Report to the

Joint Judiciary Interim Committee on

Drug Court Recommendations

 

 

 

 

Drug Court Steering Committee

Representative Keith Gingery, Co-Chairman

Senator Michael Von Flatern, Co-Chairman

 

 

 

 

Second Edition

 

September 5, 2008

Enrolled Act No. 94 Section 1 (d)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Introduction and Background:

 

In 2001, the Wyoming Legislature passed legislation establishing drug courts (W.S. §5-10-101 through 107.)  These statutes contain provisions on the purpose and goals of drug courts, the establishment of a drug court system and drug court account, the drug court panel, local drug court management committees, applications, selection by drug court panel, report on grants awarded, drug court qualifications and conditions for admission to a drug court program.

 

The Wyoming Department of Health (“WDH”) through the Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services Division (“Division”) oversees and provides funding to drug courts from the drug court account.  In 2001, the Division promulgated Rules and Regulations for State Funding and Certification of Drug Courts, Chapter 14 (“Chapter 14”).  These rules contain provisions on authority, purpose, severability, definitions, funding application procedure and eligibility, drug court panel, local matching funds, maximizing federal funds, certification of treatment personnel, continuing education of drug court management committee, annual reviews, confidentiality of records and data collection and outcome evaluation.

 

The Drug Court Panel decides if annual drug court applications meet the criteria established by W.S. § 5-10-106 and makes all drug court funding decisions.   The Drug Court Panel was created by W.S. §5-10-103(b) and consists of the following individuals or their designees:  the chairman of the board of judicial policy and administration, chairman of the governor’s substance abuse and violent crime advisory board, director of the department of health, the attorney general, director of the department of family services, director of the department of corrections and the state public defender. 

  

All drug courts are funded through the drug court account. The drug court account was established by W.S. § 5-10-102 and any drug court that meets the qualifications under W.S. 5-10-106 and Chapter 14 is eligible for funding from the drug court account in an amount not to exceed two hundred thousand dollars ($200,000.00) for each fiscal year.  The current budget for drug courts is approximately nine million ($9,000,000) per biennium or four million five hundred thousand ($4,500,000) annually.  The drug court budget is a combination of state general funds and tobacco settlement dollars appropriated through House Bill 82 in 2001, House Bill 59 in 2002 and House Bill 91 in 2006.

 

Currently, there are twenty-four (24) drug courts in Wyoming which include adult, juvenile, family, DUI and tribal drug courts.  As of July 1, 2008, twenty-three (23) drug courts have been awarded state grants.  Sublette County drug court does not receive state funding.

 

At a local level, all drug court are required to establish a local drug court management committee to consist of statutorily designating individuals including:  the judge who presides over the local drug court, a prosecuting attorney, a member of the bar who practices criminal defense, a monitoring officer and a representative of the treatment providers.   Each local drug court must manage the funds received from the drug court account, meet reporting requirements and appoint a drug court coordinator or program manager who is responsible for the administration and oversight of the court.  The drug court coordinator is the primary contact for outside agencies.  Local drug courts must meet many statutory and regulatory requirements for continued funding which include but are not limited to:  demonstration of local match, providing a range of treatment modalities to participants, ensuring treatment providers and management committee members obtain requiring drug court specific training, ensuring confidentiality of records and cooperating in data collection and program evaluation.  

           

The Division requires all local drugs court receiving state funds to submit several annual reviews, as set forth in Chapter 14, Section 11, including 1) an itemized year-end financial statement; 2) an independent audit of each year-end financial statement by a certified public accountant or other qualified auditor; 3) a random program audit and treatment review; and 4) a self-evaluation.  Additionally, each court must submit monthly itemized invoices to receive reimbursement for actual monthly expenses.  Each drug court must submit an annual application for funds which is reviewed by the Division and Drug Court Panel prior to receiving funding.  The Division enters into annual contracts with each local drug court after the Drug Court Panel makes the final funding determination; these contracts require each drug court to comply with statutes, rules and regulations and specified contract deliverables.

 

Drug Court Steering Committee – 2007

 

In 2007, the Wyoming Legislature created the Drug Court Steering Committee (“Committee”) through Enrolled Act No. 94.  The Committee was created to create a more uniform administration of drug courts in the state.  The Act specifies that the Committee shall be comprised of the following individuals:  all members of the Drug Court Panel, members of the Wyoming Senate and House of Representatives, judges, a prosecuting attorney, a defense attorney and a representative of the University of Wyoming criminal justice department. The Act directs the Committee to review and made recommendations on seven (7) specific drug court topics and to report to the Joint Judiciary Interim Committee regarding its findings and recommendations no later that August 1, 2007 and August 1, 2008.  The Act states the Committee shall terminate as of December 31, 2008.     

 

The Committee met in Casper on April 18, May 24 and June 26, 2007. The Committee submitted a report to the Joint Judiciary Interim Committee on August 1, 2007.

 

In summary, the August 1, 2007 report contained the following Committee recommendations:

 

1.      The Committee recommended that only joint powers boards, municipal or county governments be allowed to apply for and receive funding for a drug court.  The joint powers board, municipal or county government would be the employer of any drug court administrative staff.  All contractual relationships concerning the drug court would be with the local entity that applied for funding.  The only joint powers boards that could apply would be comprised of counties and/or municipalities, or a combination of a county and municipality.

2.      The Committee recommended that District Court Commissioners who act as the drug court judge have the same ability as Circuit Court Magistrates to sanction (within parameters) without asking a supervising judge.  The Committee supported magistrates acting as drug court judges and circuit court judges presiding over district court cases that appear in drug court.

3.      The Committee recommended striking from Section 1(c)(ii) of Enrolled Act No. 94 the words, “Alternative adjudication procedures” and replacing them with “Use of alternative court officers…”

4.      The Committee recommended requiring alternative court officers to be trained in drug court process and principals if they will be presiding over any drug court hearings.

5.      The Committee provided no recommendation on [the progress and value of the department of health’s substance abuse division’s case management system and means for improvement] but asked for the Division’s plan for improving the case management system.

6.      The Committee recommended that WDH shall establish by rule and regulation a funding formula that includes a base amount in addition to an amount per client, and discontinue the current grant program.  (In 2007, the Division requested an Attorney General opinion on whether current statute allows the Department of Health to promulgate rules for a funding formula.  The Attorney General determined that the statute provides the authority to WDH to promulgate rules for a funding formula.)

7.      The Committee recommended repealing the funding cap of $200,000 as set forth in W.S. 5-10-102(b).

8.      The Committee recommended allowing the Drug Court Steering Committee expire in 2008 and allow the Drug Court Panel to continue in its current form.  The Committee stated that a high level of agency cooperation already exists.

9.      The Committee recommended not increasing the number of drug courts until funding is stabilized with a funding formula.

10.  The Committee recommended deleting the five (5) goals listed in W.S. 5-10-101(a) and replacing them with the national outcome measures.  The national outcome measures are:

                                                  i.      Participant retention and graduation;

                                                ii.      Participant recidivism;

                                              iii.      Participant sobriety; and

                                              iv.      Units of service provided to participant.

11.  The Committee requested that the Joint Judiciary Interim Committee consider updating W.S. 5-10-101 through 107 through the legislative process to provide for drug court procedure and structure.  The Committee maintained that the legislative process would be the most appropriate forum to gather comment from numerous stakeholders and therefore develop a procedure and structure that reflects input from a broader constituency.

12.  The Committee recommended that the Joint Judiciary Interim Committee commission a study that researches the performance of Wyoming drug courts in relation to other sentencing options such as probation, boot camp, etc.  The Committee recognized that drug court research indicates a high level of success within the drug court program but there is little research comparing it to other options.  In an effort to invest dollars in programs that demonstrate positive outcomes, the Committee encouraged the Joint Judiciary Interim Committee to sponsor legislation funding a longitudinal project studying the efficacy of numerous sentencing options and the types of offenders they best serve, including drug courts.

13.  The Committee suggested that the Joint Judiciary Interim Committee entertain legislation appropriating funding to the Department of Corrections to provide for one probation officer per every 20 drug court clients.

14.  The Committee recommended a series of proposals to address legal gaps in current drug court statutes including:

 

                                                  i.      Allow judges to require completion of drug court as a term of probation;

                                                ii.      Provide judges with the ability to impose sanction in a drug court for violations of the conditions of that drug court;

                                              iii.      Provide for a hearing prior to termination of drug court;

                                              iv.      Require that the legal status of all drug court client cases shall be post-adjudication, W.S. 7-13-301 deferral or consent decree;

                                                v.      Modify current statutes to allow for an extension of probation for up to three years for participants in a drug court and parallel language added to consent decrees.

                                              vi.      Modify current statute to allow probation for misdemeanor crimes and consent decrees to be greater than one year not more than three if participating in a drug court.

 

Drug Court Steering Committee - 2008

 

On July 8, 2008, the Committee met for the first time since June, 2007, in Casper for the purpose of working a drug court bill proposed by Representative Gingery, entitled 09LSO-0051.W1, Drug Court Accountability and Treatment Act (“Drug Court Accountability and Treatment Act bill”).  The Committee took public comment related to the Drug Court Accountability and Treatment Act bill, including comment from the Drug Court Panel.  The Drug Court Panel’s comments included proposed changes to the current drug court statutes.  After public comment, Representative Meyer raised concerns that the Drug Court Accountability and Treatment Act bill, specifically, that the bill was not proposed by the Committee, but instead proposed by a single legislator.  The Honorable Judge Huber moved and Senator Meyer’s seconded a motion to review the Drug Court Panel’s proposed statutory changes (referred to as the “Drug Court Panel’s bill”) and then add portions from the Drug Court Accountability and Treatment Act bill to the existing drug court statutes.  (Representative Gingery opposed the motion.)

 

The Committee proceeded to work the Drug Court Panel’s proposed statutory changes (Drug Court Panel’s bill).

 

During the meeting, the Committee discussed drug court employees, whether or not drug court employees should be employees of the state, court or judiciary and issues of liability and employee benefits.  The Committee recommended the Division contact Monty Lauer, Executive Director of the Local Governmental Liability Pool (LGLP) to answer the question as to whether or not the LGLP would insure employees of drug courts.  Mr. Lauer provided the following information:

 

The LGLP has not made a determination as to whether or not drug courts are “governmental entities.” However, drug courts may still be eligible for coverage through the LGLP.  Currently, the Sheridan County Adult and Juvenile Drug Court and the Park County Drug Court are members of the LGLP.  It should be noted that the Sheridan County Drug courts formed 501 (3c) corporations and the LGLP determined the courts were probably a “public corporation”.   The Park County Drug Court stated on their membership application that they were a governmental entity and cited W.S. 5-10-101 through 5-10-107 authorizing their existence.

It is the LGLP’s position that all drug courts may apply for LGLP membership and the LGLP will review each individual application to determine eligibility pursuant to the Governmental Claims Act, specifically whether or not the drug court meets the definition of local government.

 

Dr. Cary Heck presented an updated drug court funding formula to the Committee. 

 

Documents addressed at the July 8, 2008 Committee meetings are attached (See attached appendix).

 

On September 5, 2008,  the Drug Court Steering Committee met via teleconference to discuss the statutory revisions (Drug Court Panel’s bill) and receive information about the LGLP.  The following committee members voted in favor or against the statutory changes (Drug Court Panel’s bill): 

 

Senator Michael Von Flatern, Cochairman

Representative Keith Gingery, Cochairman

Senator Kathryn Sessions

Representative Saundra Meyer

Nicky Anderson

Sue Chatfield

Steve Lindly

Rodger McDaniel

Honorable Michael Huber

Richard Bohling

Ross McKelvey

Dr. Cary Heck

Honorable Keith Kautz

Diane Lozano

Bob Lampert

Honorable Richard Lavery

 

The Committee recommends the following:

 

Appendix

 

1.      Drug Court Steering Committee Minutes (July 8, 2008);

 

2.      09LSO-0051.W1, Drug Court Accountability and Treatment Act (referred to as the Drug Court Accountability and Treatment Act bill);

 

3.      Drug Court Panel’s bill; and

 

4.      Heck, Cary.  Funding Problem-Solving Courts:  Developing a funding strategy and formula for Wyoming’s specialized courts and 2008 Addendum.


[Top] [Back] [Home]