WIXLIB

each site, including the drug court judge, coordinator, case managers, Division of Parole and Probation(DPP) agents, public defenders, prosecutors, and substance abuse treatment staff. Interview protocolswere adapted as needed for specialized staff, including those incorporated as part of the proposedenhancements (e.g., a social worker in Baltimore City, peer recovery support counselors in CarrollCounty). Most interviews were conducted individually at the site; in a few cases, onsite interviews weredone with two team members performing the same role and some individual interviews were done afterthe site visit via telephone.For the study of the four enhancement sites, as well as the seven additional sites and thecomparative analysis, SMART data were obtained from pre-scripted automated program reports inseveral domains: admissions, discharges, case management activities, service referrals, sanctions, andincentives. Participant demographics and other characteristics were included as part of the admissionand discharge reports. The SMART data reports were exported to Excel and SPSS statistical software foranalysis purposes.The drug court sites (and treatment program partners) are responsible for all SMART data entryand the completeness (and reliability and validity) of these data. Through training and the persistentpersuasive efforts of OPSC there have been significant improvements in the amount and quality ofSMART data in recent years. Data on admissions, discharges (including program completion andtermination), and the active participant census and participant characteristics appear complete andreliable. Variations in the completeness of SMART data across courts (and across time within courts) doremain, however, and the amount of missing data from some courts in certain domains makes reportingand interpretation of these results dubious. Data on case management activities (planning and reviewmeetings with participants and team members) and treatment were thus excluded from analyses, andwhere noted, data on service referrals, and in a few cases sanctions and incentives, must be viewed withthis caveat in mind.For the enhancement site analysis, SMART data were obtained for quarterly periods beginningin 2011, the year prior to demonstration startup. Data were collected through the second quarter(April-June) of 2014, and the site visits and interviews were conducted over late summer and throughthe final months of 2014. These reports present annual admissions and census data for the 2013calendar year, and compare trends over the pre-enhancement year (beginning January 2011) throughJune 2014. Drafts of the enhancement site report were reviewed for accuracy and updating by each ofthe site coordinators in the spring of 2015, and drug court judges and the other team membersreviewed a final draft during the summer. SMART data on the seven additional drug court sites wereobtained in the spring of 2015 and cover the period January 2012 through the first quarter (JanuaryMarch) of 2015. For purposes of the final comparative analysis, updated data were obtained on the fourenhancement sites to match the tracking period used for the seven additional sites. The reportsincluded here on these programs have not been reviewed by drug court team staff at these sites.2

Report OrganizationThe three study components appear sequentially as sections in this report. The fourenhancement site reports comprise the first section. Each of these begins with a detailed description ofthe drug court program, including the court’s history, structure (team members and their agencies,target population, screening and intake), and operations (legal mechanisms, phases and progression,incentives and sanctions policies), and the drug court’s substance abuse treatment and other ancillaryservice linkages. Annual data for 2013 are presented on admissions, active participants and participantcharacteristics, and on discharges and completion status. The next section describes plans andimplementation progress of enhancements made under the BJA funding awards. This is followed by anarrative and graphical account of data trends just before and during the enhancement period. Eachreport closes with a review and assessment of the program in light of eleven drug court standards areasexplicated by the National Drug Court Institute of the National Association of Drug Court Professionals(NADCP).The second section of this document includes more abbreviated reports on the seven additionaldrug court sites. As noted above, these discuss data trends for a 3 ¼ year period through March 2015 inadmissions, participant census and characteristics, discharges and completion status, service referrals,sanctions, and incentives. The last section of the report presents comparative results on thesedescriptive and performance areas, identifying and discussing patterns in the data often relating to thestate’s diversity of drug court participant populations and site locations. The discussion is accompaniedby figures and charts; an appendix shows the comparative results in table format.3

Enhancement CourtsBaltimore City Drug Treatment Court—Circuit CourtCourt HistoryThe Baltimore City Drug Treatment Court—Circuit Court (BCDTC/CC) was implementedin 1994. Felony cases as well as misdemeanor cases which come to the court by “jury trialprayers” are administered by the Circuit Court. The District Court in Baltimore City alsooperates a separate drug treatment court that hears misdemeanor cases. Operationally, theCircuit Court DTC includes two tracks, A and B. Until recently, Track A was known as theBaltimore City Felony Drug Diversion Initiative (FDI), which was established in 2003 as adiversionary program from long term incarceration for non-violent offenders with extensivecriminal histories and serious substance abuse problem. Funded with a 1 million federal grant,the FDI court was aimed at reducing the backlogs and postponements between arrest,arraignment, and trial dates for those opting into the original drug court, which often delayedtheir admission into DTC for six months or more. In the FDI, discretion in managing drug courtcases was shifted from the State’s Attorney to the Drug Court judge. The FDI program namewas dropped in 2013 when its model of operation was adopted for both Tracks A and B. Underthe current protocol potential participants are screened and formally assessed by the initialdate in court (arraignment for felons and 21 days after a request for jury trial for misdemeanorcases). Currently, it is possible for BCDTC/CC participants to enter treatment within 24 hours ofarraignment, depending upon the availability of an appropriate treatment placement.The Honorable Ellen M. Heller and the Honorable Thomas J. S. Waxter, Jr., both retired,are presiding judges for the BCDTC/CC. The Drug Treatment Court Coordinator is Angela Lowry.The Honorable Sylvester B. Cox is the Judge in Charge of the DTC.Evolved from the former FDI docket, Track A was originally reserved for more seriousoffenses (as defined by Maryland Sentencing Guidelines) and more involved treatment issues(such as co-occurring disorders), while Track B was intended for cases with less serious chargesand treatment issues. Judge Heller was instrumental in the creation of FDI and continues topreside over Track A; she has been with the DTC since 2003. Judge Waxter presides over TrackB and has been with drug court since 2010.4

Prior record or severity of addiction is no longer used to assign participants to aparticular track and both tracks draw from the same pool of defendants. Participants are nowassigned tracks alternately when they plea into DTC and each track is allocated a comparablenumber of cases each month. Currently, Track A cases are heard on three Thursdays per month,while Track B cases are heard on Monday and Tuesday mornings.Court StructureCurrent Census and CapacityAs of April 30, 2014, the SMART database showed there were 474 active participants inthe DTC. Although the program does not have a stated target capacity, this represents adecrease over a program census that topped 600 during all of 2011. The drop in participants,described in more detail below, is attributable to various factors, some of which weretemporary. Technical problems with a new referral system instituted by the State’s Attorney’sOffice (SAO) in April 2014 precluded identification of a number of potential candidates. Then inMay 2014, medical leave of the State’s Attorney assigned to DTC precipitated a series ofsubstitutes who had varying expertise in the SAO process for identifying potential DTC cases.The falling numbers also reflect efforts made over 2012 and 2013 by the Coordinator and CaseManagers to update and improve the accuracy of the SMART database by removing cases from“active” status for individuals who had never been admitted to the program (cases for whichadmissions data were entered but elected not to participate), or had long been terminated orotherwise discharged from the program.A more persistent issue identified by the DTC team is that there are fewer cases beingreferred to the drug court, or electing or seeking to participate, which satisfy legal eligibilitycriteria for the program. Discussed further in the drug court standards section at the close ofthis report, Judge Heller and the Coordinator have indicated that adjustments to the eligibilitycriteria are being considered that would permit more defendants access to DTC while stillensuring public safety.OversightIn addition to oversight provided at the State level by the Drug Court OversightCommittee, administration and direction of the CC DTC is accomplished through theAdministrative Judge, the Judge in Charge of the Criminal Docket and a Drug Court AdvisoryCommittee.5

The Advisory Committee meets quarterly. Members include key DTC team membersand supervisors from member agencies: DTC judgesThe DTC CoordinatorThe DTC Care CoordinatorThe DTC Case ManagersThe DTC Social WorkerRepresentative of the State’s Attorney’s Office (SAO)Representative of the Office of the Public Defender (OPD)Representatives of the Division of Parole and Probation (DPP)Representative of Behavioral Health Services Baltimore (BHSB)The Judge in Charge of Drug Court chairs the Advisory Committee and is also responsible foroversight of the DTC.The DTC Coordinator is supervised by the DTC judges and reports to them regularly. Shealso reports quarterly to the Advisory Committee and is responsible for administering recordsrelated to the drug court.Drug Treatment Court TeamEach track of the Drug Treatment Court has a team comprised of these members: DTC Judge (3)o Judge Cox is the Judge in Charge.o Judge Heller presides over Track A/FDI and is the only judge to have presidedover Track A. She has presided over drug court since 2003.o Judge Waxter has presided over Track B cases since 2010. Prior to this date,several judges had rotated through this position. DTC Coordinatoro Angela Lowry is the DTC Coordinator for both tracks. She has served in thiscapacity for approximately four years.6

o The DTC Coordinator has daily operational oversight of the CC drug court. Sheoversees relations and coordination between the DTC and substance treatmentproviders and other community-based service entities. The Coordinatorsupervises Case Managers, the Social Worker, and the Care Coordinator assignedto Track B. Case Managers (2)o The current Case Managers (CM) joined the DTC team within the past two years(one hired in the summer of 2013 and the other in late spring of 2014). CaseManagers serve both tracks, and rotate on a monthly basis sitting in on cases ineach track.o Case Managers enter data in the Statewide Maryland Automated RecordTracking (SMART) system used by Maryland’s DTCs, and assist participants withall non-treatment needs such as job training/placement, housing, educationprograms, eligibility for benefits, and obtaining IDs and Social Security numbers. Office of the Public Defender (2)o Assistant Publi

Assistance. The Bureau of Justice Assistance is a component of the Office of Justice Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the National Institute of Justice, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, the Office for Victims of Crime, the Community Capacity Development