A NEW DRUG COURT TO REDUCE DRUG DEMAND IN INDIANAPOLIS AND MARION COUNTY: A STRATEGY TO REDUCE DRUG-USE, DRUG-RELATED CRIME, AND IMPROVE INFANT HEALTH

Prepared for The Office of Justice Programs May 22, 1995

MARION COUNTY AND THE CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS STEPHEN GOLDSMITH COUNTY EXECUTIVE AND MAYOR

A NEW DRUG COURT TO REDUCE DRUG DEMAND IN INDIANAPOLIS AND MARION COUNTY: A STRATEGY TO REDUCE DRUG-USE, DRUG-RELATED CRIME, AND IMPROVE INFANT HEALTH

By: Cale Bradford, Marion County Prosecutors Office Andrew Fogle, Marion County Superior Court Stephen Goldsmith, Mayor of Indianapolis Lisa McCallum, Office of the Mayor, Indianapolis Scott Newman, Marion County Prosecutor E. Mitchell Roob, Marion County Health & Hospitals Corporation George Walker, Chief Probation Officer, Marion County Superior Court William Young, Marion County Superior Court

With assistance from: Terry Baumer, Indiana University Adele Harrell, The Urban Institute Mark Kleiman, BOTEC Analysis Corporation Jenny Rudolph, BOTEC Analysis Corporation Andrew Lockwood Chalsma, BOTEC Analysis Corporation Patricia Reinhardt, BOTEC Analysis Corporation

Table of Contents SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................................................. 1 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM .......................................................................................................................... 2 PROGRAM GOALS ................................................................................................................................................... 3 PROPOSED PROGRAM ............................................................................................................................................ 3 CONCEPT .. .......................... ....... .... ... ............. ...... .............. .... ........ ................. ...... .... .... ................... ... ... ..... .... .. .......... .... 3 PROGRAM DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................................................................. 5

Inclusion Criteria ............................................... ....................................................................................................... 8 Testing Type and Frequency ....... ...... .......... .... ... ...... .... ..... .......... ..... ...... .... .. ............ .. ....... .... .. ... ..... .. ....... .... ....... .... .. 8 Length of Time in the Program .. ..... ... .............. ... ....... ................... ...... .... .... ....... ...... ..... ... ...... .... ... .......... .......... .. ...... 9 Continuum of Care ........... .. .............. .. .......... .. ......... ............... .... ............. ..... ............ ................. ..... ..... .... ... .. ............. 9 Sanctions and Sanction Schedule.... .. .... .. ........... ...... .. ........ ... ... .... .... .. ................ ... .. .... ... ........... ................ ..... ......... 11 Integrated Management Information System .......................................................................................................... 12 Ev ALUATION PLAN .. .............. .... .................. ........... .. ................................................ ... ... .... ... ...... .... ...... ... ................. .. 13 Process Evaluation .... .. ............... ............ ..... ... ...... .. ......... ............. ........... ............. ....... .... ...... ... ......................... .. .. . 13 Data Collection .... ..... .. .. ..... ..... ................. ............ ... ........ .... .. ............ ...... ...... ..... .... .. ... ....... .... .. .. ... ....... .. ..... ..... ... .... 14 Potential Impact Evaluation ..... .... ......... ....... ...... ....... .......... .................. ... ....... ... ....... .. .. .. .................. .. ...... .. ........... 15 PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND STAFFING ................................................................................................... 16 KEY STAFF RESPONSIBILITIES AND CAPABILITIES .... .. .. ............... ....... ..... ...... .. .. .. ............ ... ... ..... ............. ................ ... .. 18

Program Administrator .... .... .... .. ................ .. ...... ......... ...... ......... ... ...... ...... ............... ..... ......... .. ... ....... ..... ......... ... .. .. 18 Judicial Supervision .......... .................. ......... ....... ........................... ... .... ... ... ...... ..... .. .. .. ... ... ............ ... ..... ... .. ... ....... .. 18 Prosecutor 's Office ... ...... ..... ...... .... ......... .. ... ..... .............. ... ... ............ ........ ............ .. .......... .... ....... ............... .... ........ 19 Mayor and County Executive .. ... ... .................. .......... ... ....... ... .......... ................ ... .. .. .......... .. ..... ... .............. .. ............ 20 Probation Department ............................................................................................................................................ 20 Drug Testing and Treatment .. ................ .. ... .. ........... .... .. .. ......... ... ... ..... .... ........ .. ... ............... ...... ..... ..... ..... ... .. ... ...... 21 Health and Hospitals ..... .... ......... ..................... .. ... .. .... ..... ..... .. .. ...... ....... :.......... ........... ... .. .. .......... .... ... .. ...... ..... ...... 22 Management Information System ............................................................................................................................ 22 Assistance in Program Design and Implementation ...... ..... ... ........... .... .... ....... ... .................................... ........ ... ..... 23 Evaluation Staff ............. ........... .. .............. .. ...... ...... ...... ............... ....... .. ..... ... ........ ... ...... .......................... ...... ........ . 23 APPENDICES: TABLE OF CONTENTS .............................................................................................................. 26

Table of Figures FIGURE 1: OVERVIEW OF AN OFFENDER'S PATH THROUGH THE PROGRAM FIGURE 2: DEPICTION OF INTEGRATED MIS LINKAGES FIGURE 3: OVERVIEW OF PROGRAM ORGANIZATION

7

13 17

Summary To reduce drug use, drug dealing, drug-related crime, and drug-related prenatal damage, Indianapolis and Marion County· propose to implement a criminal justice system-based demand reduction effort. The County/City proposes to link a new drug court with a new probation-run coerced abstinence program which uses structured sanctions and treatment to discourage continued drug use. The program participants will be funneled into the program from randomly selected dockets which will permit subsequent experimental assessments of program impact. Marion County and Indianapolis are applying under Part II of the Drug Court Grant Program to support the proposed Drug Court Drug Demand Reduction Program . Marion County and Indianapolis currently have an expedited docket, which we call a drug court, to process serious drug-dealing related felonies. This court offers no intensive supervision or services. The purpose of the new drug court is to reduce drug use, predatory crime, and drug-related harm among drug users and minor dealers. The new drug court will act as a funnel to an intensive drug testing and treatment program within the probation department, and will conduct the hearings at which those who test positive for drugs are sanctioned. The sanctions, which will be immediate and automatic, but no more drastic than necessary, will be structured in advance and will be consistently applied to all offenders in the program. Together, the two drug court efforts (the existing expedited docket and the proposed initiative) aim to reduce drug markets and some of their associated harms: violence, channeling youth out of legitimate employment, neighborhood disorder, and the incidence of prenatal chemical exposure. The goal of this pilot project is to test the efficacy of this method of drug demand reduction, to make mid-course corrections as needed, and then to expand the program system-wide if it is effective. In contrast to most other treatment-oriented drug courts, the proposed program does not include diversion; it works at the "back end"(sentencing), not at the "front end" (arraignment). Moreover, it is mandatory, not voluntary, and does not rely on plea deals. The program includes an enhanced Management Information System (MIS) to facilitate program management, monitor program outcomes, and support the process evaluation and later impact evaluations.

• The City of Indianapolis and Marion County are run under a unified government; the Mayor is also the Chief County Executive and the City Council is also the County Legislature. The City/County has a population of approximately 1.2 million people, making Indianapolis the twelfth largest city in the nation.

A NFW DRUG COURT TO REDUCE DRUG DEMAND IN INDIANAPOLIS AND MARION COUNTY

The Mayor' s Office, the current Marion County Drug Court, the Marion County Prosecutor, the Marion Country Superior Court Criminal Probation Department, the Health and Hospital Corporation, the Marion County Health Department, AIT Laboratories, Midtown Mental Health, the Salvation Army Harbor Light, and the Greater Indianapolis Council on Alcoholism have actively collaborated in the design of this program. In addition, the County/City plan to utilize the expertise of Indiana University, BOTEC Analysis Corporation, and the Urban Institute in designing and evaluating drug courts, intensive supervision, and structured sanctions programs, as well as the relevant Management Information Systems.

Statement of the Problem Marion County and Indianapolis have a substance abuse problem, a drug dealing problem, a violent and property crime problem, and increasing infant mortality rates, all of which are linked. Shrinking drug consumption by reducing demand would help alleviate all of them. Lower demand would mean less drug abuse, lower revenues for dealers, less of the property crime committed by drug addicts to support their habits, and less of the violent crime committed by users and dealers. While any individual trafficker can hope to escape the effects of supply reduction efforts, and indeed to profit from increased prices and decreased competition as rival organizations are dismantled, successful demand reduction efforts aimed at high-volume criminally-involved users hit the traffickers where it hurts them most: their markets. Indianapolis and Marion County propose to implement the new drug court in response to the severe crisis facing its courts and criminal justice system as a whole. The illicit cocaine trade in Indianapolis is booming, with cocaine seizures having risen from 2.5 kilograms in 1986 to 45 kilograms in 1994. Between 1993 and 1994 alone cocaine seizures rose 246%. Total drug arrests by the Indianapolis Police Department rose more than 50% from 1993 to 1994, from 2489 to 3732. In 1990, approximately 3500 Class D Felony cases were filed in the Marion County Municipal Courts. This year, that number is expected to be approximately 7,000, 31 % of which are expected to be for drug trafficking or possession. In addition to the burden that increased crack cocaine use places on the criminal justice system, increased use by women is posing other problems. At the County Hospital, the rate of detected illicit drug use among women giving birth has risen from less than 2% five years ago to 19% currently. Among women arrestees, the Indianapolis Drug Use Forecasting system shows a rise in cocaine use from 15% in 1990 to almost 50% in 1993. Providers of substance abuse treatment report an increase in the

A N F W DRUG COURT TO REDUCE DRUG DEMAND IN INDIANAPOLIS AND MARION COUNTY

2

number of pregnant women seeking services. In utero drug exposure, and the reluctance of drug-using women to seek prenatal care, are contributing to Indianapolis ' s inability to make sustained progress against infant mortality . After a significant reduction in the African-American infant mortality rate from 20.8 per 1000 live births in 1992 to 15.8 deaths per 1000 births in 1993, the community experienced a troubling increase during the summer months of 1994, ending the year at 19.8 deaths per 1,000. As a result, there are a number of local initiatives focused on pregnant substance users not in the criminal justice system, aimed primarily at increasing the availability of treatment facilities for that group.

Program Goals The new Marion County/Indianapolis Drug Court for Drug Demand Reduction has four sets of goals: 1.

Reduce drug use, drug-buying and drug dealing among user-offenders, and in the event the pilot program is expanded, to shrink the illicit drug markets.

2.

Reduce the demands on court time and scarce jail space made by user/offenders in the longterm.

3. Determine whether coerced abstinence with structured sanctions is an effective way to identify those in need of more extensive treatment or those requiring incarceration. 4. Reduce the exposure of infants in utero to drugs by offering or requiring drug treatment and education to female offenders

Proposed Program Because Marion County/Indianapolis' existing drug court functions more like an expedited docket than a conventional diversion and/or intensive supervision and services program, the City/County believes the proposed drug court constitutes a new initiative. (See Figure One, below for an outline of the proposed program .)

Concept Marion County/Indianapolis proposes to develop a drug court linked to a probation-based drug demand reduction-program . Conventional demand reduction programs aim at inducing users to want to quit and at increasing their capacity to act on the desire to become and remain drug-free. School-, media- , and community-based prevention programs all rely on changing drug-related attitudes and beliefs.

A NEW DRUG COURT TO REDUCE DRUG DEMAND IN INDIANAPOLIS AND MARION COUNTY

3

Supply-reduction programs, by contrast, bypass the desires of drug users and attempt to work directly on their ability to acquire drugs, by making the drugs themselves expensive and the process of finding them difficult, time-consuming, and risky (Moore, 1973, 1978). Just as employers can reduce drug use among their employees by, in effect, making abstinence a condition of employment, the criminal justice system can significantly reduce drug use by offenders, by requiring abstinence as a condition of pretrial release, probation, or parole, or any other category of conditional liberty. For Marion County and Indianapolis, the population under criminal-justice supervision represents a crucial target for direct demand reduction efforts. A higher proportion of offenders than of employed persons use illicit drugs; a higher proportion of the users among them use heavily and are in need of treatment. The criminal-justice system, unlike an employer, has the authority to take noncompliant users off the streets. Demand reduction efforts within the criminal justice system can mix treatment with threats; this concept is central both to T ASC and to many treatment drug courts. The additional incentive for success created by the threat of sanctions should be expected to boost the rates of treatment entry, retention, and compliance. For some user/offenders, the deterrent threat alone, without an explicitly therapeutic intervention, may constitute an effective "treatment." For others, mandatory treatment or detoxification, coupled with other supportive services, on-going drug-testing, and sanctions for "dirty" tests may be needed. From the viewpoint of treatment providers, the criminal justice system also offers the great advantage of being able to enforce a treatment regimen.

The most consistent result of the treatment

evaluation literature is the finding that treatment compliance is positively correlated with better outcomes (Anglin and Maugh, 1992). If the sanctions in the proposed program can increase treatment compliance, it will likely also generate improved outcomes. The experience of drug courts in Dade County, Florida and in Washington, DC also indicate that judges have an important role to play in the supervision, treatment, and aftercare of offenders. The new Marion County/Indianapolis drug court is designed to combine judicial supervision with drug testing and treatment in a way that enhances the efficacy of both. Judges will use the authority of the court to influence offender behavior by establishing an atmosphere of accountability, encouraging offenders when they are doing well, admonishing them when they backslide, and imposing immediate and escalating consequences when they don't meet program requirements. (Hearings will be held to reinforce offender perception that the judge is personally interested and is holding the offender personally accountable.)

A NEW DRUG COURT TO REDUCE DRUG DEMAND IN INDIANAPOLIS AND MARION COUNTY

4

Offender drug testing and treatment have the potential for far-reaching impact as a demand reduction program , a supply reduction program (because it removes some retail dealers), a crime control program, and a harm reduction program. Criminal justice system-based drug treatment and testing can affect both property crime by users and violence associated with the drug markets (by shrinking volume) and reduce the exposure of infants in utero to drugs. The Indianapolis/Marion County program will utilize sweat patches, and urinalysis testing to screen for drug use, and graduated sanctions to coerce abstinence among offenders who test positive for drugs. Research has established that urinalysis is an effective means of providing objective information to both place offenders in appropriate treatment programs and monitor their compliance with the programs. In the District of Columbia, the Pre-Trial Services Agency reports that urinalysis alone reduces the failure to appear rate, and preliminary results of an on-going evaluation of the DC Drug Court Intervention Program by Dr. Harrell of the Urban Institute indicates that offenders who receive drug testing with sanctions have equal or lower rates of drug use during the program than those receiving treatment and drug testing without sanctions. However, since sanctions alone are not an appropriate intervention for all offenders, the Marion County/Indianapolis program will partner with treatment providers to provide a continuum of care.

Program Description The Indianapolis/Marion County Drug Court for Drug Demand Reduction will combine the successful features of recent innovations in drug courts, intensive supervision for probationers, and structured sanctions programs. (See Figure One.) The new drug court will act as a funnel to an intensive drug testing and treatment program within the Probation Department, and will conduct the hearings at which those who test positive for drugs are sanctioned. The new drug court will funnel drug-using offenders convicted in targeted categories (see "Inclusion Criteria," below) to a mandatory drug testing (either by sweat patch or by urine testing) program with immediate, automatic sanctions for dirty tests. Drug treatment will be offered or required depending on the offender' s needs and performance in the program. We propose to include 250 offenders in the program. The proposed pilot drug court will build on the expertise and experience oflndianapolis' s current drug court in case processing. The purpose of the new court program is to reduce drug use and drug-related crime among drug users and minor dealers, and drug-related harm among pregnant user-offenders. The City/County' s current drug court expedites serious (class A, B, C) drug felony cases for possession and dealing, but provides no special services for convicted offenders. Its mission is to take serious drug dealers off the

A NEW DRUG COURT TO REDUCE DRUG DEMAND IN INDIANAPOLIS AND MARION COUNTY

5

streets. The new court will target those cases related to drug use (0 Felony Possession), to crimes committed to support drug habits (burglary, shoplifting and prostitution), and to crimes likely to be committed by drug-using women (prostitution and shoplifting). The new program will exclude offenders with a history of violence. We believe it is important to avoid any appearance of giving drug-involved offenders a "better deal" than other offenders. Making up-front plea offers contingent upon request for treatment or positive drug tests during plea negotiations may provide an incentive for offenders to use drugs or claim to have a drug problem to avoid incarceration. To avoid manipulation of the system, decisions about program entry will be made after plea offers have been accepted or the offender has been found guilty. Because of the expedited case handling in Indianapolis, time from arrest to sentencing is typically 60 to 90 days. By making the program mandatory rather than voluntary, the design creates a experimental condition that will allow us to project the effects of extending and a program to all eligible offenders. During hearings in which a defendant is found guilty of one of the eligible offenses, or pleads to them, the judge in participating dockets will order a pre-sentence investigation and order the offender to probation for a drug use evaluation which will consist of two weeks of sweat patch monitoring. If the preliminary screen indicates drug use is present and the pre-sentence investigation indicates no prior violent offenses, the report will recommend placement in the program. At sentencing, the judges in participating courtrooms will order eligible offenders into the program for the duration of their probationary period or for a period of 18 months; whichever is longer. The offenders file will then be transferred to the new drug court. Once in the drug court, the judge will begin establishing a relationship with offenders by describing the requirement to remain drug free, the consequences of continued drug use, and his or her intention to monitor the offender's progress in the program closely.

To prepare for a rigorous

evaluation, half of Municipal and Superior dockets will act as "funnels" to the drug court demonstration program; the rest will serve as control dockets. After sentencing, offenders who are program eligible (see Selection Criteria, below), will be transferred to the new Drug-Demand Reduction Court where they will be handled by either Judge Fogle or Commissioner Young. Judges Andrew Fogle and William Young, who oversee the existing expedited drug court docket will dedicate additional time, both in the office and in the courtroom, to conduct the sanctioning hearings. Remanding offenders to drug evaluation in probation will be done by judges in the participating (non-control) dockets. It is the hope of the Marion CountylIndianapolis team that a later "continuation phase" expand this pilot effort in drug testing and treatment combined with structured sanctions to in-

A NEW DRUG COURT TO REDUCE DRUG DEMAND IN INDIANAPOLIS AND MARION COUNTY

6

elude all eligible offenders

In

the Marion County system and perhaps to expand the pool of eligible of-

fenders .

Figure 1: Overview of an Offender's Path Through the Program Random assignment to an "experimental" court docket

~ Arraignment

& Preliminary

Hearing

~ Found guilty of targeted offenses (by conviction or plea) - Possesion of smaller drug amounts. burglary. shoplifting . prostitution - Those with prior violent aimes excluded

~ Judge orders all targeted offenders to drug use evaluation by Probation

Dirty (Test positive for drugs)

~

Two week evaluation by

Clean (Test negative for drugs)

drug testing sweat patch

~

Case transfered to

Regular Sentence

new drug court

~

I I

Regular sentence . plus drug testing and sanctions program Additional, Concurrent Services Offered

Sanctions Regime Dirty Test Number

Sanction Applied

~

I

2nd

One day wor1
~

~

I I

4th 5th

Incentives

Two nights incarceration

J

I

- DRUG TREATMENT: Day. ovemight and outpatient. detox. aftercare for recovered alcoholics & drug addicts

I I

- HEALTH AND SUPPORT: GED classes. pre-natal care. pregnancy testing. post-natal care

Mandatory detoxltreatment (time to be detennined clinically. but probably less that one week)

t--1 H H

Five nights incarceration Seven nlghts incarceration

!

I

I

I,

Either seven nights incarcerabon . or. at the discretion of the probation officer. application is made to the court for probation revocation. It is 6th & I expected that offenders whose probation is revoked for program nonHigher ~ compliance will be retumed to the program at the end of whatever iail tenn they serve on the revocati on

- Narcotics Anonymous. AA

- After two months of semiweekly clean urine tests . the offender is switched to sweat patch monitOring. requiring only a once

weekly visit - Verbal commendations from Drug Court Judge for good program perfonnance - The county/city plans a "graduation ceremony" for those who successfully complete the program

I

A NE'N DRU G COURT TO REDUCE DRUG DEMAND IN INDIANAPOLIS AND MARION COUNTY

7

The Drug Court wiIl be setting aside a time slot each day for sanctioning hearings on this program . (As the court gains experience, the time of day and length of hearing time will be adjusted.) Judge Fogle or Commissioner Young wiIl preside, and the Prosecutor' s Office or defendant's attorney wiIl send staff as needed.

Research and anecdotal evidence agree that even if sanctions are pre-

determined, coming before a judge strengthens the impact of sanctions. The probationers who tested dirty in the last three days wiIl report to the new Drug Court for Demand Reduction at a specific time the next day to receive their sanction. They wiIl then be taken immediately to serve it.

Inclusion Criteria Offenders eligible for the program are those: •

Convicted of (or who plead to) D Felony Possession of Cocaine or Narcotics, D Felony Possession of a ControIled Substance, A Misdemeanor Criminal Conversion (shoplifting), B Felony Burglary (residential), C Felony Burglary (commercial), D Felony Prostitution, A Misdemeanor Prostitution;

•

Who have "split" sentences Gail time and probation) or straight probation are eligible for the program;

•

Who have no violent criminal history as defined by Section 2203 of the Crime Act;

•

Who test positive for drug use during two weeks of pre-sentence monitoring.

As the program staff gains experience, they may reassess which offender populations are targeted and make changes from time to time. Based on experience in the Washington, DC Drug Intervention Court, and figures from the Indianapolis Drug Use Forecasting (DUF) statistics, we estimate that approximately 35% of eligible offenders wiIl also be drug users. Based on 1994 statistics on convictions in the relevant categories, we estimate that the available program slots will be filled within the first six to eight months and possibly sooner. •

Testing Type and Frequency In the "experimental" courts (from which program participants will be funneled) offenders convicted of the targeted crimes will be placed on two weeks of sweat patch testing to screen them for drug use. This is less intrusive than urine testing and requires only a quick visit to a probation officer to have

• Of 3,000 annual convictions in the relevant crime categories about 10% will be excluded for histories of violence. Of the remainder, about 35% are expected to test positive, thus we would expect to have more than 900 eligible offenders per year. half from program dockets, and half in "control" dockets.

A NEW DR UG COURT TO REDUCE DRUG DEMAND IN INDIANAPOLIS AND MARION COUNTY

8

the patch checked. (See Appendix VI for details on Sweat Patch Testing.) Those offenders who test positive and who are assigned to the program will be placed on a semi-weekly urine testing schedule. The urine testing will be done by the American Institute of Toxicology (AIT) which will be establishing satellite sites accessible by public transportation, and will offer extended hours to accommodate probationers who have jobs precluding them from reporting during regular business hours. AIT will provide testing results via computer to the Probation Department and the Court. AIT has well-defined and closely-followed policies in specimen collection and chain of custody that will ensure the reliability and quality of drug-testing for the Indianapolis/Marion County program. AIT will be able to notify the collaborating agencies within 24 hours of all test results. These procedures are outlined in Appendix VI: Drug Testing and Treatment Protocols. Program participants who consistently test clean for a period of two months will be switched back to a drug testing sweat patch and report to a testing site only once a week to have the patch checked. They will remain on the patch for the duration of their sentence or 18 months, whichever comes later. A "dirty" sweat patch test will result in the probationer being remanded to twice-a-week urine testing. Confirmation testing, should program participants request it, will be done by Gas Chromatograph/Mass Spectrometer Testing (GCIMS).

To discourage frivolous challenges (which are time

consuming and expensive) in cases where probationers' GCIMS tests confirms their urine test, the probationer will be responsible for the cost of the confirmation test (approximately $40.00); if the GCIMS test does not confirm the results of the urine test, the program will pay.

Length of Time in the Program Ideally, a demand reduction program should last long enough so that participants start to plan for lives without illicit drugs, rather than merely counting the days until the program is over and they can resume their old habits. One of the objectives of the initial phase of the program will be to determine optimal testing regimes, including termination or program relaxation policies based on participant behavior. The optimal period of low-frequency testing will probably extend past the end of the funding period of the drug court grant program .

Continuum of Care Implementation of a drug court requires the development of continuum-of-care options to provide alternatives for substance abuse problems of varying severity. A number of jurisdictions around the country, recognizing the potential benefits of treatment for drug-involved offenders, have worked to de-

A NEW DRUG COURT TO REDUCE DRUG DEMAND IN INDIANAPOLIS AND MARION COUNTY

9

velop closer linkages between courts and treatment providers. Results of a qualitative evaluation of organizational arrangements between courts and drug treatment providers in Brooklyn, NY, Birmingham, LA, and Portland, OR by Falkin (1993) are consistent with the plans for the Indianapolis/Marion County Drug Court Drug Demand Reduction Program . Recommendations included: (1) intervene early (the City/County will mandate detoxification or treatment at the third dirty test); (2) provide treatment appropriate to the needs of the offender (based on individual assessments the City/County will match offenders with the appropriate level of drug treatment); and (3) develop a comprehensive array of options (which we have through collaborative arrangements with multiple providers) and a continuum of treatment services. Many drug experts agree that substantial reductions in crime can be achieved if appropriate interventions are implemented and targeted to substance-abusing offenders (Anglin and Maugh 1992: Field, 1989).

Drug Treatment Treatment options will be made available to every participant in the program from the first day he or she enters. Each participant will be provided information on qualified providers, including the public provider, Midtown Community Mental Health, an arm of Wishard Hospital, and the Harbor Light Center run by the Salvation Army, as well as information on Narcotics Anonymous and Alcoholics Anonymous meetings should they desire to attend. For those program participants unable to cease drug use through coercive testing and optional treatment alone, treatment (including detox, if necessary) will be mandatory. The individual will be provided with an assessment and will be sent to the appropriate form of treatment. The treatment providers will report back to the probation department (as they currently do on a regular basis) if an individual does not report to treatment sessions. Failure to appear for m andatory treatment will be sanctioned as if it were a missed or "dirty" drug test. (See Appendix VI for details on drug treatment offerings and protocols.)

Pregnancy Testing and Prenatal Care Some program participants will be drug-involved and pregnant. One of the goals of the program is to help them stop drug use and otherwise seek proper prenatal care. Drug use will be addressed by the same treatment, testing, and sanctions programs that apply to all eligible offenders. In addition, we will offer all female participants of child-bearing age pregnancy testing; those who find they are pregnant, or who already know that they are, will be offered a range of prenatal care, counseling, and educational services available through the County's and Health and Hospitals Corporation.

A NEW DRUG COURT TO REDUCE DRUG DEMAND IN INDIANAPOLIS AND MARION COUNTY

10

Making both the services and the testing voluntary rather than mandatory reflects a reluctance to single out pregnant women for differentially harsh treatment within the criminal justice system. We anticipate that the acceptance rates, both for testing and for services, will be high. If not, either service redesign or a move to mandatory programs will be considered as part of the continuous process of using program results to perform mid-course corrections.

Aftercare The program is intended not only to help drug users get themselves off drugs through testing, sanctions and treatment, but also to provide aftercare for successful program participants. This aftercare will be offered (not required) in the form of participation in the Greater Indianapolis Council on Alcoholism ' s Level 3 Education Program . This program is designed for the recovered drug addict or alcoholic and provides them with various course options, including lifestyle and GED courses. In addition, they serve as a referral service for their participants, helping them receive the job training they need to re-, enter the workplace or upgrade their job skills.

Sanctions and Sanction Schedule The mix of sanctions to be implemented in new Drug Court Drug Demand Reduction will be consistent across offender sub-groups (though we may later differentiate the sanctions, if we learn that such variety is desirable) and will be well-publicized. (The sanction schedule is depicted in Figure One, above.) Based on the experience of drug testing plus sanctions programs in other jurisdictions, we expect that a certain number of offenders will not show up for drug tests, or will not show up for sanction hearings from time to time. A no-show will be treated as a dirty test, and bench warrants will be issued for those who do not show up for their sanction hearing or their scheduled drug tests. Failure to appear for sanctions will add two days to whatever the sanction would otherwise have been. The probation department currently has a team of cross-designated deputies with arrest power. The department will be adding another part-time member to the team to enable it to accommodate the needs of the drug testing program. There is evidence from the treatment literature that small positive incentives have a noticeable impact on treatment outcomes. Whether such measures are politically feasible within the Indianapolis/Marion County criminal justice system is an open question. However, psychosocial reward programs (such as "graduation" ceremonies) are currently being tried with good effect in other jurisdictions. Other

A NEW DRUG COURT TO REDUCE DRUG DEMAND IN INDIANAPOLIS AND MARION COUNTY

11

options include program relaxation (e.g. less frequent drug testing) and material rewards (such as gift certificates provided by local merchants). We propose three incentives: switching those on urine testing who stay clean for two months back to a sweat patch; bringing those who are performing well in the program before the drug court judge for commendations; and a "graduation ceremony" for those who successfully complete the program.

As we learn more about how offenders in Indianapolis/Marion County are responding to the

program, and about the complexities of managing the program, we may experiment with other incentives.

Integrated Management Information System To facilitate the management and operation of the drug testing and sanctions process and to provide data for the implementation and process evaluations, Indianapolis/Marion County has asked BOTEC Analysis Corporation to help develop, execute, and maintain an integrated computerized management information system (MIS).

The MIS, once implemented, will automate routine decision-

making and notification for management of offenders in the Drug Demand Reduction Program. Because of the proposed size of the program, the intensive nature of the drug testing, and the automatic sanctions process, we believe the program will be most successful if operated with the assistance of a robust management information system. We also expect that a strong MIS will save the county money in the long term. The MIS will perform five key functions : •

manage and automate, where feasible, the flow of information on tests, sanctions, and treatments to and from the various agencies involved in the program;

•

automate the bulk of the day-to-day operations of the sanctions process through the implementation of an internal set of rules based on the sanctions regime;

•

provide the program manager with the information needed to monitor program implementation and performance;

•

gather information for the implementation and process evaluations; and

•

allow probationers to call into an automated voice message system to retrieve testing results and hearing times and dates.

What follows is a schematic diagram of the proposed MIS and its development and implementation . Appendix VII provides a more detailed look at the various system components including data collection, sanctions process automation, system reporting, hardware and software installation, training, and technical support.

A NEW DRUG COURT TO REDUCE DRUG DEMAND IN INDIANAPOLIS AND MARION COUNTY

12

Figure 2: Depiction of Integrated MIS Linkages Key: System inputs are in agency boxes System ouputs are labeled along arrows

Drug Court: Sanction application Bench warrants ,

Notification ot sanctions hearings sChedule~

AITLabs: Drug test results

Public Defender

~f.l~ not.. "ificatfo"

Of

sa

electronic update link-up

' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -,

fictions" ' eaff,,[).s

,

Autofax notificatio" of required treatment

Treatment: Attendence Outcomes

A•

Prosecutor

, Notification of , system identified required sanctions, any , identified implaI mentation prob, lems. and any , coult issued : bench warrants

Continuum of Care: Attendence Outcomes

"

Probation Department & Program Administrator: Background on participants Sanction initiation

Evaluation Plan Process Evaluation The process evaluation, which will be conducted by Dr_ Adele Harrell of the Urban Institute and Dr. Terry Baumer of Indiana University is designed to achieve three key goals: (1) Assist the court in monitoring and refining the program; (2) provide information on program operations for jurisdictions interested in replication; and (3) document the services and sanctions delivered to participants _ The study will combine continuing formative evaluation with regular summary reports on progress. At the same time, data will be collected to support a rigorous impact evaluation. The primary questions to be addressed by the process evaluation include:

A NEW DRUG COURT TO REDUCE DRUG DEMAND IN INDIANAPOLIS AND MARION COUNTY

13

•

To what extent is the program being implemented as planned? What changes in plans have been made and why? What obstacles to program implementation have been encountered and how were these resolved?

•

In practice, how are program participants selected? What services do they receive? What happens if they test positive, get rearrested, fail to attend treatment, or violate other conditions of probation? How frequently do offenders appear at court hearings?

•

What is the role of judges in the program? How do judges interact with the offenders and how do they respond to violations?

•

How is the program managed and staffed? What formal and informal arrangements have been made with other service providers and agencies? What record-keeping and monitoring procedures are used and how are these structured and maintained?

•

What are drug abuse patterns and treatment needs indicated by the test results and assessments by treatment providers? How well do the services included in the continuum of care developed for the program match treatment needs?

•

To what extent are service recipients, providers, and others directly affected by the program satisfied with the mix or range, frequency, and quality of available services?

Data Collection Qualitative and quantitative data will be used to address these questions. Qualitative data will be collected through : 1) semi-structured interviews with treatment personnel, judges, court personnel, and community service providers; 2) observations in court and at key planning meetings; and 3) focus group discussions with program participants. The semi-structured interviews will include checklists to measure satisfaction with specific aspects of program operations and open-ended questions about what problems have been encountered, and recommendations for improvements. Interviews with other service providers will include questions about the effect of the new program on their operations, and coordination issues such as referrals and exchange of information between the courts and other agencies. These semistructured interviews will be supplemented by more frequent interviews on program operations with court personnel and judges. Other qualitative data will be provided through systematic observation of court hearings to document the judicial role in case handling (e.g., amount of direct conversation with the offender, use of sanctions (and, if they are adopted, incentives). Focus group interviews will be held with groups of six to eight participants to assess their perceptions of severity and certainty of sanctioning, their interactions with judges and program staff, and their assessment of the program ' s impact.

A NEW DRUG COURT TO REDUCE DRUG DEMAND IN INDIANAPOLIS AND MARION COUNTY

14

Quantitative data will be obtained from computerized files maintained by the court and probation department, from the forms developed as part of planning for the MIS system. MIS data for the evaluation will include the demographic characteristics of participants (e.g., age, sex, ethnicity, marital status, and education), their drug test results, probation violations, court appearances, and treatment and sanctions received. Prior to MIS implementation, these data will be collected independently from existing systems or forms developed for use in the program and analyzed on a monthly basis to provide feedback during program development. Monthly management reports, based on those developed by Dr. Adele Harrell for the DC drug court and other evaluations of intensive supervision, will summarize: (1) the number and characteristics of program participants; 2) program status (continuing, dropped out, completed satisfactorily; 3) the number of drug tests and results; 4) the number and type of treatment and other services (referrals and participation); and 5) the number of violations, hearings, and sanctions by type. Key process variables will be converted to rates per client or rates per active client day to facilitate comparison over time. In addition, data on probation violations and rearrests will be collected from police and probation records. Providing this information on a monthly basis will help the court identify problems in service delivery, delays in access to treatment or imposition of sanctions, and problems in record-keeping. The final format and content of reports needed to meet both operational and research needs will be decided in consultation with the courts, the probation department and other program staff. Results of the process evaluation will be presented in: (1) a chronological log of project milestones (shifts in policies or services; staffing changes; special events); (2) quarterly reports on implementation progress as measured by the monthly reports, current issues, and recommendations; and (3) annual reports that will present the results of the quarterly and unstructured interviews, covering satisfaction with the program, problems that arose and steps to resolve them, and the shifts in program operation in the past year. The reports and the log of project milestones will be used to determine whether, when, and what kinds of significant shifts in implementation occurred.

Potential Impact Evaluation The process evaluation and data collection efforts will lay the ground work for an impact evaluation by collecting the information on program participants, services, and compliance needed to address five key questions: (1) Do participants have a lower probability of criminal involvement and substance abuse during and after program participation compared to similar offenders not in the program? (2) How do features of the services received-the type, duration, and intensity--affect outcomes for offenders? (3) What proportion of participants continue to use drugs despite repeated sanctions? (4) Do offenders subject to testing and sanctions spend more or less of their time incarcerated than offenders

A NEW DRUG COURT TO REDUCE DRUG DEMAND IN INDIANAPOLIS AND MARION COUNTY

15

not so subject? (5) Are some types of offenders helped more than others? Because defendants are randomly assigned to dockets, comparisons of those who entered the program to a control group of offenders sentenced in the court dockets not participating in the demonstration project will be conducted. This larger impact evaluation will necessarily exceed the current budget and time frame for two reasons. First, we think it is important to defer impact evaluation until the program is really up and running: premature evaluation of a partially implemented program is likely to present an inaccurate picture of the program's potential. Second, collecting comparable information on the control group characteristics, court experiences, drug use and rearrests is a substantial undertaking which will require additional research support.

Program Management and Staffing The program will be run largely as a collaboration between judges in the Marion County Courts and the Marion County Probation Department with minimal roles for prosecutors and counsel for the defense (The County and Municipal courts will be combined in January 1996, allowing us time to plan for a transition to the new system). Based on the experience of other drug courts, we recognize that offenders in this program may be very skillful at finding the "holes" in supervision and exploiting these gaps.

The vigilance of the program administrator, participating judges, and probation officers to

"gaming" of the system will be supported by on-going data collection and monitoring by the MIS system. The City/County is committed to continuing the proposed program, if it is proving effective, past the eighteen months of funding for which we have applied here. We are also committed to extending it system-wide if appropriate. Because of this planned extension and expansion, we have chosen to invest in the development of a robust Management Information System, and to engage outside help in setting up and implementing the proposed program. We feel these up-front investments will save us money in the long term. (See Figure Three on the next page for an overview of program roles and Management.)

A NEW DRUG COURT TO REDUCE DRUG DEMAND IN INDIANAPOLIS AND MARION COUNTY

16

Figure 3: Overview of Program Organization Mayor's Office - Administers funds - Lends support where needed

Program Administrator (in Probation Department)

Marion County Superior Court Probation Department -

- Tracks information on probationers/ participants - Receives test results , creates messages for probationers, schedules sanctions hearings - Oversees treatment attendence - Serve bench warrants - Makes necessary referral to courts - Houses administrator - Houses central MIS computer - Main administrative center

Keep program running smoothly Serve as trouble shooter Serve as point person on project Works closely with all parties and evaluator

Marion County Superior Drug Court

- Ultimate authority regarding probationers/participants - Sanctions participants according to schedule - Meets periodically with participants - Issues bench warrants

I Public Defender

I

r All Labs - Performs drug tests - Conveys results to MIS - Possible education component

1\

>dC'''' nRII~

Treatment - Men - Women - Detox, inpatient, outpatient, special needs for women

Continuum of Care - Pre-natal classes for pregnant women - Lifestyle classes - GED - Referral services

r.nIIRT TO REDUCE DRUG DEMAND IN INDIANAPOLIS AND MARION COUNTY

- Defend/represent probationers - Participate in plea bargain - Appear at sanctions hearings - Conduit of infonmation to defendentiprobationers

I

I Prosecutor - Plea bargaining process - Help screen participants - Be present at sanction hearings

17

Key Staff Responsibilities and Capabilities Program Administrator Marion County/Indianapolis proposes that the drug testing and treatment program be administered by Lori L. Johnson, Senior Probation Officer working in concert with the Municipal and Superior Court Judges. Ms. Johnson who has been with the Probation Department since May of 1991, is experienced in interagency management issues relevant to this program, and has a state

cert~fication

in

alcohol/drug assessment and counseling. She is also trained in crisis intervention and domestic violencerelated case management which we expect to prove useful. Ms. Johnson will work closely with and be trained by a program implementation consultant we expect to bring in to assist with program start up and implementation issues. · Ms Johnson will serve as the facilitator of the program, a central repository for information and questions, and a troubleshooter. She will also assist the evaluation team.

Judicial Supervision Judge Andrew Fogle will be the judicial hub of the Drug Court Demand Reduction Program, heading up the hearings process, establishing an atmosphere of accountability with offenders, and acting as a liaison to other judges in the County. He, along with Commissioner Young, will oversee the sanctions hearings (in which they will communicate to participating offenders that they are taking a personal interest in their performance and will be holding them accountable), and will confer regularly with the Program Administrator, Lori Johnson. Judge Fogle's tenure in this position is indefinite. Judge Fogle has been the Magistrate of the Marion County Drug Court since May of 1994. Previously Judge Fogle was the Master Commissioner of Marion Superior Court, Criminal Division, with judicial responsibilities in assisting the presiding judge in all stages of major felony litigation. Judge Fogle earl ier served as legal counsel for the Indiana Department of Corrections, advising the Department on legal matters. He also served as a member of the Executive Staff of the Department which allowed him to play an important role in the formation, development and execution of policy. Before serving as counsel to the Department of Corrections, Judge Fogle was a public defender in the Marion Superior Court Criminal Division. He currently assists as a lecturer at the Indiana University School of LawIndianapolis Trial Practice course.

• We expect to identify an appropriate consultant or consulting organization through conversations with the American Parole and Probation Association technical assistance branch, the American University' s Adjudication Technical Assistance Project, our colleagues at Indiana University, the Urban Institute and BOTEC, and the National Association of Drug Court Professionals.

AN ENHANCED DRUG COURT TO REDUCE DRUG DEMAND IN INDIANAPOLIS

18

Judge Fogle serves on the Mayor's Advisory Council on Drugs, is the Facilitator for the Council's Treatment Sub-Committee and recently attended the National Training Conference of the National Association of Drug Court Professionals. In addition to these ongoing projects, Judge Fogle is also assisting in the implementation of the Expedited Case Project in the existing Drug Court. William Young is the Master Commissioner of the Marion County Drug Court, a position he has held since January of 1995 . His position, partial funding for which is provided through the Indiana Criminal Justice Institute for the next eighteen months, is of great importance to the City/County which is working to make it an on-going line item in the Court budget. His role will be similar to that of Judge Fogle. Commissioner Young has practiced law with his family'S law firm, Young & Young, served as a Conflict Administrator for the Marion County Public Defender Agency in 1994, and served as a parttime Public Defender in the Marion County Superior Court, Criminal Division for two and a half years. He has also served as Judge Pro-Tempore for the Marion County Superior Court, Criminal Division, Marion County Drug Court and Small Claims Court. He is a member of the Indianapolis, Indiana and American Bar Association, and has assumed leadership roles in each of these organizations. He is also a member of the Indianapolis Legal Aid Society, and the Indiana and American Trial Lawyers Association.

Prosecutor's Office The Marion County Prosecutor's Office is headed by Scott Newman, who, along with his Chief Trial Deputy, Cale Bradford, has been an active participant in the existing Drug Court Program from day one, and has taken an active role in developing the plan we present here for a new drug court. Prosecutor Scott Newman was elected in 1994 to his first term as prosecutor, a capacity in which he will serve until the next election in 1998. Mr. Newman is also coordinating with Marion County Health and Hospitals in an effort to increase prenatal care for women who present for non-drugre lated care at the Hospital. This is an effort to reac;h drug-using women who do not fall within purview of the criminal justice system. Prosecutor Newman will dedicate time to the drug court program as needed, and will also participate in any modifications to the Program's plan that become necessary. A Deputy Prosecutor from his office will be handling the cases which are screened into the drug testing program. While it is anticipated that initially the new time commitment will be approximately one hour per day, the Prosecutor's office has budgeted for a paralegal for the same amount of time. Chief Trial Deputy Cale Bradford was recruited to the Marion County Prosecutor's Office by Prosecutor Newman and it is anticipated that he will remain with the Prosecutor's office during Prosecutor Newman's tenure. Mr. Bradford will dedicate time to the drug testing program as needed and will

AN ENH ANCED DRUG COURT TO REDUCE DRUG DEMAND IN INDIANAPOLIS

19

also participate in any modifications to the program's plan that become necessary. Mr. Bradford served in the prosecutors offices from 1986 to 1988 and handled a general felony case load, including forgery and murder cases. In 1990 he joined the law firm of Castor and Bradford where he practiced until June of 1990. At that time, he accepted a position as Assistant US Attorney with the US Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Indiana where he was assigned to the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force. He remained in this position until January of 1995 at which time he rejoined the Prosecutor's Office in his current position as Chief Trial Deputy. Mr. Bradford also serves on the Mayor' s Advisory Council on Drugs.

Mayor and County Executive Mayor Stephen Goldsmith who is also the County Executive was elected in 1992, and is nearing the end of his first term. He is considered a favorite in the upcoming election. Mayor Goldsmith will dedicate time to the drug court project on an as needed basis and his office will administer the grant funds Mayor Goldsmith has focused on combating the problems that drugs and alcohol pose to the Indianapolis community since taking office as the Prosecutor in 1979. He served as Chairman of the Governor's Task Force to Reduce Drunk Driving and has convened an Advisory Council on Drugs to address the problems of crack cocaine in the City and County. Mayor Goldsmith is a Research Fellow in Criminal Justice at Harvard University'S Kennedy School of Government; served earlier as editor of

Prosecutor's Perspective; and is currently an Assistant Professor at Indiana University's School of Public and Environmental Affairs. Lisa McCallum, an attorney, is Special Assistant to Mayor Goldsmith and coordinator of the city's drug policy, and in that role has conducted much of the research needed to formulate the proposed new drug court program. Ms McCallum will act as a liaison between the Mayor' s office and other program agencies.

Probation Department The Marion County Superior Court-Criminal Division Probation Department serves six Superior Courts and the Marion County Drug Court. Its mission consists of providing supervision for over 2500 adult felons placed on probation annually; providing to the courts comprehensive pre-sentence investigation reports for each felony offender awaiting sentencing and providing assistance to the offenders throu gh referral to appropriate drug treatment programs, counseling, and other supportive and educational services. The Probation Department will take an active role in connecting offenders in the drug

AN ENH ANCED DRUG COURT TO REDUCE DRUG DEMAND IN INDIANAPOLIS

20

testing and sanctions program with treatment and other services, and will house the program administrator, Lori Johnson, who is described above. George M. Walker, Chief Probation Officer, Marion County Superior Courts has a B.A. and M.A. in Criminology. He brings a particularly appropriate mix of skills and experience to his role in ensuring that the probation department supports the project, and as an advisor to the program administrator and evaluation team. He will assist the program team in identifying an appropriate consultant to assist the Probation department in program start up and implementation. He began his career in probation in 1986 as a probation officer for the Miami County Circuit and Superior Courts in Peru, Indiana where he supervised over 150 adults and 75 juveniles on probation annually.

For a period of one year he also conducted

drug/alcohol assessments for the Court program. While in Miami County, Mr. Walker served as a member of the Board of Directors (2nd Vice President) for the Four County Comprehensive Mental Health Center, whose mission was in part to provide community outpatient counseling for alcohol and drug abuse. In 1991, Mr. Walker began his tenure at the Indiana Judicial Center as the Assistant Director for Probation for the State of Indiana, allowing him to gain a perspective on programs state-wide by working with various committees of probation officers and judges from across the state and nation. He assumed his current position in 1994. Mr. Walker was recently appointed to serve on the Mayor's Advisory Council on Drugs and is a member of the Probation Officers' Professional Association of Indiana, the Indiana Correctional Association, the American Correctional Association, and the American Probation & Parole Association. In his spare time, Mr. Walker publishes a special study guide for prospective probation officers preparing to take the Indiana Probation Officers' Certification Examination. He is also a member of the Indiana Army National Guard where he serves as an Intelligence Officer.

Drug Testing and Treatment Mike Evans, Ph.D., DABT, CEO, American Institute of Toxicology has over twenty years of experience in the field of toxicology ranging from teaching to research to serving as the Director of the Indiana State Department of Toxicology. In 1990, he and a partner formed the American Institute of Toxicology. He will be taking a very active role in this project, communicating directly with the Administrator and the Court. PharChem, Inc. will provide sweat patches. Drug Treatment will be provided by Midtown Mental Health, administered by Mr. Dennis Jones, and by the Salvation Army' s Harbor Light Program and aftercare by The Greater Indianapolis Council on Alcoholism. (See Appendix VI for accreditation information and services provided).

AN ENHANCED DRUG COURT TO REDUCE DRUG DEMAND IN INDIANAPOLIS

21

Health and Hospitals The Health and Hospital Corporation of Marion County oversees the Marion County Health Department and Wishard Memorial Hospital. The President of Health and Hospital, E. Mitchell Roob, as well as the Director of the Division of Public Health, Virginia Caine, MD, are both in favor of the Drug Court Drug Demand Reduction Program's attempt to focus on pregnant women offenders. In addition, Mr. Roob and Dr. Caine are working with the Marion County Prosecutor's office to devise a plan which would enable them to reach drug-using women who do not enter the criminal justice system, but instead present for treatment at Wishard Memorial Hospital.

Management Information System Marion CountyfIndianapolis plans to contract to BOTEC Analysis Corporation to develop, install, provide training for, and support the management information system. BOTEC is experienced in both the development of user-friendly customized information systems and the implementation and evaluation of drug testing and structured sanctions programs. BOTEC's partner, The Real-Time Intelligent Systems Corporation (RTIS), an expert in the development in complex, linked, on-line, information systems, will develop supporting software that will provide a shell for the MIS. We plan to integrate the newly proposed MIS wherever possible with existing criminal justice system information management systems. Upon project start-up, BOTEC will work in an iterative fashion with the key players in the City/County to specify a system design that will support the drug testing and sanctions process and produce output reports for program management and evaluation. Based on these meetings, BOTEC will then complete the software development within the shell built by RTIS. The MIS will not only meet the needs of the project as it is originally specified, but will also be flexible enough to allow the MIS, with simple modifications, to incorporate change in the program. BOTEC will also provide specifications and act as an agent to Marion CountyfIndianapolis for the purchase of the computer hardware systems and auxiliary software needed for the MIS, will help install the systems, train program staff in system operation, and provide technical support. We expect to have the most important elements of the system in place and operating four to six months after project start-up, so data collection and processing can begin. Prior to system start-up data will be collected by the proposed MIS clerk by hand. Once the MIS is installed, the clerk will be trained by BOTEC in all aspects of the central computer operation. The clerk will then be responsible for data entry of all information not gathered through automation and will assist program staff in using the system.

AN ENHANCED DRUG COURT TO REDUCE DRUG DEMAND IN INDIANAPOLIS

22

Andrew Lockwood Chalsma, Director of Information Systems and a Research Associate at BOTEC, will direct the MIS development and implementation. Mr. Chalsma has developed customized, user-friendly information systems, in the private, non-profit, and public sectors. He also has extensive . experience doing statistical data analysis for government-funded criminal justice system program evaluation. Mr. Chalsma is currently leading the development of an MIS for the Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse/ Department of Justice, Opportunity to Succeed (OPTS) demonstration program. The OPTS MIS tracks relevant information about probationers with substance abuse problems in five cities nation-wide, and the supervision and services they are receiving through the program. See Appendix VII for more information on the MIS implementation plan. Assistance in Program Design and Implementation Indianapolis and Marion County propose to enlist the help of BOTEC Analysis Corporation and another agency (see footnote on page 19) to assist us in program design and implementation issues as they come up throughout the duration of the program. Mark A. R. Kleiman, Chairman of BOTEC Analysis Corporation is a nationally recognized expert in drug control policy and will advise us on program design and monitoring issues, and will assist us in refining the program as it progresses. Jenny W. Rudolph, Managing Director of BOTEC will assist us in developing collaborative planning, process design, and problem-solving methods.

Ann Marie Rocheleau, a Project Director at BOTEC with

extensive experience in managing and tracking drug treatment for criminally involved offenders, will assist us in addressing those issues effectively. Evaluation Staff A process evaluation with the goals described above requires considerable flexibility and imagination in adapting to unexpected developments and familiarity with program issues and problems. The evaluation will be directed by co-principal investigators, Dr. Adele Harrell of the Urban Institute and Dr. Terry Baumer ofIndiana University, both of whom have the necessary experience. Dr. Adele Harrell is director of the Program on Law and Behavior at the Urban Institute. She is currently conducting a 5-year experimental evaluation of the Drug Court Intervention Project in Washington, DC, and has considerable experience studying court-based drug programs which can be directly applied in this project. During the first few months of the project, Dr. Harrell will participate in the research planning, development of materials and data collection procedures, and the specification of data to be included in the MIS and monthly reports on program progress. Dr. Harrell will hold regular conference calls to discuss the evaluation field work and to coordinate that effort with the MIS develop-

AN ENHANCED DRUG COURT TO REDUCE DRUG DEMAND IN INDIANAPOLIS

23

ment. In the second year, Dr. Harrell will participate in the preparation of the final reports and recommendations.

Dr. Terry Baumer is Associate Professor at the Indiana University of Public and Environmental Affairs. He brings expertise in criminal justice evaluations of probation programs and drug treatment needs as well as on-site practical experience in the IndianapolisiMarion County courts. Dr. Baumer will attend planning meetings, manage the focus group and selected interviews, and be responsible for the on-site data collection and preparation of monthly and interim summary reports. He will be assisted by a half-time research assistant who will collect data, observe court and program operations, attend meetings, and provide a continuing communication link to Drs. Harrell and Baumer.

Shannon Cavanagh, research associate with the Urban Institute, will provide technical assistance to the program and project staff to facilitate efficient adaptation of evaluation methods which will increase the comparability of data to that being collected in other evaluations and reduce the start-up planning time for the evaluation. The Urban Institute will serve as the primary evaluation contractor and will subcontract with Indiana University for the services of Dr. Baumer and the research assistant. Biographical information and statements of corporate capabilities are provided in Appendix VIII.

AN ENHANCED DRUG COURT TO REDUCE DRUG DEMAND IN INDIANAPOLIS

24

Appendices: Table of Contents

AN ENHANCED DRUG COURT TO REDUCE DRUG DEMAND IN INDIANAPOLIS

26