and shall not be used in a criminal prosecution, unless it reveals

criminal acts other than, or inconsistent with, personal drug use.

(5) The court may request that the department of state police provide to the court information

contained in the law enforcement information network pertaining to an individual applicant's

criminal history for the purposes of determining an individual's admission into the drug treatment

court and general criminal history review, including whether the individual has previously been

admitted to and participated in a drug treatment court under this act, or under section 11 of

chapter II of the code of criminal procedure, 1927 PA 175, MCL 762.11, section 7411 of the

public health code, 1978 PA 368, MCL 333.7411, section 4a of chapter IX of the code of

criminal procedure, 1927 PA 175, MCL 769.4a, section 1 of chapter XI of the code of criminal

procedure, 1927 PA 175, MCL 771.1, section 350a of the Michigan penal code, 1931 PA 328,

MCL 750.350a, or section 430 of the Michigan penal code, 1931 PA 328, MCL 750.430, and the

results of the individual's participation. The department of state police shall provide the

information requested by a drug treatment court under this subsection.

600.1066 Placement of findings or statement in court file.

Before an individual is admitted into a drug treatment court, the court shall find on the record, or

place a statement in the court file pertaining to, all of the following:

(a) The individual is dependent upon or abusing drugs or alcohol and is an appropriate

candidate for participation in the drug treatment court.

(b) The individual understands the consequences of entering the drug treatment court and

agrees to comply with all court orders and requirements of the court's program and

treatment providers.

any individual, based upon the screening and assessment or other information presented

to the court.

(d) The individual is not a violent offender.

(e) The individual has completed a preadmission screening and evaluation assessment

under section 1064(3) and has agreed to cooperate with any future evaluation assessment

as directed by the drug treatment court.

(f) The individual meets the requirements, if applicable, under section 7411 of the public

health code, 1978 PA 368, MCL 333.7411, section 11 of chapter II of the code of

criminal procedure, 1927 PA 175, MCL 762.11, section 4a of chapter IX of the code of

criminal procedure, 1927 PA 175, MCL 769.4a, section 1 of chapter XI of the code of

criminal procedure, 1927 PA 175, MCL 771.1, section 350a of the Michigan penal code,

1931 PA 328, MCL 750.350a, or section 430 of the Michigan penal code, 1931 PA 328,

MCL 750.430.

(g) The terms, conditions, and the duration of the agreement between the parties,

especially as to the outcome for the participant of the drug treatment court upon

successful completion by the participant or termination of participation.

600.1068 Individual charged in criminal case; factors for admission to drug treatment

court.

(1) If the individual being considered for admission to a drug treatment court is charged in a

criminal case or, in the case of a juvenile, is alleged to have engaged in activity that would

constitute a criminal act if committed by an adult, his or her admission is subject to all of the

following conditions:

(a) The offense or offenses allegedly committed by the individual must be related to the

abuse, illegal use, or possession of a controlled substance or alcohol.

(b) The individual, if an adult, must plead guilty to the charge or charges on the record.

The individual, if a juvenile, must admit responsibility for the violation or violations that

he or she is accused of having committed.

representation at drug treatment court review hearings by an attorney, and, with the

agreement of the prosecutor, the right to a preliminary examination.

(d) The individual must sign a written agreement to participate in the drug treatment

court.

(2) In the case of an individual who will be eligible for discharge and dismissal of an offense,

delayed sentence, or deviation from the sentencing guidelines, the prosecutor must approve of

the admission of the individual into the drug treatment court in conformity with the

memorandum of understanding under section 1062.

(3) An individual shall not be admitted to, or remain in, a drug treatment court pursuant to an

agreement that would permit a discharge or dismissal of a traffic offense upon successful

completion of the drug treatment court program.

(4) In addition to rights accorded a victim under the William Van Regenmorter crime victim's

rights act, 1985 PA 87, MCL 780.751 to 780.834, the drug treatment court must permit any

victim of the offense or offenses of which the individual is charged, any victim of a prior offense

of which that individual was convicted, and members of the community in which either the

offenses were committed or in which the defendant resides to submit a written statement to the

court regarding the advisability of admitting the individual into the drug treatment court.

(5) An individual who has waived his or her right to a preliminary examination and has pled

guilty or, in the case of a juvenile, has admitted responsibility, as part of his or her application to

a drug treatment court and who is not admitted to a drug treatment court, shall be permitted to

withdraw his or her plea and is entitled to a preliminary examination or, in the case of a juvenile,

shall be permitted to withdraw his or her admission of responsibility.

600.1070 Admission of individual into drug treatment court; requirements.

(1) Upon admitting an individual into a drug treatment court, all of the following apply:

(a) For an individual who is admitted to a drug treatment court based upon having

criminal charges currently filed against him or her, the court shall accept the plea of

guilty or, in the case of a juvenile, the admission of responsibility.

(b) For an individual who pled guilty to, or admitted responsibility for, criminal charges

for which he or she was admitted into the drug treatment court, the court shall do either of

the following:

(i) In the case of an individual who pled guilty to an offense that is not a traffic

offense and who may be eligible for discharge and dismissal pursuant to the

agreement with the court and prosecutor upon successful completion of the drug

treatment court program, the court shall not enter a judgment of guilt or, in the

case of a juvenile, shall not enter an adjudication of responsibility.

(ii) In the case of an individual who pled guilty to a traffic offense or who pled

guilty to an offense but may not be eligible for discharge and dismissal pursuant

to the agreement with the court and prosecutor upon successful completion of the

drug treatment court program, the court shall enter a judgment of guilt or, in the

case of a juvenile, shall enter an adjudication of responsibility.

defer further proceedings as provided in section 1 of chapter XI of the code of criminal

procedure, 1927 PA 175, MCL 771.1, or proceed to sentencing, as applicable in that case

pursuant to that agreement, and place the individual on probation or other court

supervision in the drug treatment court program with terms and conditions according to

the agreement and as deemed necessary by the court.

(2) Unless a memorandum of understanding made pursuant to section 1088 between a receiving

drug treatment court and the court of original jurisdiction provides otherwise, the original court

of jurisdiction maintains jurisdiction over the drug treatment court participant as provided in this

act until final disposition of the case, but not longer than the probation period fixed under section

2 of chapter XI of the code of criminal procedure, 1927 PA 175, MCL 771.2. In the case of a

juvenile participant, the court may obtain jurisdiction over any parents or guardians of the

juvenile in order to assist in ensuring the juvenile's continued participation and successful

completion of the drug treatment court, and may issue and enforce any appropriate and necessary

order regarding the parent or guardian of a juvenile participant.

(3) The drug treatment court shall cooperate with, and act in a collaborative manner with, the

prosecutor, defense counsel, treatment providers, the local substance abuse coordinating agency

for that circuit or district, probation departments, and, to the extent possible, local law

enforcement, the department of corrections, and community corrections agencies.

(4) The drug treatment court may require an individual admitted into the court to pay a

reasonable drug court fee that is reasonably related to the cost to the court for administering the

drug treatment court program as provided in the memorandum of understanding under section

1062. The clerk of the drug treatment court shall transmit the fees collected to the treasurer of

the local funding unit at the end of each month.

(5) The drug treatment court may request that the department of state police provide to the court

information contained in the law enforcement information network pertaining to an individual

applicant's criminal history for purposes of determining the individual's compliance with all

court orders. The department of state police shall provide the information requested by a drug

treatment court under this subsection.

600.1072 Monitoring, testing, and assessments to be provided to participants.

(1) A drug treatment court shall provide a drug court participant with all of the following:

(a) Consistent, continual, and close monitoring of the participant and interaction among

the court, treatment providers, probation, and the participant.

(b) Mandatory periodic and random testing for the presence of any controlled substance

or alcohol in a participant's blood, urine, or breath, using to the extent practicable the best

available, accepted, and scientifically valid methods.

program.

(d) A regimen or strategy of appropriate and graduated but immediate rewards for

compliance and sanctions for noncompliance, including, but not limited to, the possibility

of incarceration or confinement.

(e) Substance abuse treatment services, relapse prevention services, education, and

vocational opportunities as appropriate and practicable.

(2) Any statement or other information obtained as a result of participating in assessment,

treatment, or testing while in a drug treatment court is confidential and is exempt from disclosure

under the freedom of information act, 1976 PA 442, MCL 15.231 to 15.246, and shall not be

used in a criminal prosecution, unless it reveals criminal acts other than, or inconsistent with,

personal drug use.

600.1074 Continuing and completing drug treatment court program; requirements.

(1) In order to continue to participate in and successfully complete a drug treatment court

program, an individual shall comply with all of the following:

(a) Pay all court ordered fines and costs, including minimum state costs.

(b) Pay the drug treatment court fee allowed under section 1070(4).

(d) Pay all crime victims rights assessments under section 5 of 1989 PA 196, MCL

780.905.

(e) Comply with all court orders, violations of which may be sanctioned according to the

court's discretion.

(2) The drug treatment court must be notified if the participant is accused of a new crime, and the

judge shall consider whether to terminate the participant's participation in the drug treatment

program in conformity with the memorandum of understanding under section 1062. If the

participant is convicted of a felony for an offense that occurred after the defendant is admitted to

drug treatment court, the judge shall terminate the participant's participation in the program.

(3) The court shall require that a participant pay all fines, costs, the fee, restitution, and

assessments described in subsection (1)(a) to (d) and pay all, or make substantial contributions

toward payment of, the costs of the treatment and the drug treatment court program services

provided to the participant, including, but not limited to, the costs of urinalysis and such testing

or any counseling provided. However, if the court determines that the payment of fines, the fee,

or costs of treatment under this subsection would be a substantial hardship for the individual or

would interfere with the individual's substance abuse treatment, the court may waive all or part

of those fines, the fee, or costs of treatment.

600.1076 Completion or termination of drug treatment program; findings on the record or

written statement in court file; applicable law; discharge and dismissal of proceedings;

criteria; discharge and dismissal of domestic violence offense; circumstances; duties of

court; effect of termination; court proceedings open to public; retention of nonpublic

record by department of state police.

(1) Upon completion or termination of the drug treatment court program, the court shall find on

the record or place a written statement in the court file as to whether the participant completed

the program successfully or whether the individual's participation in the program was terminated

and, if it was terminated, the reason for the termination.

(2) For a participant who successfully completes probation or other court supervision and whose

proceedings were deferred or who was sentenced under section 1070, the court shall comply with

the agreement made with the participant upon admission into the drug treatment court, or the

agreement as it was altered after admission by the court with approval of the participant and the

prosecutor for that jurisdiction as provided in subsections (3) to (8).

(3) If an individual is participating in a drug treatment court under section 11 of chapter II of the

code of criminal procedure, 1927 PA 175, MCL 762.11, section 7411 of the public health code,

1978 PA 368, MCL 333.7411, section 4a of chapter IX of the code of criminal procedure, 1927

PA 175, MCL 769.4a, or section 350a or 430 of the Michigan penal code, 1931 PA 328, MCL

750.350a and 750.430, the court shall proceed under the applicable section of law. There may

only be 1 discharge or dismissal under this subsection.

(4) Except as provided in subsection (5), the court, with the agreement of the prosecutor and in

conformity with the terms and conditions of the memorandum of understanding under section

1062, may discharge and dismiss the proceedings against an individual who meets all of the

following criteria:

(a) The individual has participated in a drug treatment court for the first time.

(b) The individual has successfully completed the terms and conditions of the drug

treatment court program.

crimes to which he or she has pled guilty.

(d) The individual is not currently charged with and has not pled guilty to a traffic

offense.

(e) The individual has not previously been subject to more than 1 of any of the following:

(i) Assignment to the status of youthful trainee under section 11 of chapter II of

the code of criminal procedure, 1927 PA 175, MCL 762.11.

(ii) The dismissal of criminal proceedings against him or her under section 7411

of the public health code, 1978 PA 368, MCL 333.7411, section 4a of chapter IX

of the code of criminal procedure, 1927 PA 175, MCL 769.4a, or section 350a or

430 of the Michigan penal code, 1931 PA 328, MCL 750.350a and 750.430.

(5) The court may grant a discharge and dismissal of a domestic violence offense only if all of

the following circumstances apply:

(a) The individual has not previously had proceedings dismissed under section 4a of

chapter IX of the code of criminal procedure, 1927 PA 175, MCL 769.4a.

(b) The domestic violence offense is eligible to be dismissed under section 4a of chapter

IX of the code of criminal procedure, 1927 PA 175, MCL 769.4a.

IX of the code of criminal procedure, 1927 PA 175, MCL 769.4a, and the discharge and

dismissal of proceedings are processed and reported under section 4a of chapter IX of the

code of criminal procedure, 1927 PA 175, MCL 769.4a.

(6) A discharge and dismissal under subsection (4) shall be without adjudication of guilt or, for a

juvenile, without adjudication of responsibility and are not a conviction or a finding of

responsibility for purposes of this section or for purposes of disqualifications or disabilities

imposed by law upon conviction of a crime or, for a juvenile, a finding of responsibility. There

may only be 1 discharge and dismissal under subsection (4) for an individual. The court shall

send a record of the discharge and dismissal to the criminal justice information center of the

department of state police, and the department of state police shall enter that information into the

law enforcement information network with an indication of participation by the individual in a

drug treatment court. All records of the proceedings regarding the participation of the individual

in the drug treatment court under subsection (4) are closed to public inspection, and are exempt

from public disclosure under the freedom of information act, 1976 PA 442, MCL 15.231 to

15.246.

(7) Except as provided in subsection (3), (4), or (5), if an individual has successfully completed

probation or other court supervision, the court shall do the following:

(a) If the court has not already entered an adjudication of guilt or responsibility, enter an

adjudication of guilt or, in the case of a juvenile, enter a finding or adjudication of

responsibility.

(b) If the court has not already sentenced the individual, proceed to sentencing or, in the

case of a juvenile, disposition pursuant to the agreement.

responsibility and disposition to the criminal justice information center of the department

of state police. The department of state police shall enter that information into the law

enforcement information network with an indication of successful participation by the

individual in a drug treatment court.

(8) For a participant whose participation is terminated or who fails to successfully complete the

drug treatment court program, the court shall enter an adjudication of guilt, or, in the case of a

juvenile, a finding of responsibility, if the entering of guilt or adjudication of responsibility was

deferred under section 1070, and shall then proceed to sentencing or disposition of the individual

for the original charges to which the individual pled guilty or, if a juvenile, to which the juvenile

admitted responsibility prior to admission to the drug treatment court. Upon sentencing or

disposition of the individual, the court shall send a record of that sentence or disposition and the

individual's unsuccessful participation in the drug treatment court to the criminal justice

information center of the department of state police, and the department of state police shall enter

that information into the law enforcement information network, with an indication that the

individual unsuccessfully participated in a drug treatment court.

(9) All court proceedings under this section shall be open to the public. Except as provided in

subsection (10), if the record of proceedings as to the defendant is deferred under this section, the

record of proceedings during the period of deferral shall be closed to public inspection.

(10) Unless the court enters a judgment of guilt or an adjudication of responsibility under this

section, the department of state police shall retain a nonpublic record of the arrest, court

proceedings, and disposition of the criminal charge under this section. However, the nonpublic

record shall be open to the following individuals and entities for the purposes noted:

(a) The courts of this state, law enforcement personnel, the department of corrections, and

prosecuting attorneys for use only in the performance of their duties or to determine

whether an employee of the court, law enforcement agency, department of corrections, or

prosecutor's office has violated his or her conditions of employment or whether an

applicant meets criteria for employment with the court, law enforcement agency,

department of corrections, or prosecutor's office.

(b) The courts of this state, law enforcement personnel, and prosecuting attorneys for the

purpose of showing that a defendant has already once availed himself or herself of this

section.

adult protection laws or ascertaining the preemployment criminal history of any

individual who will be engaged in the enforcement of child protection laws or vulnerable

adult protection laws.

600.1078 Collection and maintenance of information.

(1) Each drug treatment court shall collect and provide data on each individual applicant and

participant and the entire program as required by the state court administrative office.

(2) Each drug treatment court shall maintain files or databases on each individual applicant or

referral who is denied or refused admission to the program, including the reasons for the denial

or rejection, the criminal history of the applicant, the preadmission evaluation and assessment,

and other demographic information as required by the state court administrative office.

(3) Each drug treatment court shall maintain files or databases on each individual participant in

the program for review and evaluation as well as treatment, as directed by the state court

administrative office. The information collected for evaluation purposes must include a

minimum standard data set developed and specified by the state court administrative office. This

information should be maintained in the court files or otherwise accessible by the courts and the

state court administrative office and, as much as practicable, should include all of the following:

(a) Location and contact information for each individual participant, both upon admission

and termination or completion of the program for follow-up reviews, and third party

contact information.

(b) Significant transition point dates, including dates of referral, enrollment, new court

orders, violations, detentions, changes in services or treatments provided, discharge for

completion or termination, any provision of after-care, and after-program recidivism.

referral, and all drug treatment court evaluations and assessments.

(d) Treatments provided, including intensity of care or dosage, and their outcomes.

(e) Other services or opportunities provided to the individual and resulting use by the

individual, such as education or employment and the participation of and outcome for

that individual.

(f) Reasons for discharge, completion, or termination of the program.

(4) As directed by the state court administrative office, after an individual is discharged either

upon completion or termination of the program, the drug treatment court should conduct, as

much as practicable, follow-up contacts with and reviews of participants for key outcome

indicators, such as drug use, recidivism, and employment, as frequently and for a period of time

determined by the state court administrative office based upon the nature of the drug treatment

court and the nature of the participant. These follow-up contacts and reviews of former

participants are not extensions of the court's jurisdiction over the individuals.

(5) Each drug treatment court shall provide to the state court administrative office all information

requested by the state court administrative office.

(6) With the approval and at the discretion of the supreme court, the state court administrative

office shall be responsible for evaluating and collecting data on the performance of drug

treatment courts in this state as follows:

(a) The state court administrative office shall provide an annual review of the

performance of drug treatment courts in this state to the minority and majority party

leaders in the senate and house of representatives, the state drug treatment court advisory

board created under section 1082, the governor, and the supreme court.

(b) The state court administrative office shall provide standards for drug treatment courts

in this state including, but not limited to, developing a list of approved measurement

instruments and indicators for data collection and evaluation. These standards must

provide comparability between programs and their outcomes.

scientifically valid research designs, which, as soon as practicable, should include the use

of comparison and control groups.

(7) The information collected under this section regarding individual applicants to drug treatment

court programs for the purpose of application to that program and participants who have

successfully completed drug treatment courts shall be exempt from disclosure under the freedom

of information act, 1976 PA 442, MCL 15.231 to 15.246.

600.1080 Disposition of funds.

(1) The supreme court is responsible for the expenditure of state funds for the establishment and

operation of drug treatment courts. Federal funds provided to the state for the operation of drug

treatment courts shall be distributed by the department of community health or the appropriate

state agency as otherwise provided by law.

(2) The state treasurer may receive money or other assets from any source for deposit into the

appropriate state fund or funds for the purposes described in subsection (1).

(3) Each drug treatment court shall report quarterly to the state court administrative office on the

funds received and expended by that drug treatment court, in a manner prescribed by the state

court administrative office.

600.1082 Drug treatment court advisory committee.

(1) A state drug treatment court advisory committee is created in the legislative council. The

state drug treatment court advisory committee consists of the following members:

(a) The state court administrator or his or her designee.

(b) Seventeen members appointed jointly by the speaker of the house of representatives

and the senate majority leader, as follows:

(i) A circuit court judge who has presided for at least 2 years over a drug

treatment court.

(ii) A district court judge who has presided for at least 2 years over a drug

treatment court.

(iii) A judge of the family division of circuit court who has presided for at least 2

years over a juvenile drug treatment court program.

(iv) A circuit or district court judge who has presided for at least 2 years over an

alcohol treatment court.

(v) A circuit or district court judge who has presided over a veterans treatment

court.

(vi) A court administrator who has worked for at least 2 years with a drug or

alcohol treatment court.

(vii) A prosecuting attorney who has worked for at least 2 years with a drug or

alcohol treatment court.

(viii) An individual representing law enforcement in a jurisdiction that has had a

drug or alcohol treatment court for at least 2 years.

(ix) An individual representing drug treatment providers who has worked at least

2 years with a drug or alcohol treatment court.

(x) An individual representing criminal defense attorneys, who has worked for at

least 2 years with drug or alcohol treatment courts.

(xi) An individual who has successfully completed a drug treatment court

program.

(xii) An individual who has successfully completed a juvenile drug treatment

court program.

(xiii) An individual who is an advocate for the rights of crime victims.

(xiv) An individual representing the Michigan association of drug court

professionals.

(xv) An individual who is a probation officer and has worked for at least 2 years

for a drug or alcohol treatment court.

(xvi) An individual representing a substance abuse coordinating agency.

(xvii) An individual representing domestic violence service provider programs

that receive funding from the state domestic violence prevention and treatment

board.

(2) Members of the advisory committee shall serve without compensation. However, members

of the advisory committee may be reimbursed for their actual and necessary expenses incurred in

the performance of their duties as members of the advisory committee.

(3) Members of the advisory committee shall serve for terms of 4 years each, except that the

members first appointed shall serve terms as follows:

(a) The members appointed under subsection (1)(b)(i) to (vi) shall serve terms of 4 years

each.

(b) The members appointed under subsection (1)(b)(vii) to (xi) shall serve terms of 3

years each.

(4) If a vacancy occurs in an appointed membership on the advisory committee, the appointing

authority shall make an appointment for the unexpired term in the same manner as the original

appointment.

(5) The appointing authority may remove an appointed member of the advisory committee for

incompetency, dereliction of duty, malfeasance, misfeasance, or nonfeasance in office, or any

other good cause.

(6) The first meeting of the advisory committee shall be called by the speaker of the house of

representatives and the senate majority leader. At the first meeting, the advisory committee shall

elect from among its members a chairperson and other officers as it considers necessary or

appropriate. After the first meeting, the advisory committee shall meet at least quarterly, or more

frequently at the call of the chairperson or if requested by 9 or more members.

(7) A majority of the members of the advisory committee constitute a quorum for the transaction

of business at a meeting of the advisory committee. A majority of the members present and

serving are required for official action of the advisory committee.

(8) The business that the advisory committee may perform shall be conducted at a public

meeting of the advisory committee held in compliance with the open meetings act, 1976 PA 267,

MCL 15.261 to 15.275.

(9) A writing prepared, owned, used, in the possession of, or retained by the advisory committee

in the performance of an official function is subject to the freedom of information act, 1976 PA

442, MCL 15.231 to 15.246.

(10) The advisory committee shall monitor the effectiveness of drug treatment courts and

veterans treatment courts and the availability of funding for those courts and shall present annual

recommendations to the legislature and supreme court regarding proposed statutory changes

regarding those courts.

600.1084 DWI/sobriety court interlock program; certification of DWI/sobriety court by

state court administrative office; consideration for placement; documentation of

compliance with conditions; restricted license; informing secretary of state of certain

occurrences; summary revocation or suspension of restricted license; definitions.

(1) The DWI/sobriety court interlock program is created under this section.

(2) All DWI/sobriety courts that participate in the program shall comply with the 10 guiding

principles of DWI courts as promulgated by the National Center for DWI Courts.

(3) Beginning January 1, 2018, a DWI/sobriety court operating in this state, or a circuit court in

any judicial circuit or the district court in any judicial district seeking to adopt or institute a

DWI/sobriety court, must be certified by the state court administrative office in the same manner

as required for a drug treatment court under section 1062(5). A DWI/sobriety court shall not

perform any of the functions of a DWI/sobriety court, including, but not limited to, the functions

of a drug treatment court described in section 1062(5) after January 1, 2018 unless the court has

been certified by the state court administrative office as provided in section 1062(5).

(4) In order to be considered for placement in the program, an individual must have been

convicted of either of the following:

(a) Two or more convictions for violating section 625(1) or (3) of the Michigan vehicle

code, 1949 PA 300, MCL 257.625, or a local ordinance of this state substantially

corresponding to section 625(1) or (3) of the Michigan vehicle code, 1949 PA 300, MCL

257.625.

(b) One conviction for violating section 625(1) or (3) of the Michigan vehicle code, 1949

PA 300, MCL 257.625, or a local ordinance of this state substantially corresponding to

section 625(1) or (3) of the Michigan vehicle code, 1949 PA 300, MCL 257.625,

preceded by 1 or more convictions for violating a local ordinance or law of another state

substantially corresponding to section 625(1), (3), or (6) of the Michigan vehicle code,

1949 PA 300, MCL 257.625, or a law of the United States substantially corresponding to

section 625(1), (3), or (6) of the Michigan vehicle code, 1949 PA 300, MCL 257.625.

(5) Each year, all DWI/sobriety courts that participate in the program, in cooperation with the

state court administrative office, shall provide to the legislature, the secretary of state, and the

supreme court documentation as to participants' compliance with court ordered conditions. Best

practices available must be used in the research in question, as resources allow, so as to provide

statistically reliable data as to the impact of the program on public safety and the improvement of

life conditions for participants. The topics documented must include, but not be limited to, all of

the following:

(a) The percentage of those participants ordered to place interlock devices on their

vehicles who actually comply with the order.

(b) The percentage of participants who remove court-ordered interlocks from their

vehicles without court approval.

(d) The percentage of participants found to have tampered with court-ordered interlocks.

(e) The percentage of participants who operated a motor vehicle not equipped with an

interlock.

(f) Relevant treatment information as to participants.

(g) The percentage of participants convicted of a new offense under section 625(1) or (3)

of the Michigan vehicle code, 1949 PA 300, MCL 257.625.

(h) Any other information found to be relevant.

(6) Before the secretary of state issues a restricted license to a program participant under section

304 of the Michigan vehicle code, 1949 PA 300, MCL 257.304, the DWI/sobriety court judge

shall certify to the secretary of state that the individual seeking the restricted license has been

admitted into the program and that an interlock device has been placed on each motor vehicle

owned or operated, or both, by the individual.

(7) If any of the following occur, the DWI/sobriety court judge shall immediately inform the

secretary of state of that occurrence:

(a) The court orders that a program participant be removed from the DWI/sobriety court

program before he or she successfully completes it.

(b) The court becomes aware that a program participant operates a motor vehicle that is

not equipped with an interlock device or that a program participant tampers with,

circumvents, or removes a court-ordered interlock device without prior court approval.

vehicle code, 1949 PA 300, MCL 257.625.

(8) The receipt of notification by the secretary of state under subsection (7) must result in

summary revocation or suspension of the restricted license under section 304 of the Michigan

vehicle code, 1949 PA 300, MCL 257.304.

(9) As used in this section:

(a) "DWI/sobriety court" means the specialized court docket and programs established

within judicial circuits and districts throughout this state that are designed to reduce

recidivism among alcohol offenders and that comply with the 10 guiding principles of

DWI courts as promulgated by the National Center for DWI Courts.

(b) "Ignition interlock device" means that term as defined in section 20d of the Michigan

vehicle code, 1949 PA 300, MCL 257.20d.

section.

600.1088 Transfer of case to another court.

(1) Beginning January 1, 2018, a case may be transferred totally from 1 court to another court for

the defendant's participation in a state-certified treatment court. A total transfer may occur prior

to or after adjudication, but must not be consummated until the completion and execution of a

memorandum of understanding that must include, but need not be limited to, all of the following:

(a) A detailed statement of how all funds assessed to defendant will be accounted for,

including, but not necessarily limited to, the need for a receiving state-certified treatment

court to collect funds and remit them to the court of original jurisdiction.

(b) A statement providing which court is responsible for providing information to the

department of state police, as required under section 3 of 1925 PA 289, MCL 28.243, and

forwarding an abstract to the secretary of state for inclusion on the defendant's driving

record.

served, as applicable.

(d) A statement that the defendant has been determined eligible by and will be accepted

into the state-certified treatment court upon transfer.

(e) The approval of all of the following:

(i) The chief judge and assigned judge of the receiving state-certified treatment

court and the court of original jurisdiction.

(ii) A prosecuting attorney from the receiving state-certified treatment court and

the court of original jurisdiction.

(iii) The defendant.

(2) As used in this section, "state-certified treatment court" includes the treatment courts certified

by the state court administrative office as provided in section 1062, 1084, 1091, or 1201.

Appendix B

Model Drug Court Discharge Statement

STATE OF MICHIGAN

[court number and type]

DTC Program Discharge

CASE NO.

[case/file number]

In the matter of:

[defendant name and DOB]

[defendant address]

On this [number] day of [month], [year] the defendant:

_ Successfully completed the DTC program

_ Voluntarily withdrew from the program

_ Was discharged from the program as unsuccessful due to:

_ Violation of the program

_ Conviction of new criminal charges

_ Being a risk to public safety

_ Other: [specify]

_________________________________________P_______ ____________

Honorable [name of DTC judge] Date

This model document is provided by SCAO as a resource and for informational purposes only to facilitate the

operation of problem solving courts by local units of government and courts in compliance with statutory

requirements. SCAO's sharing this model document is not intended (and cannot be construed) as legal advice.

Since there might be a delay in updating the model document on the web page and updating the model document in

this manual, the most up-to-date version of the model document is always available at

https://courts.michigan.gov/Administration/admin/op/problem-solving-courts/Documents/DTC-

DischargeStatement.pdf

Appendix C

Model Multi-Party Consent for Release of Information

Model Document Information

This model document is provided by the State Court Administrative Office (SCAO) as a resource

and is for informational purposes only. It is intended only to assist courts with operating a

problem-solving court and to comply with the problem-solving court statutes. This model

document is not intended (and cannot be construed) as legal advice.

Customize the sections that are in bold and highlighted in yellow. Once customized, the court

should remove the brackets, bold, and highlighting. The parties listed in the model document do

not include agencies that are likely a “Qualified Service Organization” (QSO) as defined in 42

CFR section 2.11. If there is an agency that the program would exchange confidential

information with, and that agency is not a QSO

as defined in 42 CFR, you will need to add that

agency as a party in this form.

As a model document, this is generic in nature and should be modified to fit your program.

Before developing your confidentiality documents please review the University of New

Hampshire’s School of Law/Institute for Health Policy & Practice’s “Substance Use Disorder

Treatment Confidentiality Boot Camp” guide located at

https://chhs.unh.edu/sites/default/files/substance-use-disorder-privacy-part-2-idn-workbook-unh-

1017.pdf.

Page 56 of the “Substance Use Disorder Treatment Confidentiality Boot Camp” guide has an example of the

written agreement required for a QSO.

[Name of problem-solving court]

Multiple-Party Consent for Release of Information

Participant’s Full Name: _____________________________ DOB: ____________

I authorize the following parties:

1. [Name of problem-solving court],

2. [Name of county] MDOC probation/parole department

3. [Name of district court] probation department

4. [Name of county] prosecutor’s office

5. [Name of treatment agency]

6. [Name of law enforcement agency]

7. [Name of law firm/office]

8. Michigan Secretary of State (Interlock Program)

To Communicate with and disclose to one another the following information:

INFORMATION TO BE SHARED

1. Name, address, and other personal identifying information of the participant.

2. [Name of problem-solving court] program assessments (GAIN, COMPAS, risk and

needs, etc.).

3. [Name of problem-solving court] program behavior summaries and updates.

4. Treatment information, including assessments, attendance, progress and compliance

reports, treatment plans, and discharge summaries.

5. Drug and alcohol screening, testing, confirmation results, and payment information.

6. Health information.

7. Reportable communicable disease information, including HIV, sexually transmitted

infections, hepatitis, and tuberculosis.

8. Health plan or health benefits information.

9. Electronic monitoring information, including compliance and payment information.

10. Information required to obtain a restricted license through the ignition interlock program.

11. Other (specify, if any): ______________________________________________

Note: I authorize all of the foregoing information to be shared unless I indicate here, by

number, one or more categories of information not to be shared: _____________

PURPOSE AND USE OF DISCLOSURE

The purposes for the disclosures authorized by this form are:

1. To assess the participant’s need for substance use, mental health, or developmental

disabilities services and treatment.

2. To provide, manage, and coordinate [name of problem-solving court] program and

substance use, mental health, and developmental disabilities services and treatment

for the participant.

3. To develop a Person-Centered Plan, Service Plan, and/or Treatment Plan for the

participant.

4. To make dispositional recommendations for a court-involved participant.

5. To monitor payment for services, and establish financial assistance if determined

necessary.

6. To improve service and treatment outcomes for participants involved in the [name of

problem-solving court] program.

7. To monitor my participation in the [name of problem-solving court] program and

my compliance with the program rules.

8. To provide information for evaluation of the [Name of problem-solving court]

program

9. To disclose to the Michigan Secretary of State (Interlock Program) information

required on Michigan form MC393 to obtain a restricted license through the ignition

interlock program.

10. Other (please specify): ________________________________________________

REDISCLOSURE AND CONFIDENTIALITY

Once health care information is disclosed pursuant to this signed authorization, I understand that

the federal health privacy law (45 CFR, Parts 160 and 164) protecting health information may

not apply to the recipient of the information and, therefore, may not prohibit the recipient from

redisclosing information to others. However, substance-abuse treatment information protected

by federal law (42 CFR, Part 2), shall remain confidential and must not be redisclosed by the

recipient except as authorized by those laws or this authorization

. The federal rules restrict any

use of this information to criminally investigate or prosecute any alcohol or drug abuse patient.

CONSENT EXPIRATION

The date, event, or condition upon which consent expires must ensure that the consent will last

no longer than reasonably necessary to serve the purpose for which it is given.

This consent for release of information shall expire upon my discharge from the [name of

problem-solving court] program.

REVOCATION

I understand that I may revoke this consent, orally or in writing, at any time except to the extent

that action has been taken in reliance on it. I also understand that I do not have to fill out this

form. If I do not fill it out, I cannot participate in the [Name of problem-solving court]

An individual within the criminal justice system who receives patient information under 42 CFR § 2.35 may re-

disclose and use it only to carry out that individual's official duties with regard to the patient's conditional release or

other action in connection with which the consent was given.

program, but can still get health insurance, treatment, and other medical benefits from a health

care provider.

I also understand that if I refuse to consent to disclosure, or attempt to revoke my consent prior

to the expiration of this consent such action is grounds for immediate termination from the

[name of problem-solving court] program.

CONFIDENTIALITY RIGHTS

Federal law protects the confidentiality of treatment records under 42 CFR, Section 2.1 through

Section 2.67; and Section 290dd-2. This means that:

1. Treatment information is ordinarily kept confidential.

2. Review hearings are held in open and public courtrooms, and although the court attempts

to minimize confidential information in court, it is possible that an observer could

connect a participant’s identity with the fact that he or she is in treatment as a condition

of participation in the [name of problem-solving court] program or that confidential

information may be revealed. I specifically consent to a potential disclosure to third

persons.

3. Staffing meetings, which are held before review hearings, are typically closed to the

public. Confidential information may be discussed by the [name of problem-solving

court] team members at a staffing meeting. I understand that if a non-team member is

invited to participate in a staffing meeting they must receive my consent prior to

observation.

4. It is a crime to violate confidentiality requirements, and the participant may report such

violations to Michigan's attorney general at 517-373-1110.

5. Notwithstanding this confidentiality requirement, covered information may be released

under specified circumstances and may include communication with administration and

qualified service organizations working with the [name of problem-solving court]

program, outside auditors, central registries and researchers.

6. The restrictions on disclosure and use in the regulations in 42 CFR part 2 do not apply to:

i. Communication with law enforcement agencies or officials regarding a crime

committed on program premises or against program personnel.

ii. The reporting under state law of incidents of suspected child abuse and neglect to the

appropriate state or local authorities. However, the restrictions continue to apply to

the original substance use disorder patient records maintained by the part 2 program

including their disclosure and use for civil or criminal proceedings which may arise

out of the report of suspected child abuse and neglect.

iii. Court orders signed pursuant to 42 CFR part 2 for release of specific information.

iv. Disclosure to medical personnel if there is a determination that a medical emergency

exists, i.e., there is a situation that poses an immediate threat to the health of any

individual and requires immediate medical intervention - Information disclosed to the

medical personnel who are treating such a medical emergency may be redisclosed by

such personnel for treatment purposes as needed.

v. Reporting an immediate threat to the health or safety of an individual or the public to

law enforcement if patient-identifying information is not disclosed.

I acknowledge that I have been advised of my rights, have received a copy of the

advisement, and have had the benefit of legal counsel or have voluntarily waived the right

to an attorney. I am not under the influence of drugs or alcohol. I fully understand my

rights and I am signing this Consent voluntarily.

SIGNATURE CONSENTING TO RELEASE OF INFORMATION

_____________________________________________ _____________

Participant signature Date

_____________________________________________ _____________

Staff witness signature Date

_____________________________________________

Staff witness printed name

SIGNATURE CONFIRMING PARTICIPANT WAS ADVISED OF CONFIDENTIALITY

RIGHTS BOTH VERBALLY AND IN WRITING

_____________________________________________ _____________

Participant signature Date

_____________________________________________ _____________

Staff witness signature Date

_____________________________________________

Staff witness printed name

Parts of this form were adapted from:

Mark F. Botts, L. B. (2015, April 7). https://www.sog.unc.edu/publications/reports/north-

carolina-juvenile-justice-%E2%80%93-behavioral-health-information-sharing-guide

Retrieved April 11, 2018, from https://www.sog.unc.edu:

Appendix D

New Staff and Team Member Orientation

New Staff/Team Member Orientation

[Name of drug treatment court program]

Welcome to your new role with [name of drug treatment court program]. Please complete

the following checklist by to learn about Drug Treatment Courts and how your role on the team

can positively change lives.

☐ Reviewed the [name of drug treatment court program] Policy Manual

☐ Reviewed the [name of drug treatment court program] Participant Handbook

☐ Understand the Phase Structure and Phase Requirements

☐ Reviewed the Revised Judicature Act 236 of 1961 Chapter 10A, Drug Treatment Courts

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(20ihxlqoqmej0dreisoglh52))/documents/mcl/pdf/mcl-

236-1961-10A..pdf

☐ Reviewed the following Adult Drug Court Lessons at Treatment Courts Online

www.treatmentcourts.org:

All:

☐ Incentives and Sanctions

☐ Confidential Information in Drug Court

☐ Cultural Competency

☐ Procedural Fairness

☐ Implementing Evidence-Based Practice

☐ Successful Drug Testing

Judge:

☐ Role of the Judge

Defense Attorney:

☐ Role of the Defense Attorney

Treatment Provider:

☐ Role of the Treatment Provider

This model document is provided by the State Court Administrative Office (SCAO) as a resource and for

informational purposes only to facilitate the operation of problem-solving courts by local units of government and

courts in compliance with certification requirements. SCAO's sharing this model document is not intended (and

cannot be construed) as legal advice.

Name:

Date of

hire:

Orientation completion date

(within 6 months from hire):

Coordinator:

☐ Role of the Coordinator

☐ Maximizing Participant Interactions

Prosecutor:

☐ Role of the Prosecutor

Supervision Officer:

☐ Role of the Probation Officer

☐ Maximizing Participant Interactions

☐ Reviewed the Following Publications:

☐ Adult Drug Court Standards, Best Standards and Promising Practices

https://courts.michigan.gov/Administration/SCAO/Resources/Documents/bestpra

ctice/ADC-BPManual.pdf

☐ Defining Drug Courts: The Key Components

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bja/205621.pdf

☐ Attended the Following Trainings:

☐ SCAO’s DCCMIS Training (Held Tri-annually) – for team members entering data

☐ SCAO’s Fundamentals of Problem-Solving Courts (Held in March and October)

☐ Other:

Parts of this document are based on the NDCI New Staff Training Guide available at

https://www.ndci.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/NDCI-New-Staff-Training-Guide.pdf

U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Assistance, 2004

Appendix E

Model Confidentiality Policies and Procedures

[Name of problem-solving court program]

Policies and Procedures Regarding Access to and Use of

Confidential Records

1. Access and Use of Written and Electronic Confidential Records

a. Except as otherwise permitted in the Michigan problem-solving court statute, any

statement or other information obtained as a result of participating in a

preadmission screening and evaluation assessment is confidential and is exempt

from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, 1976 PA 442, MCL 15.231

to 15.246, and shall not be used in a criminal prosecution, unless it reveals criminal

acts other than, or inconsistent with, personal drug use.

b. Confidential treatment court information and records may not be used to initiate or

to substantiate any criminal charges against a participant or to conduct any

investigation of a participant.

c. Written/paper program files of open cases shall be kept in a locked filing cabinet in

[specify secure location], with access limited to authorized individuals.

d. Upon expiration of consent for release of information written/paper program files

shall be moved to [specify secure location where only program staff may access

files] and shall be kept in a locked filing cabinet.

e. Pre-court staffing meeting reports shall be returned to the [title of problem-solving

court staff] upon conclusion of the meeting.

f. Electronic data that is subject to confidentiality standards is protected by security

walls and is password protected. Access is limited, and disclosure/redisclosure is

subject to approval by the treatment court judge and team.

g. The [name of problem-solving court] program stores electronic confidential

information in the Drug Court Case Management Information System (DCCMIS).

All users of DCCMIS shall sign a DCCMIS user confidentiality agreement prior to

being assigned a username and password, and are only given access to information

as permitted under 42 CFR part 2 regulations.

h. Upon expiration of consent for release of information confidential records on

computers are protected by changing the password or otherwise restricting access.

i. Generally, unless access to a court file is restricted by statute, court rule or an order

pursuant to MCR 8.119(I), any person may inspect pleadings and other papers in a

court clerk's office and may obtain copies as provided in MCR 8.119(J).

j. Responses to all requests for access to nonpublic and limited-access records shall be

made per the following resources:

• Michigan Trial Court Records Management Standards Data, Case, and

Other Court Records – Section 2: Access to Records.

This model document is provided by the State Court Administrator’s Office (SCAO) as a resource and for

informational purposes only, to assist courts with operating a problem-solving court and to comply with the

problem-solving court statute. This model document is not intended (and cannot be construed) as legal advice.

• Chart of Nonpublic and Limited-Access Court Records.

• Michigan Supreme Court Administrative Order 2006-2

- Privacy Policy

and Access to Records.

k. Records of participants may be released to parties per a written consent in

compliance with 42 CFR § 2.31.

l. Any confidential information disclosed under a signed consent to release

information, shall be accompanied by a written Notice of Prohibition against

Redisclosure with the language required in 42 CFR § 2.32.

m. Confidential electronic data that may be disclosed under 42 CFR regulations may

be transmitted through DCCMIS, encrypted email, or through non-encrypted email

after the confidential information has been de-identified.

n. Confidential information may be disclosed to a Qualified Service Organization

(QSA) as necessary for the QSA to provide services to the [name of problem-

solving court program].

o. Confidential information may be released under specified circumstances, and may

include medical emergency, crimes on the premises, crimes against staff,

administration working with the [name of problem solving court], and outside

auditors, central registries, and researchers.

p. Confidential information relating to the abuse or neglect of a child, state child abuse

laws, court orders signed pursuant to 42 CFR part 2 for release of specific

information, state laws relating to cause of death and duty to protect others, and to

warn of serious imminent harm, is not protected by federal law and may be

disclosed without consent.

q. Staffing meetings may be observed by staff from other courts for the purpose of

planning their own problem-solving court program, and by SCAO staff. All

observers of the meeting shall sign a confidentiality agreement prior to the start of

the meeting, and all participants discussed at the meeting must sign a [name of

problem-solving court program] consent to release information, with the

observing parties listed, prior to the staffing meeting.

2. Record Retention and Disposal Schedule

a. Records shall be retained as directed under General Schedules #13 - District

Courts,

#14 - Probate Courts,

and #15 – Circuit Courts.

b. Records shall be removed, de-identified, transferred, and destroyed as directed

by the Michigan Trial Court Records Management Standards Data, Case, and

Other Court Records.

https://courts.michigan.gov/Administration/SCAO/Resources/Documents/standards/cf_chart.pdf

https://courts.michigan.gov/Courts/MichiganSupremeCourt/rules/Documents/Administrative Orders.pdf page 208;

FAQ for 2006-02 is located at https://courts.michigan.gov/Administration/SCAO/Resources/Documents/

Administrative-Memoranda/2006-04.pdf

https://www.michigan.gov/documents/dtmb/RMS_GS13_573186_7.pdf

https://www.michigan.gov/documents/dtmb/RMS_GS14_597247_7.pdf

https://www.michigan.gov/documents/dtmb/RMS_GS15_597248_7.pdf

https://courts.michigan.gov/Administration/SCAO/Resources/Documents/standards/cf_stds.pdf

100

Appendix F

Model DCCMIS User Confidentiality Agreement

DCCMIS User Confidentiality Agreement

This Confidentiality Agreement applies to [name of problem-solving court program]’s

employees, members of the [name of problem-solving court program] team, and all other

professionals working with the [name of problem-solving court program] hereinafter referred

to as “users”, who have direct access to the Drug Court Case Management Information System

(DCCMIS).

User understands and agrees:

6. All network passwords are confidential and shall not be disclosed to any third party

including other authorized users of the DCCMIS.

7. The [name of problem-solving court program] DCCMIS administrator shall provide

user with the network password necessary to gain access to the DCCMIS network.

8. In the event that user reasonably suspects or becomes aware of any unauthorized use or

disclosure of user’s network password or other confidential user identification, user shall

immediately change the password, and shall immediately report the unauthorized use or

disclosure to [name of problem-solving court program]’s DCCMIS administrator.

9. [Name of problem-solving court program]’s DCCMIS administrator, The State Court

Administrative Office (SCAO), and Advanced Computer Technologies (ACT) shall have

the right to suspend or revoke user’s network access without notice in the event of any

breach or suspected breach of confidentiality.

10. To be accountable for all entries of client information, orders and data entered by user

into DCCMIS under user’s password.

11. To access client information and/or records only for the following purposes in accordance

with applicable state and federal laws and regulations:

a. coordinating services with ancillary and other treatment service providers;

b. reviewing client’s progress in program areas as needed per user’s role on the

team;

c. conducting statistical research, or audits;

d. conducting quality assurance, or review activities; and,

e. For DCCMIS administrators requirements involving verification and other

operational purposes.

12. To not disclose or re-disclose any client information and/or records to any other entity or

individual without the prior written authorization of the participant or the participant's

authorized representative.

This model document is provided by SCAO as a resource, and for informational purposes only, to assist courts

with operating a problem-solving court and to comply with the problem-solving court statute. This model

document is not intended (and cannot be construed) as legal advice.

101

13. SCAO and ACT may conduct unannounced audits of user’s access to its information

systems, software applications, network and data on a periodic basis to monitor

appropriate use of and compliance with the obligations stated above.

14. Any violation of participant confidentiality may result in termination of access to

DCCMIS.

15. Information may be disclosed in summary, statistical, or other form, which does not

directly or indirectly identify particular program participants or related parties.

I understand that alcohol and/or drug treatment records and mental health records are protected

under the Federal regulations governing Confidentiality and Drug Abuse Patient Records, 42

CFR Part 2, and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), 45

CFR Parts 160 & 164, and cannot be disclosed without the written consent of the [name of

program] participant or a person legally authorized to represent the participant unless otherwise

provided for by the regulations.

________________________________________ _________________

Signature of DCCMIS user Date

__________________________________

Printed name of DCCMIS user

Attached: Penalties under 42 CFR Part 2 and Penalties under HIPAA

102

Penalties Under 42CFR Part 2

§2.3 Purpose and effect.

(a) Purpose. Under the statutory provisions quoted in §§2.1 and 2.2, these regulations impose

restrictions upon the disclosure and use of alcohol and drug abuse patient records which are

maintained in connection with the performance of any federally assisted alcohol and drug abuse

program. The regulations specify:

(1) Definitions, applicability, and general restrictions in subpart B (definitions applicable

to §2.34 only appear in that section);

(2) Disclosures which may be made with written patient consent and the form of the

written consent in subpart C;

(3) Disclosures which may be made without written patient consent or an authorizing

court order in subpart D; and

(4) Disclosures and uses of patient records which may be made with an authorizing court

order and the procedures and criteria for the entry and scope of those orders in subpart E.

(b) Effect.

(1) These regulations prohibit the disclosure and use of patient records unless certain

circumstances exist. If any circumstances exists under which disclosure is permitted, that

circumstance acts to remove the prohibition on disclosure but it does not compel

disclosure. Thus, the regulations do not require disclosure under any circumstances.

(2) These regulations are not intended to direct the manner in which substantive functions

such as research, treatment, and evaluation are carried out. They are intended to insure

that an alcohol or drug abuse patient in a federally assisted alcohol or drug abuse program

is not made more vulnerable by reason of the availability of his or her patient record than

an individual who has an alcohol or drug problem and who does not seek treatment.

(3) Because there is a criminal penalty (a fine—see 42 U.S.C. 290dd-2, and 42 CFR 2.4)

for violating the regulations, they are to be construed strictly in favor of the potential

violator in the same manner as a criminal statute (see M. Kraus & Brothers v. United

States, 327 U.S. 614, 621–22, 66 S. Ct. 705, 707–08 (1946)).

§2.4 Criminal penalty for violation.

Under 42 U.S.C. 42 U.S.C. 290dd–2, any person who violates any provision of those statutes or

these regulations shall be fined not more than $500 in the case of a first offense, and not more

than $5,000 in the case of each subsequent offense.

§2.5 Reports of violations.

103

(a) The report of any violation of these regulations may be directed to the United States Attorney

for the judicial district in which the violation occurs.

(b) The report of any violation of these regulations by a methadone program may be directed to

the Regional Offices of the Food and Drug Administration.

Penalties Under HIPAA

42USC1320d-5 General penalty for failure to comply with requirements and standards

(a) General penalty

(1) In general

Except as provided in subsection (b), the Secretary shall impose on any person who

violates a provision of this part a penalty of not more than $100 for each such violation,

except that the total amount imposed on the person for all violations of an identical

requirement or prohibition during a calendar year may not exceed $25,000.

42USC1320d-6 Wrongful disclosure of individually identifiable health information

(a) Offense

A person who knowingly and in violation of this part-

(1) Uses or causes to be used a unique health identifier;

(2) Obtains individually identifiable health information relating to an individual;

(3) Discloses individually identifiable health information to another person,

shall be punished as provided in subsection (b).

(b) Penalties

A person described in subsection (a) shall-

(1) Be fined not more than $50,000, imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both;

(2) if the offense is committed under false pretenses, be fined not more than $100,000,

imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both; and

(3) If the offense is committed with intent to sell, transfer, or use individually identifiable

health information for commercial advantage, personal gain, or malicious harm, be fined

not more than $250,000, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.

104