IN · rules

Ind. Problem-Solving Court Rule

Indiana Problem-Solving Court Rules

activein force · 2021-04-07 – presentcompiled-edition

JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF INDIANA

Indiana Problem-Solving Court Rules

Adopted, Effective July 1, 2011

Updated, Effective April 7, 2021

Table of Contents

Section 1. Applicability 2

Section 2. Approval and Compliance Requirements 2

Section 3. Definition of Terms 3

Section 4. Funding and Training Authorization 7

Section 5. Notification of Intent 8

Section 6. Certification Procedures 8

Section 7. Denial of Application for Certification and Revocation Procedures 17

Section 8. Hearing Procedures 18

Section 9. Records of Problem-Solving Court Proceedings 22

Section 10. Ex Parte Communications 22

Section 11. Notice of Change 22

Section 12. Judicial Officer and Staff Requirements 23

Section 13. Problem-Solving Court Team 26

Section 14. Policy and Procedure 28

Section 15. Fiscal Management 31

Section 16. Problem-Solving Court Fees 31

Section 17. Reports and Evaluations 32

Section 18. Eligibility and Referral 33

Section 19. Participation Agreement 33

Section 20. Confidentiality of Records 35

Section 21. Orientation 37

Section 22. Risk and Needs Assessment 38

Section 23. Case Plan 39

Section 24. Case Management 41

Section 25. Chemical Testing 42

Section 26. Transfers 43

Section 27. Incentives, Sanctions, and Therapeutic Adjustments 44

Section 28. Discharge Procedures 45

Section 1. Applicability

Effective April 7, 2021

These rules apply to any person, firm, corporation, partnership, association, foundation, governmental unit, or agency, whether public or private, that provides or intends to provide problem-solving court services to participants pursuant to IC 33-23-16.

Section 2. Approval and Compliance Requirements

Effective April 7, 2021

(a) A person, firm, corporation, partnership, association, foundation, governmental unit, or

agency, whether public or private, that provides or intends to provide services to persons

who participate in a certified problem-solving court and whose services are within the scope

of IC 33- 23-16, may not offer, advertise, deliver, or provide services without first obtaining a

provisional certificate from the Indiana Office of Court Services in accordance with these

rules.

(b) In order for a court to secure and retain a problem-solving court certificate in accordance

with section 6 of these rules, the court shall demonstrate compliance with IC 33-23- 16,

related laws, rules and regulations, and the standards imposed by these rules.

(c) The Indiana Office of Court Services may take any administrative action at any time necessary to ensure compliance with these rules, including, but not limited to:

(1) Reviews,

(2) Site visits,

(3) Suspension of court operations,

(4) Suspension of staff member job functions, and

(5) Surveys.

which may be scheduled or unscheduled, announced or unannounced.

(d) In the event that these rules are amended, a problem-solving court may continue operations pursuant to the amended rules and the court’s current problem-solving court certificate until the court’s scheduled recertification review is complete unless otherwise

directed by the Indiana Office of Court Services.

(e) Unless otherwise indicated, these rules and any amendments to these rules take effect on

the date that they are adopted by the Judicial Conference of Indiana Board of Directors.

Section 3. Definition of Terms

Effective April 7, 2021

The following terms, when used in these rules, shall have the meaning as defined below

unless the context clearly indicates a different meaning:

"Case management" means goal-oriented case plan activities that facilitate, coordinate, or

monitor the full range of basic human needs, treatment, and service resources and delivery

for individual problem-solving court participants in accordance with the policies and procedures of the problem-solving court or other services provider.

"Case management file" means all records regarding a participant contained in the file maintained by the case manager, including printed and electronic information regardless of the

source of the information.

"Case manager" means a problem-solving court team member responsible for the case management of problem-solving court participants and case management files, which may

include administering a risk and needs assessment, substance abuse and mental health

screening, referral to treatment and ancillary services; monitoring participant compliance

with the participation agreement, case plan and other applicable agreements; and providing

participant progress and compliance information to the problem-solving court team.

"Case plan" means a plan that documents case management activities that the participant

must complete as a condition of problem-solving court participation. These activities shall be

based upon the results of risk and needs assessment, if required, in conjunction with any

other assessments, the problem-solving court participation agreement and other court

orders.

"Certification review" means the process of reviewing a court’s compliance with the state and

federal statutes, regulations and rules for certified problem-solving courts, to include the

application for certification, review of applicable documentation, site visit, and follow-up activities.

"Chemical test" means an analysis of an individual’s blood, breath, hair, sweat, saliva, urine,

or other bodily substances to determine the presence of alcohol, drugs, or controlled substances as defined in IC 35-48-1-9.

"Coordinator" means the problem-solving court team member responsible for the administration, management, and coordination of problem-solving court services and operations,

including overseeing problem-solving court staff activities, ensuring the court’s compliance

with the problem-solving court statutes and rules, developing problem-solving court policies

and procedures, managing service provider contracts and team member memoranda of

understanding, managing program grants, facilitating team meetings, and serving as a liaison

to local service providers and community groups.

"Documentation" means a written record acceptable as evidence to demonstrate compliance

with these rules.

"Eligible individual" means an individual who meets the eligibility criteria as defined in IC 33-

23-16-13.

"Eligibility screening" means a procedure for determining a potential participant's legal eligibility for admission to problem-solving court pursuant to IC 33-23-16-13.

“Evidence-based practices” means the use of research and science to enhance decision making in the criminal justice system resulting in the use of effective interventions to produce the

most favorable results.

"Incentive" means intangible or tangible rewards as a means of increasing desirable behaviors.

"Indiana Risk Assessment System" (IRAS) means the risk assessment system as adopted by

the Judicial Conference of Indiana comprised of several instruments to be used at specific

points in the criminal justice process to identify a participant’s risk to reoffend and criminogenic needs and assist with developing an individualized case plan.

"Indiana Youth Assessment System" (IYAS) means the risk assessment system as adopted by

the Judicial Conference of Indiana comprised of several instruments to be used at specific

points in the juvenile justice process to identify a juvenile participant’s risk to reoffend and

criminogenic needs and assist with developing an individualized case plan.

"Judicial involvement" means regular and frequent interaction between the problem- solving

court judge and participants during case compliance hearings.

"Orientation" means the administrative process in compliance with the requirements of section 21 of these rules.

"Outcome evaluation" means an evaluation of program results or outcomes, as measured by

collected data, which determines if the program achieved its stated goals.

"Participant" means any person who meets the eligibility criteria under IC 33-23-16-13, has

signed a problem-solving court participant agreement and has been admitted to the problem- solving court by the problem-solving court judge.

"Participation agreement" means the legal document signed by a participant and filed with

the problem-solving court evidencing the participant’s agreement to follow the conditions of

problem-solving court participation as required by section 19 of these rules.

"Policy" means a statement of the principles that guide and govern the activities, procedures

and operations of a problem-solving court.

"Problem-solving court" means a court as defined in IC 33-23-16-8 that is operating under a

problem-solving court certificate issued by the Indiana Office of Court Services pursuant to IC

33-23-16, including (as defined in IC 33-23-16):

(a) Community courts;

(b) Domestic violence courts;

(d) Family dependency drug courts;

(e) Mental health courts;

(f) Reentry courts;

(g) Veterans’ courts; and

(h) Any other courts certified as a problem-solving court by the Indiana Office of Court Services.

"Problem-solving court judge" means the judicial officer who presides over a problem- solving

court and an individual authorized to perform judicial services within the courts of Indiana,

including but not limited to, a judge, magistrate, commissioner and referee. If the problem-solving court is a city court, the person serving as problem-solving court judge is required to

be an attorney under IC 33-35-5-7.

"Problem-solving court services" means a broad range of services provided under a case

plan, including screening, assessment, education, referral, service coordination and case management, rehabilitative services, supervision, judicial involvement, and program evaluation

that may be extended to a problem-solving court participant and that influence the behavior

of the participant toward identified goals and objectives. The services and the manner in

which they are provided are guided by IC 33-23-16.

"Problem-solving courts committee" means the Judicial Conference of Indiana committee

established to integrate problem-solving principles into the administration of justice in order

to improve court processes and outcomes while preserving the rule of law.

"Procedure" means a series of activities designed to implement problem-solving court goals

or policy.

"Process evaluation" means a procedure to document and analyze the development and

implementation of a program, to assess whether strategies were implemented as planned

and to determine whether expected outputs were produced.

″Random chemical testing″ means the odds of being tested are not impacted by human influ-

ences and are the same on any given day of the week, including weekends and holidays.

"Referring agency" means an entity which maintains supervisory responsibility over any participant referred to a treatment or service provider as a condition of successful completion of

a problem-solving court.

″Responsivity factors″ means individual variables that influence or interfere with a participant’s response to rehabilitation efforts.

"Risk and needs assessment" means the procedure used to determine the participant’s criminogenic risk and needs using appropriately empirically validated instruments, including the

Indiana Risk Assessment System or the Indiana Youth Assessment System, for the purpose of

determining eligibility and developing a case plan.

"Sanction" means a punitive response to reduce undesirable behaviors and increase desirable behaviors.

"Supervising judge" means the judge who has ultimate responsibility for a problem- solving

court. The supervising judge may or may not be the problem-solving court judge.

"Supervision" means a method of monitoring a participant’s compliance with the participation agreement and case plan.

"Suspension" means the imposition of limitations on or a full cessation of problem- solving

court activities and operations, or a staff member’s ability to perform his/her job functions as

determined by the Indiana Office of Court Services.

"Therapeutic Adjustment" means alterations to participant’s treatment requirements that are

intended to address unmet clinical or social service needs and are not intended as an incentive or sanction.

"Treatment plan" means a plan that addresses substance abuse or addiction and/or mental

health issues by:

(a) identifying the individual participant’s strengths and needs through assessment,

(b) defining goals and objectives based on identified need, and

objectives.

"Volunteer" means a person who, without direct financial remuneration, provides ongoing

services to a problem-solving court.

Section 4. Funding and Training Authorization

Effective April 7, 2021

(a) A court that is not certified by the Indiana Office of Court Services pursuant to IC 33- 23-16

and these rules, and an applicant whose plan of operation does not comply with the requirements for certification under these rules is not entitled to receive a favorable review or recommendation from the Indiana Office of Court Services on any application for the funding of

problem-solving court services from state, federal, or private funding sources.

(b) A court that is not certified by the Indiana Office of Court Services pursuant to IC 33- 23-16

and these rules is not eligible to send staff or other team members to problem-solving court

training events sponsored by the Indiana Office of Court Services unless the court is actively

planning the establishment of a problem-solving court and in compliance with section 5 of

these rules or is otherwise authorized by the Indiana Office of Court Services.

Section 5. Notification of Intent

Effective April 7, 2021

(a) A court shall notify the Indiana Office of Court Services in writing during the planning

stages of the court’s intention to establish a problem-solving court.

(b) The Indiana Office of Court Services may make recommendations to the court to undertake activities during the planning stages in order to prepare for certification. These recommendations may include participation in problem-solving court training programs, reviewing

problem-solving court research and best practice documents, conducting site visits to certified problem-solving courts, or other appropriate activities.

Section 6. Certification Procedures

Effective April 7, 2021

(a) Provisional Certification Procedures

(1) A court that proposes to establish a problem-solving court pursuant to these rules shall

do the following to become provisionally certified.

(A) Submit a completed application for provisional certification to the Indiana Office of

Court Services.

(B) Submit a copy of the problem-solving court’s policy and procedure manual and supporting materials outlining the court’s plan for operation in accordance with IC 33-23-

16 and these rules.

(2) The Indiana Office of Court Services shall review the court’s application and policy and

procedure manual and conduct a site visit to determine whether the proposed court practices are in compliance with these rules, applicable federal and state laws, rules and regulations and the court’s policy and procedure manual. The Indiana Office of Court Services

may offer recommendations as appropriate to assist the court gain compliance with

applicable laws, rules and evidence-based practices.

(3) The Indiana Office of Court Services must approve or deny the court’s application for

problem-solving court provisional certification.

(A) The Indiana Office of Court Services must approve the application for provisional

certification if the court has submitted an application and policy and procedure

manual that complies with IC 33-23-16, related laws, rules and regulations, these rules

and evidence-based practices, and identified appropriate resources to provide the services proposed.

(B) If the Indiana Office of Court Services denies the court’s application for provisional

certification, the Indiana Office of Court Services must follow the procedures outlined

in section 7 of these rules.

(4) After a problem-solving court receives provisional certification from the Indiana Office

of Court Services the problem-solving court may:

(A) assess and collect fees authorized by IC 33-23-16-23 and IC 33-23-16-24; and

(B) begin the delivery of services authorized by IC 33-23-16 in accordance with these

rules.

(5) A problem-solving court provisional certificate is valid for up to six (6) months. The provisional certificate must be displayed in a prominent place in the problem-solving court

office and a copy shall be kept on file in the office of the Indiana Office of Court Services.

(b) Certification Procedures

(1) Prior to the expiration date of the problem-solving court certificate, the coordinator

must initiate certification in accordance with the following procedures:

(A) notify the Indiana Office of Court Services that the problem-solving court intends to

apply for certification and request an application for certification;

(B) schedule a review date; and

Office of Court Services no later than thirty (30) days prior to the review date.

(2) The certification review shall include evaluation of each of the following:

(A) Compliance with IC 33-23-16 and related federal and state laws, rules and regulations, including all applicable Indiana Supreme Court Rules.

(B) Compliance with these rules.

Children and Family Futures and All Rise, Family Treatment Court Best Practice Standards; the problem-solving court principles; and the 10 key components of drug courts,

as applicable.

(D) Implementation of the principles of effective interventions, as applicable.

(E) Compliance with current research on evidence-based practices and programs.

(F) Judicial involvement with participants.

(G) The operation of the case compliance hearings and other related court proceedings.

(H) The number, qualifications, and abilities of problem-solving court staff.

(I) The participation by and interaction between the problem-solving court team members.

(J) The qualifications and abilities of any contractor that provides services to the problem-solving court or its participants, and the contractor’s compliance with the terms of

the contract with the problem-solving court.

(K) The qualifications and services of any treatment provider that provides treatment

services to problem-solving court participants, and the treatment provider’s compliance with the terms of the provider referral agreement with the problem-solving

court.

(L) Investigations of complaints pertaining to the problem-solving court’s compliance

with IC 33-23-16, these rules and related federal and state laws, rules and regulations.

(M) Any other issues or subjects that the Indiana Office of Court Services determines

are relevant to the review.

(3) The Indiana Office of Court Services shall approve or deny the problem-solving court’s

application for certification.

(A) If the Indiana Office of Court Services approves the problem-solving court’s application for certification, the Indiana Office of Court Services shall issue a certificate

authorizing the court to operate as a problem-solving court for a period not to exceed

three (3) years. The certificate must be displayed in a prominent place in the problem-solving court office and a copy shall be kept on file at the Indiana Office of Court Services. Not later than sixty (60) days after completion of the certification review, the Indi-

ana Office of Court Services shall send a final report to the supervising judge, problem-solving court judge and coordinator.

(B) If the Indiana Office of Court Services denies the problem-solving court’s application

for certification, the Indiana Office of Court Services must follow the procedures outlined in section 7 of these rules.

(1) Prior to the expiration date of the problem-solving court’s certificate, a problem- solving court may submit a written request to the Indiana Office of Court Services for an extension of time to continue operating pursuant to the court’s certificate. The court’s request

shall contain the reason(s) for the request and specify the length of the extension requested. The Indiana Office of Court Services has the sole discretion to approve or deny a

request for an extension of time to continue operating a problem-solving court and to

determine the length of the extension authorizing continued problem-solving court operations.

(2) The Indiana Office of Court Services may issue a written extension of a court’s provisional certificate for a period not to exceed one (1) year.

(3) The Indiana Office of Court Services may authorize an extension of time to continue

operating a problem-solving court in order to complete the certification process under

this section or as otherwise appropriate.

(d) A problem-solving court certified pursuant to this section shall maintain compliance with

IC 33-23-16, these rules and related federal and state laws, rules and regulations or the

court’s certificate is subject to revocation pursuant to section 8 of these rules.

(e) A problem-solving court certificate obtained under this section expires on the date spe-

cified on the certificate unless the court has been granted an extension pursuant to subdivision (c) of this subsection or the certificate has been revoked in accordance with section 8

of these rules. A court with an expired or revoked certificate may no longer operate a problem-solving court as authorized by IC 33-23-16 and these rules. A court seeking certification

following the expiration of a problem-solving court certificate shall follow the procedures in

this section as directed by the Indiana Office of Court Services.

Commentary on Section 6(b)(2)(c).

Adult Treatment Court Best Practice Standards Vol. I 2nd Ed. as published by All Rise:

I. Target Population: Eligibility and exclusion criteria for treatment court are predicated

on empirical evidence indicating which individuals can be served safely and effect-

ively. Candidates are evaluated expeditiously for admission using valid and culturally

equitable assessment tools and procedures.

II. Equity and Inclusion: All persons meeting evidence-based eligibility criteria for treatment court receive the same opportunity to participate and succeed in the program

regardless of their sociodemographic characteristics or sociocultural identity, including

but not limited to their race, ethnicity, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, age,

socioeconomic status, national origin, native language, religion, cultural practices, and

physical, medical, or other conditions. The treatment court team continually monitors

program operations for evidence of cultural disparities in program access, service provision, or outcomes, takes corrective measures to eliminate identified disparities, and

evaluates the effects of the corrective measures.

III. Roles and Responsibilities of the Judge: The treatment court judge stays abreast of

current law and research on best practices in treatment courts and carefully considers

the professional observations and recommendations of other team members when

developing and implementing program policies and procedures. The judge develops a

collaborative working alliance with participants to support their recovery while holding

them accountable for abiding by program conditions and attending treatment and

other indicated services.

IV. Incentives, Sanctions, and Service Adjustments: The treatment court applies evidence- based and procedurally fair behavior modification practices that are proven to

be safe and effective for high-risk and high-need persons. Incentives and sanctions

are delivered to enhance adherence to program goals and conditions that participants

can achieve and sustain for a reasonable time, whereas service adjustments are

delivered to help participants achieve goals that are too difficult for them to accomplish

currently. Decisions relating to setting program goals and choosing safe and effective

responses are based on input from qualified treatment professionals, social service

providers, supervision officers, and other team members with pertinent knowledge and

experience.

V. Substance Use, Mental Health, and Trauma Treatment and Recovery Management: Participants receive evidence-based treatment for substance use, mental

health, trauma, and co-occurring disorders from qualified treatment professionals that

is acceptable to the participants and sufficient to meet their validly assessed treatment

needs. Recovery management interventions that connect participants with recovery

support services and peer recovery networks in their community are core components

of the treatment court regimen and are delivered when participants are motivated for

and prepared to benefit from the interventions.

VI. Complementary Services and Recovery Capital: Participants receive desired evidence- based services from qualified treatment, public health, social service, or rehabilitation professionals that safeguard their health and welfare, help them to achieve

their chosen life goals, sustain indefinite recovery, and enhance their quality of life.

Trained evaluators assess participants’ skills, resources, and other recovery capital,

and work collaboratively with them in deciding what complementary services are

needed to help them remain safe and healthy, reach their achievable goals, and optim-

ize their long-term adaptive functioning.

Adult Drug Court Best Practice Standards Vol. II as published by the National Association

of Drug Court Professionals:

VII. Drug and Alcohol Testing: Drug and alcohol testing provides an accurate, timely,

and comprehensive assessment of unauthorized substance use throughout participants’ enrollment in the Drug Court.

VIII. Multidisciplinary Team: A dedicated multidisciplinary team of professionals man-

ages the day-to-day operations of the Drug Court, including reviewing participant progress during pre-court staff meetings and status hearings, contributing observations

and recommendations within team members’ respective areas of expertise, and deliv-

ering or overseeing the delivery of legal, treatment and supervision services.

IX. Census and Caseloads: The Drug Court serves as many eligible individuals as

practicable while maintaining continuous fidelity to best practice standards.

X. Monitoring and Evaluation: The Drug Court routinely monitors its adherence to best

practice standards and employs scientifically valid and reliable procedures to evaluate

its effectiveness.

Center for Children and Family Futures and All Rise, Family Treatment Court Best

Practice Standards:

1. Organization and Structure-The family treatment court has agreed upon structural

and organizational principles that are supported by research and based on evidence-informed policies, programs, and practices.

2. Role of the Judge-Judicial leadership is critical to effective planning, implementation, and operation of the family treatment court.

3. Equity and Inclusion-The family treatment court examines whether harmful dis-

proportionality (unequal access) or disparities (unequal outcomes) exist within the program and, if so, implements reasonable corrective measures to eliminate them.

4. Early Identification and Assessment-Early identification and assessment of eligible

families provides the greatest opportunity to fully meet the needs of children and parents in family treatment court.

5. Timely, Quality, and appropriate substance use disorder treatment-Substance use

disorder (SUD) treatment is provided to meet the individual and unique substance-

related clinical and supportive needs of persons with substance use disorders.

6. Comprehensive Case Management, Services, and Supports for Families-The family

treatment court ensures that children, parents, and families receive comprehensive

services that meet their assessed needs and promotes sustained family safety, permanency, recovery, and well-being.

7. Therapeutic Responses to Behavior-The family treatment court’s operational team

applies therapeutic responses (e.g., child safety interventions, treatment adjustments,

complementary service modifications, incentives, and sanctions) to improve child, parent, and family functioning, ensure children’s safety and well-being, support participant behavior change, and promote participant accountability.

8. Monitoring and Evaluation-The family treatment court collects and reviews data to

monitor participant progress, engages in a process of continuous quality improvement,

monitors adherence to best practice standards, and evaluates outcomes using scientifically valid and reliable procedures.

The common problem-solving court principles as published by the Center for Court Innov-

ation are:

1. Enhanced Information: Better staff training (about complex issues like domestic violence and drug addiction) combined with better information (about litigants, victims and

the community context of crime) can help improve the decision making of judges, attorneys, and other justice officials.

2. Community Engagement: Citizens and neighborhood groups have an important role

to play in helping the justice system identify, prioritize, and solve local problems. Actively engaging citizens helps improve public trust in justice. Greater trust, in turn, helps

people feel safer, fosters law-abiding behavior, and makes members of the public

more willing to cooperate in the pursuit of justice (as witnesses, jury members, etc.).

3. Collaboration: Justice system leaders are uniquely positioned to engage a diverse

range of people, government agencies, and community organizations in collaborative

efforts to improve public safety. By bringing together justice players (e.g., judges, pro-

secutors, defense attorneys, probation officers, court managers) and reaching out to

potential stakeholders beyond the courthouse (e.g., social service providers, victims

groups, schools) justice agencies can improve inter-agency communication, encour-

age greater trust between citizens and government, and foster new responses—including new diversion and sentencing options, when appropriate—to problems.

4. Individualized Justice: Using valid evidence-based risk and needs assessment

instruments, the justice system can link offenders to individually tailored community-based services (e.g., job training, drug treatment, safety planning, mental health counseling) where appropriate. In doing so (and by treating defendants with dignity and

respect), the justice system can help reduce recidivism, improve community safety,

and enhance confidence in justice. Links to services can also aid victims, improving

their safety and helping restore their lives.

5. Accountability: The justice system can send the message that all criminal behavior,

even low-level quality-of-life crime, has an impact on community safety. By insisting on

regular and rigorous compliance monitoring—and clear consequences for non- compliance—the justice system can improve the accountability of offenders. It can also

improve the accountability of service providers by requiring regular reports on their

work with participants.

6. Outcomes: The active and ongoing collection and analysis of data—measuring outcomes and process, costs and benefits—are crucial tools for evaluating the effectiveness of operations and encouraging continuous improvement. Public dissemination

of this information can be a valuable symbol of public accountability.

The ten (10) key components of drug courts published by the Drug Court Program Office

of the United States Department of Justice are:

1. Drug courts integrate alcohol and other drug treatment services with justice system

case processing.

2. Using a non-adversarial approach, prosecution and defense counsel promote public

safety while protecting participants’ due process rights.

3. Eligible participants are identified early and placed promptly in the drug court program.

4. Drug courts provide access to a continuum of alcohol, drug, and other related treatment and rehabilitation services.

5. Abstinence is monitored by frequent alcohol and other drug testing.

6. A coordinated strategy governs drug court responses to participant compliance.

7. Ongoing judicial interaction with each drug court participant is essential.

8. Monitoring and evaluation measure the achievement of program goals and gauge

effectiveness.

9. Continuing interdisciplinary education promotes effective drug court planning, implementation and operations.

10. Forging partnerships among drug courts, public agencies, and community-based

organizations generates local support and enhances drug court effectiveness.

The eight (8) principles of effective interventions as published by the National Institute of

Corrections are:

1. Assess actuarial risk/needs

2. Enhance intrinsic motivation

3. Target interventions

4. Skill train with directed practice

5. Increase positive reinforcement

6. Engage ongoing support in natural communities

7. Measure relevant processes/practices

8. Provide measurement feedback

Section 7. Denial of Application for Certification and

Revocation Procedures

Effective April 7, 2021

(a) The Indiana Office of Court Services may deny an application for certification or revoke a

problem-solving court certificate for one or more of the following reasons:

(1) Failure of the applicant or the problem-solving court to comply with IC 33-23-16 and

related federal and state laws, rules and regulations.

(2) Failure of the applicant or the problem-solving court to comply with the application

requirements in section 6 of these rules.

(3) Permitting, aiding, or abetting the commission of an unlawful act by the applicant or

problem-solving court.

(4) Applicant or problem-solving court conduct or practices found by the Indiana Office of

Court Services to:

(A) threaten public health or safety; or

(B) be harmful to the health or safety of any participant in the problem-solving court.

(5) Deviation from the plan of operation submitted with the application or problem- solving court that, in the judgment of the Indiana Office of Court Services, adversely affects

the character, quality, or scope of services provided to participants.

(6) Failure of the applicant or problem-solving court to cooperate with the Indiana Office

of Court Services in connection with the certification process or an investigation of a complaint pertaining to the court’s compliance with IC 33-23-16, these rules and related federal and states laws, rules and regulations.

(7) Failure of the applicant or problem-solving court to provide accurate or reliable information on the application or regarding the problem-solving court’s operations or practices.

(b) The Indiana Office of Court Services must notify the supervising judge and the problem-solving court judge, by certified mail, return receipt requested, that the Indiana Office of

Court Services intends to deny the application or revoke the court’s problem-solving court certificate. The notice must contain all of the following information:

(1) A brief statement explaining the reasons for the proposed denial or revocation.

(2) If the problem-solving court is currently operational, notice that the Indiana Office of

Court Services is imposing a suspension on the problem-solving court’s operations, if

applicable. The suspension continues in effect until the conclusion of all proceedings pursuant to these rules and any judicial review, unless earlier withdrawn by the Indiana Office

of Court Services.

(3) A statement that the decision to deny the application or revoke the problem-solving

court certificate is final unless the supervising judge submits written objections to the Indiana Office of Court Services, within 30 days from the date of the notice, stating why the

application should not be denied or the problem-solving court certificate should not be

revoked.

all the points of contention are not made and the Indiana Office of Court Services issues a

second written notice of denial or revocation, the supervising judge may submit a request for

a hearing on the matter in accordance with section 8(b) of these rules.

Section 8. Hearing Procedures

Effective April 7, 2021

(a) All requests for a hearing to resolve disputes relating to the denial or revocation of a certificate pursuant to section 7 and staff training requirements pursuant to section 12 of these

rules shall follow the procedures described in this section.

(b) If the Indiana Office of Court Services denies a supervising judge’s objections to the denial

of an application for certification or revocation of a certificate pursuant to section 7, or staff

work restrictions pursuant to section 12(f) or 12(g) of these rules, the supervising judge may

request a hearing on the matter as follows:

(1) The request must be submitted in writing to the Indiana Office of Court Services within

fifteen (15) days from the date of the written notice issued under section 7(c), section 12(f)

(2)(C) or section 12(g)(3)(C) of these rules and must state the reason(s) for the hearing

request.

(2) The request for a hearing may not include any reason that was not included in the

objections submitted under section 7(b), section 12(f) or section 12(g) of these rules, as

applicable.

(1) The executive director of the Indiana Office of Court Services shall create a list of three

judges as candidates for hearing examiner who are members of the Problem- Solving

Courts Committee (PSCC) but are not members of the Board of Directors of the Judicial

Conference of Indiana. The executive director shall consider availability, years of service

on the PSCC, and the extent of participation on the PSCC when creating the list of candidates.

(2) The candidates for hearing examiner shall be communicated in writing to the supervising judge no later than 15 days after the request for a hearing was received by the Indiana Office of Court Services.

(3) The supervising judge shall select a hearing examiner from the list and advise the executive director of this selection in writing no later than 15 days after the list of candidates

for hearing examiner was received by the supervising judge.

(d) The hearing examiner shall conduct an informal hearing within 30 days after the date the

hearing examiner is selected by the supervising judge unless otherwise jointly agreed upon

by the hearing examiner, supervising judge and the Indiana Office of Court Services.

(1) At least ten days before the date of the hearing, the hearing examiner shall provide the

supervising judge and the Indiana Office of Court Services with written notice of the date,

time and place of the hearing.

(2) The hearing examiner is not required to follow any formal rules of evidence or procedure.

(3) Both parties may submit evidence.

(4) The Indiana Office of Court Services must show why the application does not meet the

certification requirements established by the Judicial Conference of Indiana, that revocation of the certificate is justified or that one or more staff members have not met all training requirements.

(5) The hearing examiner shall make an electronic recording of the hearing. The supervising judge and the Indiana Office of Court Services may obtain a copy of the electronic

recording of the hearing from the hearing examiner.

(6) The hearing examiner may ask the supervising judge and the Indiana Office of Court

Services to submit proposed findings and recommendations to the hearing officer following the hearing.

(e) No later than 30 days after the date that the hearing under subsection (d) of this section

was held, the hearing examiner shall send proposed written findings and recommendations

to the supervising judge and the Indiana Office of Court Services.

(1) All objections to the hearing examiner’s proposed findings and recommendations must

be:

(A) in writing; and

(B) submitted to the hearing examiner with a copy to the other party no later than 15

days after the date that the proposed findings and recommendations were issued.

(2) The hearing examiner shall submit the proposed findings and recommendations to the

PSCC unless the supervising judge submits written notice no later than 15 days after the

proposed findings and recommendations were issued, that the supervising judge has

decided to withdraw the objections.

(3) If no objections are submitted and the PSCC adopts the findings and recommendations

as submitted, those findings and recommendations become final upon adoption. The

PSCC’s findings and recommendations must be adopted by a majority vote of the members.

(4) If the supervising judge or the Indiana Office of Court Services objects to the proposed

findings and recommendations, or the PSCC proposes to modify or reject the proposed

findings and recommendations, the PSCC must conduct an informal hearing and provide

the supervising judge and the Indiana Office of Court Services with an opportunity to be

heard orally concerning the proposed findings and recommendations. At least ten days

before the date of the hearing, the PSCC shall provide written notice of the date, time and

place of the hearing to the supervising judge and the Indiana Office of Court Services.

(5) No later than 30 days after date that the hearing under subdivision (4) was held, the

PSCC shall submit its written findings and recommendations to the supervising judge and

the Indiana Office of Court Services. The PSCC’s findings and recommendations must be

adopted by a majority vote of the members.

(f) The supervising judge or the Indiana Office of Court Services may request review of the

PSCC’s findings and recommendations by the Judicial Conference of Indiana Board of Directors.

(1) The request for review must be:

(A) in writing describing specific objections to the findings and recommendations adopted by

the PSCC;

(B) submitted to the chairperson of the Board of Directors no later than 15 days after

the date PSCC adopts its findings and recommendations; and

copy provided to other party.

(2) At least ten days before the meeting, the Indiana Office of Court Services shall provide

written notice of the date, time and place of the Board of Directors’ meeting to the supervising judge and the PSCC.

(3) The Board of Directors’ findings and recommendations must be adopted by a majority

vote of the members present and voting and are final.

(4) The Indiana Office of Court Services shall send written notice to the supervising judge

and the PSCC of the Board of Directors’ findings no later than ten days after the date of

the meeting held pursuant to this subsection.

(g) Upon the conclusion of the proceedings under this section for the denial of an application

for certification or revocation of a problem-solving court certificate pursuant to section 7 of

these rules:

(1) If the court is permitted to attain or retain problem-solving court certification, the problem-solving court shall comply with the findings and recommendations adopted pursuant

to this section as well as IC 33-23-16 and these rules in order to maintain problem-solving

court certification.

(2) If the court’s application for certification is denied or the problem-solving court certificate is revoked, the court is not authorized to provide problem-solving services pursuant to IC 33-23-16, effective on the date of the Board of Directors meeting held

pursuant to subsection (f) of this section.

(h) Upon the conclusion of proceedings under this section for the imposition of staff work

restrictions pursuant to section 12 of these rules:

(1) If the problem-solving court is permitted to lift staff work restrictions, the problem- solving shall comply with the findings and recommendations adopted pursuant to this section

as well as IC 33-23-16 and these rules to maintain problem-solving court certification.

(2) If the problem-solving court is not permitted to lift staff work restrictions, the problem-solving court shall comply with the restrictions as imposed by the Indiana Office of Court

Services in order to maintain problem-solving court certification.

Section 9. Records of Problem-Solving Court

Proceedings

Effective April 7, 2021

(a) All problem-solving court hearings shall be recorded in accordance with the requirements

of Ind. Trial Rule 74.

(b) A chronological case summary shall be created and maintained for each problem-solving

court case in accordance with Ind. Trial Rule 77(B).

Section 10. Ex Parte Communications

Effective April 7, 2021

A problem-solving court judge may initiate, permit and consider ex parte communications

with participants, attorneys, problem-solving court staff, problem-solving court team members and others in conjunction with problem-solving court proceedings and the supervision

of problem-solving court participants.

Section 11. Notice of Change

Effective April 7, 2021

(a) A problem-solving court shall submit written notice to the Indiana Office of Court Services

of:

(1) Personnel changes, including new hires, dismissals and resignations, involving the

supervising judge, problem-solving court judge, coordinator or a case manager.

(2) Any location changes of the problem-solving court office or staff.

(3) Any change to the population(s) served by the problem-solving court.

(b) Notice of changes required under this section shall be submitted to the Indiana Office of

Court Services no later than 30 days after the change takes effect. The Indiana Office of Court

Services may require a new application and certification review as a result of personnel or loc-

ation changes or any changes to the population(s) served by the problem-solving court in

accordance with section 6 of these rules.

pursuant to IC 33-23-16 shall provide the Indiana Office of Court Services with written notice

of the pending closure at least 30 days prior to the effective date of the closure. The written

notice must include the court’s reason(s) for closing and a plan for the transition of the participants to alternative services upon the closure of the problem-solving court.

Section 12. Judicial Officer and Staff Requirements

Effective April 7, 2021

(a) A problem-solving court shall develop and observe policy and procedure describing problem-solving court judicial officer training requirements and staff qualifications and training

requirements.

(b) A new problem-solving court judge shall attend and complete an orientation program

approved by the Indiana Office of Court Services within the first year of serving on the problem- solving court bench.

at least one of the following:

(1) has a baccalaureate degree from an accredited university or college, and

(a) the equivalent of three years of full-time paid experience in criminal justice or

human services, or

(b) has an advanced degree from an accredited university or college in criminal justice

or human services; or

(2) was employed by a problem-solving court as a coordinator or case manager before July

1, 2010.

(d) A problem-solving court shall maintain documentation that each case manager complies

with at least one of the following:

(1) has a baccalaureate degree from an accredited university or college; or

(2) was employed by a problem-solving court as a case manager before July 1, 2010.

(e) A volunteer that performs one or more job functions of the coordinator or a case manager

as defined in section 3 of these rules shall meet the qualifications in subsection (b) or (c) of

this section, as applicable.

(f) The problem-solving court shall maintain problem-solving court personnel files for the

coordinator, each case manager, and any volunteer who performs one or more job functions

of the coordinator or a case manager. The problem-solving court personnel files shall contain, at a minimum, the following information:

(1) Date of hire or assignment to the problem-solving court for each position held or the

date that a volunteer began providing services to the problem-solving court.

(2) Problem-solving court job description, including:

(A) Job title.

(B) Qualifications.

(D) Duties and responsibilities.

(E) Reporting and supervisory responsibilities.

(3) Documentation of the minimum job qualifications required by this section.

(4) Documentation of the accrued continuing education hours required by this section.

(g) The coordinator and each case manager shall attend and complete a staff orientation program approved by the Problem-Solving Courts Committee within the staff member’s first year

of employment with the problem-solving court.

(1) A coordinator or case manager employed by a problem-solving court prior to July 1,

2011, is not required to attend the staff orientation training under this section.

(2) A coordinator or case manager who fails to attend the staff orientation program within

the first year of employment is prohibited from performing his or her job functions as

defined in section 3 of these rules except as authorized by the Indiana Office of Court Services pursuant to this subsection.

(A) The Indiana Office of Court Services shall send written notice to the supervising

judge and the problem-solving court judge of a coordinator’s or case manager’s failure

to attend and complete staff orientation as required by this subsection.

(B) The Indiana Office of Court Services shall notify the supervising judge and the problem-solving court judge in writing of the Indiana Office of Court Services’ decision to

impose a suspension on a coordinator’s or case manager’s ability to perform his/her

job functions as defined by these rules.

(C) The Indiana Office of Court Services’ decision becomes final on the 30th day following the date of the written notification to the supervising judge unless the supervising judge submits specific written objections to the Indiana Office of Court Services

before the expiration of the 30-day period.

(D) If the Indiana Office of Court Services and the supervising judge are unable to

resolve all points of contention, the supervising judge may request a hearing in accordance with section 8(b) of these rules.

(h) The coordinator and each case manager shall complete 12 hours annually with six of

those hours in evidence-based practices as approved by the problem-solving court judge.

(1) The coordinator shall maintain documentation of the continuing education hours

earned by staff as required under this subsection in the staff member’s personnel file.

(2) The coordinator shall submit a report of earned continuing education hours for each

staff member as required by this subsection on an annual basis to the Indiana Office of

Court Services in conjunction with the problem-solving court’s annual report required

under section 17(d).

(3) A coordinator or case manager who fails to earn the required continuing education

hours under this subsection is prohibited from performing his or her job functions as

defined in section 3 of these rules except as authorized by the Indiana Office of Court Services.

(A) The Indiana Office of Court Services shall send written notice to the supervising

judge and the problem-solving court judge of a coordinator’s or case manager’s failure

to attain the annual continuing education hours required by this subsection.

(B) The Indiana Office of Court Services shall notify the supervising judge and problem-solving court judge in writing of the Indiana Office of Court Services’ decision to impose

a suspension on a coordinator’s or case manager’s ability to perform his/her job functions.

before the expiration of the 30-day period.

(D) If the Indiana Office of Court Services and the supervising judge are unable to

resolve all points of contention, the supervising judge may request a hearing in accordance with section 8(b) of these rules.

Commentary on Section 12(b).

A judge who presides over multiple problem-solving court models or a new problem-solving court model is encouraged to seek additional training. A supervising judge is strongly

encouraged to attend new problem solving court judge orientation within the first year of

supervising a problem-solving court.

Section 13. Problem-Solving Court Team

Effective April 7, 2021

(a) A problem-solving court shall have a problem-solving court judge and a team approved by

the problem-solving court judge consistent with this section.

(1) Each of the following roles must be represented on the problem-solving court team,

but an individual may represent more than one role:

(A) The coordinator;

(B) One or more case managers;

condition of probation;

(D) One or more community corrections officers if the problem-solving court accepts

individuals as a condition of participation in a community corrections program;

(E) One or more parole agents or representatives if the problem-solving court accepts

individuals as a condition of parole;

(F) The local prosecuting attorney or a representative from the prosecuting attorney’s

office if the problem-solving court accepts individuals under a criminal or delinquency

case number;

(G) One or more criminal defense attorneys if the problem-solving court accepts individuals under a criminal or delinquency case number;

(H) One or more local mental health providers if one (1) or more participants are receiving mental health services upon referral from the problem-solving court;

(I) One or more addiction treatment services providers if one (1) or more participants

are receiving addiction treatment services upon referral from the problem-solving

court;

(J) One or more representatives from the Veterans’ Administration if the problem- solving court accepts individuals pursuant to IC 33-23-16-10; and,

(K) One or more representatives from the Department of Child Services if the problem-solving court accepts individuals pursuant to IC 33-23-16-6.

(2) In addition to the members required under subdivision (1) of this section, the team

may include any combination of the following:

(A) Any individual listed in subdivision (1) of this section that is not a required member;

(B) A representative of the community transition program;

(D) A school liaison;

(E) A pharmacist;

(F) A law enforcement officer; and,

(G) Any other member approved by the problem-solving court judge.

(b) The problem-solving court shall maintain on file a description of the members of the problem-solving court team. The coordinator shall maintain a signed a memorandum of understanding for each team member that describes the team member’s:

(1) agreement to uphold confidentiality requirements;

(2) commitment to the on-going exchange of participant information with the problem-solving court team members; and

(3) problem-solving court responsibilities, including regular attendance and participation

in the team staff meetings and problem-solving court case compliance hearings.

discuss the eligibility, progress, sanctions and discharge of participants prior to the participants’ scheduled court hearings.

Commentary on Section 13(a).

The problem-solving court team membership should be limited to those individuals who

either have a duty to monitor a participant’s court case or provide services to participants.

A problem-solving court policy committee may also be formed comprised of a variety of

community stakeholders to assist in developing policy, marketing, and obtaining support

for the problem-solving court. Each member of the problem-solving court team should

obtain sufficient in-service training each year to stay current in problem-solving court

related issues.

Section 14. Policy and Procedure

Effective April 7, 2021

(a) A problem-solving court shall develop and observe a policy and procedure manual that

contains written policies and procedures for conducting day-to-day problem-solving court

activities.

(1) The coordinator is responsible for the daily operation and administration of the problem-solving court, including maintaining the policy and procedure manual.

(2) The policy and procedure manual shall:

(A) Contain a statement of goals and objectives that clearly guides the operation of the

problem-solving court and the delivery of services.

(B) Incorporate the principles of a problem-solving court and the ten key components

of drug courts, as applicable, into its policies and procedures.

(D) Be available to the problem-solving court team and staff.

(E) Reflect all current practices.

(3) The problem-solving court’s written policies and procedures shall include each of the

following:

(A) Full documentation of the problem-solving court’s operational and administrative

structure.

(B) A description of all team member roles and responsibilities.

(C) A description of the problem-solving court participant eligibility criteria, including eligible offenses, exclusion criteria, diagnostic criteria and risk and needs levels.

(D) A policy and practice of nondiscrimination in providing problem-solving court services, including the unbiased, non-prejudicial, and non-harassment provision of services based upon race, sex, gender, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, age,

sexual orientation, marital status, socioeconomic status, or political affiliation, and

shall not permit court staff, court officials, or others subject to the judge's direction

and control to do so (See CJC Rule 2.3(B)).

(E) Regular court hearings to conduct case compliance monitoring.

(F) Judicial interaction with participants during case compliance hearings.

(G) A description of the problem-solving court’s incorporation and implementation of

the principles of effective interventions and evidence-based practices in its practices

and programming.

(H) A description of the range of services and supervision provided to participants

based on assessed risk and need in compliance with the principles of effective interventions and evidence-based practices.

(I) A detailed description of participant medication use policy and procedure, including

prescription medication, over-the-counter medication, and medication assisted treatment.

(J) A description of the court’s field visitation and search practices, including the authorization required for a field visit, when a field visit is conducted (random, for cause, etc.),

authority to conduct searches and search parameters, if applicable.

(K) Other information as required by these rules.

(b) Participants may not, at any time, be compelled to waive or be prohibited from exercising

the right to counsel.

(c) If a problem-solving court refers a participant to a provider, including an individual, for substance abuse or mental health treatment services not provided by the problem-solving court,

the problem-solving court or referring agency shall verify that the provider is an addictions or

mental health treatment services provider currently certified by the Division of Mental Health

and Addiction, or currently certified, licensed or accredited by an equivalent certifying agency

and maintain a copy of the provider’s current certification or license.

(d) The problem-solving court or referring agency shall have a written referral agreement with

a substance abuse or mental health treatment services provider if the problem-solving court

has referred or plans to refer ten or more participants to the provider for treatment in any

calendar year. The written referral agreement shall include procedures for the following:

(1) Initiation and acceptance of referrals;

(2) Exchange of participant-related information; and,

(3) Post-referral reporting by the treatment services provider that enables the problem-solving court to perform its monitoring responsibilities.

(e) A problem-solving court may contract with a person, firm, corporation, association, or governmental entity, to provide one or more services for the problem-solving court except participant legal eligibility determination and participant discharge. A contractor must possess

and demonstrate the capability to provide contractual services for the problem-solving court

in the manner intended to meet all requirements in IC 33-23-16 and these rules that apply to

the services the contractor provides.

Commentary on Section 14(a)(3)(L).

The policy and procedure may detail participant reporting requirements, the use of consent forms to communicate with treating physicians, the use of INSPECT to monitor prescription drug use and medication use monitoring protocols.

Commentary on Section 14(d).

It is recommended that the referral agreement include an outline of the EBP curricula utilized by the provider for treatment and ancillary services provided to participants that has

been demonstrated to improve outcomes for addicted persons within the criminal justice

system.

Section 15. Fiscal Management

Effective April 7, 2021

(a) The problem-solving court shall develop and observe written policy and procedure on

fiscal management that governs cash handling procedures, establishes an accounting system, and complies with all applicable requirements of the Indiana State Board of Accounts.

(b) Upon request, the problem-solving court shall provide the Indiana Office of Court Services

with any and all relevant financial information, including reports, audits, or approvals issued

by the Indiana State Board of Accounts.

(1) A current budget.

(2) A documented schedule of fees for services provided by the court, including the adoption and maintenance of a local court rule as required by section 16(d) of these rules.

Section 16. Problem-Solving Court Fees

Effective April 7, 2021

(a) If a problem-solving court elects to charge fees authorized by these rules, the problem-solving court shall develop and observe written policy and procedure on the assessment and

collection of fees.

(b) A problem-solving court may require eligible individuals to pay a problem-solving court

administration fee of not more than $100 per admission to a problem-solving court for initial

problem-solving court services regardless of the length of participation in the problem- solving court.

fee for each admission to a problem-solving court. The problem-solving court may assess the

problem-solving court services fee and collect the fee in an amount not to exceed $50 per

month beginning with the second month of participation and for each month thereafter for

the duration of participation in the problem-solving court.

(d) The problem-solving court shall adopt by local court rule a schedule of fees assessed for

problem-solving court services authorized by IC 33-23-16-20.

(e) The problem-solving court fees authorized under this section shall be collected and utilized in accordance with IC 33-23-16-23.

Section 17. Reports and Evaluations

Effective April 7, 2021

(a) A problem-solving court shall collect statistical data as required by the Indiana Office of

Court Services.

(b) A problem-solving court shall complete a process evaluation within the first three years of

operation and at least once every three years thereafter. The problem-solving court shall complete outcome evaluations as appropriate.

survey intended to provide the problem-solving court with the participant’s written comments about the services provided. The survey must include an opportunity to comment on

each of the following:

(1) Services or programs provided directly by the problem-solving court.

(2) Services or programs provided by the problem-solving court through a contractor.

(3) Services or programs provided by referral agencies.

(d) The coordinator shall:

(1) Prepare a written problem-solving court annual report for the preceding year that

includes, at a minimum, each of the following:

(A) A summary of the problem-solving court’s activities and accomplishments.

(B) A summary of the problem-solving court’s income and expenditures, including all

user fee account activity.

(D) Problem-solving court performance measures data approved by the Problem- Solving Courts Committee.

(E) The results of any process and outcome evaluations of the problem-solving court.

(F) A list of current problem-solving court staff and team members.

(G) The earned continuing education hours required by section 12 of these rules.

(2) Submit a copy of the annual report to the Indiana Office of Court Services no later than

March 31st of each year.

Section 18. Eligibility and Referral

Effective April 7, 2021

(a) A problem-solving court shall develop and observe written policy and procedure for referral to the problem-solving court and for determining an individual’s eligibility for problem-solving court participation under IC 33-23-16-13. A problem-solving court shall maintain a

copy of the participant’s court order to participate in the problem-solving court pursuant to IC

33-23- 16-13(3) in the participant’s case management file.

(b) A person may be eligible for participation in a problem-solving court that admits individuals under a criminal case number pursuant to IC 33-23-16-13(3)(A) or (B) if the offense for

which the person will be admitted into the problem-solving court is a forcible felony as

defined in IC 35-31.5-2-138 upon approval of the prosecutor.

solely on the basis that the person has a co-occurring disorder, medical condition, and/or is

taking a legally prescribed psychotropic or addiction medication. A problem-solving court

determines eligibility on a case by case basis with due consideration given to the available

local treatment and problem-solving court resources.

(d) A problem-solving court shall consider the results of a current assessment under the Indiana Risk Assessment System or Indiana Youth Assessment System in compliance with the

policies adopted by the Judicial Conference of Indiana when determining the eligibility of an

individual referred for problem-solving court participation under a criminal or delinquency

case number.

(e) A problem-solving court may utilize any additional appropriate empirically validated

assessment instrument to determine an individual’s eligibility for problem-solving court participation.

(f) The problem-solving court judge must authorize all participant admissions to the problem-solving court.

Section 19. Participation Agreement

Effective April 7, 2021

(a) A problem-solving court shall develop and utilize a participation agreement that is filed

with the problem-solving court and contains each of the following:

(1) The county or jurisdiction of the problem-solving court.

(2) The signature of each party to the participation agreement.

(3) The source of the court’s jurisdiction under IC 33-23-16-13.

(4) The case number accepted into the problem-solving court.

(5) The length of the problem-solving court program.

(6) A list of rights the participant must waive in order to participate in the problem- solving

court.

(7) A list of problem-solving court requirements.

(8) The problem-solving court participation home visit and search conditions.

(9) An advisement that the participant will be subject to assessment utilizing the Indiana

Risk Assessment System or the Indiana Youth Assessment System throughout participation in the problem-solving court if the participant is admitted into the problem- solving court under a criminal case number or delinquency petition. The results of any such

assessments will be entered into the risk assessment system database.

(10) The impact of successfully completing problem-solving court on the case number

under which the participant was admitted into problem-solving court.

(11) The legal consequences to the participant as a result of termination from problem-solving court.

(12) Information related to problem-solving court fees.

(13) An advisement that the participant’s case and compliance, including information that

might otherwise be confidential, will be discussed in open court.

(b) A problem-solving court shall develop and observe written policy and procedure providing

each participant referred to the problem-solving court with the opportunity to review and discuss the participation agreement with an attorney prior to entering into the agreement. Documentation evidencing that the participant consulted with or waived the opportunity to

consult with an attorney shall be maintained in the participant’s case management file.

court shall be maintained in the participant’s case management file.

Commentary on Section 19(a).

Participants are entitled to good time credit for time spent confined while participating in a

problem-solving court pursuant to IC 35-50-6. If the problem- solving court chooses not to

award eligible good time credit, the participation agreement must contain a provision

advising the participant that statutory good time credit will not be earned as a condition of

problem-solving court participation.

Section 20. Confidentiality of Records

Effective April 7, 2021

(a) A problem-solving court shall develop and observe written policy and procedure that

ensures the confidentiality and security of participant records in accordance with all applicable laws. All information contained in problem-solving court participant case management

files is confidential and may only be released in accordance with the appropriate legal authority or problem-solving court policy and procedure as established under this section.

(b) A problem-solving court shall develop and observe policy and procedure governing the

release of participant records in problem-solving court participant case management files not

otherwise governed by subsection (c) of this section.

and observe written policy and procedure, conforming to applicable state and federal laws,

that ensures the confidentiality and security of these participant records. At a minimum, the

policy and procedure shall include the following:

(1) The confidentiality of drug and alcohol abuse patient records in compliance with 42

CFR Part 2, including:

(A) What information is confidential.

(B) Who is covered by the regulations, including minor participants, mentally incompetent participants and deceased participants.

(D) When disclosure of protected information does not require consent.

(E) The execution of release of information forms as required in subsections (d) and(e)

of this section.

(F) Participant access to records.

(G) Documentation in the participant case management file of the release of all confidential information.

(d) A problem-solving court that admits a participant under a criminal case number and

refers that participant to substance abuse services shall create and utilize a criminal justice

(non- revocable) release of information form in compliance with 42 CFR Part 2 to obtain the

participant’s consent for the release of confidential information to and among the problem-solving court team members and providers for the purpose of monitoring the participant’s

progress in problem-solving court.

(1) The staff member completing the consent form shall cross out or mark “NA” on any

blank lines remaining after the form has been completed to ensure the form is not altered

after execution and sign the consent form.

(2) The release of information form with the participant’s original signature shall be maintained in the participant’s file.

(3) A copy of the signed release of information form shall be provided to the participant.

(e) A problem-solving court that admits a participant under a juvenile case number or a civil

case number and refers that participant to substance abuse services shall create and utilize a

general (revocable) release of information form in compliance with 42 CFR Part 2 to obtain

the participant’s consent for the release of confidential information to and among the problem- solving court team members and providers. A problem-solving court that admits a participant under a criminal, delinquency or civil case number and refers that participant to

substance abuse services may also create and utilize a general (revocable) release of information form in compliance with 42 CFR Part 2 to obtain the participant’s consent for the release

of confidential information to other individuals designated by the participant.

(1) The staff member completing the consent form shall cross out or mark “NA” on any

blank lines remaining after the form has been completed to ensure the form is not altered

after execution and sign the consent form.

(2) The release of information form with the participant’s original signature shall be maintained in the participant’s file.

(3) A copy of the signed release of information form shall be provided to the participant.

(f) Chronological case summary entries shall be brief and contain only non-confidential

information to the extent possible.

(g) In order to protect participant confidentiality, the problem-solving court’s facilities, including waiting rooms, offices, chemical testing facilities, and group areas other than the court

room shall be arranged in a way that minimizes disclosure of confidential information to the

general public.

(h) The facilities shall provide adequate space for the storage of all participant case management files and permit participant case management files to be properly secured at all

times as required under federal regulations and state rules. All participant records created or

maintained in electronic format shall be properly secured at all times with security measures

designed to ensure access is restricted to authorized staff only. The problem-solving court

shall comply with Ind. Administrative Rule 6 and Ind. Administrative Rule 7 governing the storage, retention and disposal of judicial records.

Section 21. Orientation

Effective April 7, 2021

(a) A problem-solving court shall develop and observe a written policy and procedure for conducting orientation with each participant, and when appropriate, the participant’s family.

(1) The policy and procedure for orientation shall include an explanation of each of the following:

(A) Specific eligibility requirements for problem-solving court participation, including

the fact that a person does not have a right to participate in problem-solving court.

(B) The services offered by the problem-solving court either directly, by contract or by

referral.

description of the scheduling and attendance requirements for court dates, chemical

testing, day reporting, appointments with case managers and treatment providers,

self-help and other group meetings, and other regularly scheduled requirements for

phase advancement and graduation.

(D) Conduct and behavior that could result in incentives, sanctions, therapeutic adjustments, or termination from problem-solving court.

(E) The range of incentives and sanctions for compliance and non-compliance with

problem-solving court requirements.

(F) The circumstances under which a therapeutic adjustment, as determined by the

problem-solving court team in consultation with a treatment provider, may be

imposed.

(G) Information about the treatment providers used by the problem-solving court,

including name, address, telephone number, and services provided.

(H) Information regarding the cost to participants for problem-solving court services,

day reporting, home detention and work release, chemical testing, treatment services

and any other programs and services and the procedure and schedule for paying these

fees.

(I) Information about the problem-solving court’s policy and procedures for scheduling

and conducting chemical tests.

(J) Information summarizing the federal confidentiality law and to whom suspected viol-

ations may be reported, as applicable.

(2) Orientation may be conducted during an individual or a group appointment.

(b) A problem-solving court shall create and use a form to advise each participant in writing of

the information described in subsection (a) of this section. The form must contain a signature

line or a signature page for the participant to indicate that the participant has been provided

a copy of the form, understands the information provided, and agrees to comply with all participation requirements. The problem-solving court shall maintain the form or the signature

page with the participant’s original signature in the participant’s case management file.

Section 22. Risk and Needs Assessment

Effective April 7, 2021

(a) A problem-solving court considering an individual’s eligibility for problem-solving court participation and admitting participants under a criminal case number or delinquency case number shall develop and observe written policy and procedure for scheduling, conducting, and

implementing case plans based on the results of risk and needs assessments utilizing the Indiana Risk Assessment System (IRAS) or the Indiana Youth Assessment System (IYAS).

(b) The IRAS/IYAS risk and needs assessment policy, procedure and practice shall meet each

of the following criteria:

(1) Risk and needs assessments shall be conducted by an individual certified by the Indiana Office of Court Services in accordance with the Indiana Youth Assessment System and

Indiana Risk Assessment System user certification policy adopted by the Judicial Conference of Indiana Board of Directors.

(2) If the risk and needs assessment results suggest that the participant requires a more

detailed evaluation in a particular area such as substance abuse, mental health, etc., the

participant shall be referred to an appropriate provider for further evaluation.

(3) Reassessments shall be conducted in accordance with the Indiana Youth Assessment

System policy or the Indiana Risk Assessment System policy as adopted by the Judicial Conference of Indiana Board of Directors.

(4) Each participant shall be reassessed upon discharge from the problem-solving court.

(5) A copy of the summary page of the initial assessment and any reassessments conducted during problem-solving court participation shall be maintained in the participant’s

case management file.

(6) The confidentiality of participant risk assessment information shall be maintained in

accordance with the policy adopted by the Judicial Conference of Indiana Board of Directors.

(7) The results of a participant’s risk and needs assessments shall be provided to the treatment provider(s) providing services to that participant.

scheduling and conducting assessments utilizing any appropriate empirically validated assessment instrument to determine the needs of individuals referred and admitted to the court

under a civil case number or the needs of individuals referred and admitted under a criminal

case number or delinquency petition in addition to the IRAS/IYAS.

Section 23. Case Plan

Effective April 7, 2021

(a) The problem-solving court shall develop and observe written policy and procedure for creating and updating a case plan that addresses responsivity factors for each participant based

on the results of the risk and needs assessment conducted pursuant to section 22 of these

rules and any other assessments completed by problem-solving court staff or a treatment or

services provider.

(b) The case plan shall address each domain of the IRAS/IYAS identified as high or moderate

in which the participant admitted to the problem-solving court under a criminal or delinquency case number. The case plan may address the following additional components:

(1) Supervision, including work release, home detention, day reporting, electronic monitoring, and chemical testing.

(2) Mental health treatment services.

(3) Substance abuse treatment services.

(4) Anger management.

(5) Community and victim services.

(6) Faith-based services.

(7) Employment services.

(8) Restitution.

(9) Housing services.

(10) Domestic violence services.

(11) Education services.

(12) Life skills.

(13) Medical services.

(14) High-risk health behaviors.

(15) Dental services.

(16) Family and interpersonal counseling.

(17) Parenting counseling.

(18) Child visitation.

(19) Trauma informed services.

(c) The problem-solving court shall provide a copy of the case plan to the participant and document the participant’s receipt of the plan in the participant’s case management file. The case

plan shall be maintained in the participant’s case management file.

(d) The problem-solving court shall develop and maintain policy and procedure for peri-

odically updating the case plan by creating subsequent case plans maintained in the

participant’s case management file, documenting plan modifications through written updates

submitted by the case manager and maintained in the participant’s case management file or

through progress notes maintained in the participant’s case management file.

Commentary Section 23(b).

Problem-solving courts admitting participants as an order in a dispositional decree under

IC 31-34-20 should develop and observe a case-plan based on the results of an empirically validated safety or risk assessment tool.

Section 24. Case Management

Effective April 7, 2021

(a) The problem-solving court shall develop and observe policy and procedure for recording

participant progress in the participant’s case management file.

(b) The participant case management files kept by the case manager shall comply with the following:

(1) Progress notes shall be filed or maintained in chronological order, either integrated or

by type of record.

(2) Progress notes shall contain the date and the signature, name, or initials of the staff

member making the entry.

(3) Progress notes shall document of the following:

(A) All contact with the participant.

(B) All contact with an individual or an agency directly regarding the participant.

(4) Contain all records as required by these rules.

(c) The case manager shall monitor the participant’s compliance with the participation agreement and the case plan. The case manager shall facilitate, coordinate, and monitor the full

range of basic human needs, treatment, and service resources and delivery for problem-solving court participants in accordance with these rules, the policies and procedures of the problem- solving court, service provider(s) and treatment provider(s).

Section 25. Chemical Testing

Effective April 7, 2021

(a) The problem-solving court shall require participants to submit to chemical testing to

determine the participant’s use of alcohol and drugs.

(b) The problem-solving court shall develop and observe written policy and procedures for

scheduling and conducting chemical tests, to include:

(1) The specific method or methods of chemical testing used.

(2) What samples are collected and tested, such as urine, blood, breath, sweat or saliva.

(3) Substances identified by testing.

(4) The cutoff level for each substance.

(5) A description of the problem-solving court’s collection protocols, including random

chemical testing procedures, for-cause testing policy, location of testing, testing hours, participant reporting timeframe following notice based on the type of sample(s) collected,

and staff responsible for specimen collection.

(6) Any changes to the problem-solving court’s mandatory collection protocols shall follow

consultation with an addictions treatment services provider certified by DMHA or certified,

licensed or accredited by an equivalent certifying agency.

(7) Collection procedures including witnessed collection, staff training and sample chain of

custody.

(8) The problem-solving court’s policy on missed tests, adulterated samples, dilute

samples, and inadequate samples.

(9) The cost of and payment procedures for chemical testing.

(10) Circumstances requiring a confirmation test, if any.

(A) The problem-solving court’s procedures for confirmation including the type of confirmation test used.

(B) The party responsible for paying the cost of a confirmation test.

Commentary Section 25(b)(5).

Consult your toxicologist for the detection window for the type of sample(s) collected by

your court.

Commentary Section 25(b)(6).

Consultation with an addictions treatment services provider may occur during a problem-solving court team meeting. It is recommended that a problem-solving court obtain a substance abuse assessment conducted by an addictions treatment services provider certified by DMHA or certified, licensed or accredited by an equivalent certifying agency with

a determination that the participant does not have a substance abuse disorder, as such

instances may occur in mental health courts, veterans’ treatment court, and reentry

courts, etc. prior to discontinuing mandatory chemical testing protocols.

Section 26. Transfers

Effective April 7, 2021

(a) A problem-solving court may initiate and/or accept transfers of individuals from another

court.

(b) A problem-solving court that permits participants to transfer out of the county or accepts

the transfer of individuals in from another county shall develop and observe written policy

and procedure for the consideration of transfer applications to include the following:

(1) An individual does not have a right to a problem-solving court transfer. The sending

and receiving courts have the discretion to approve or deny a transfer application. A transfer is deemed approved only if both the sending and receiving courts approve the transfer

request in writing.

(2) A problem-solving court transfer received from another county shall be for the purposes of supervision and problem-solving court participation only, including intermittent

sanctioning authority. The problem-solving court shall send the individual back to the

sending court when the participant has completed all of the problem-solving court’s participation requirements or has been terminated from the problem-solving court.

(3) The sending court shall retain jurisdiction over case disposition following successful

completion of or termination from a problem-solving court.

county in accordance with local court rules and/or local court administrative policy.

(d) A problem-solving court transfer fee may be charged to an individual for any approved

transfer within Indiana.

(1) A participant may be charged a transfer fee by both the sending and receiving problem-solving courts.

(2) The problem-solving court transfer fee may not exceed $25.

(3) The problem-solving court shall adopt by local court rule the fee assessed to participants for a problem-solving court transfer.

(e) The problem-solving court fees for transfers within Indiana authorized under this section

shall be collected and utilized in accordance with IC 33-23-16-23.

(f) All problem-solving court participants who travel outside the State of Indiana are required

to comply with the Interstate Compact for Adult Offender Supervision or the Interstate Compact for Juveniles (IC 11-13.5). Any time a participant is required to travel out-of-state for

more than 45 days in a 12-month period, the problem-solving court shall consult the designated compact contact in the county to ensure compliance with all applicable rules of the

Interstate Compact for Adult Supervision or Interstate Compact for Juveniles.

Section 27. Incentives, Sanctions, and Therapeutic

Adjustments

Effective April 7, 2021

(a) The problem-solving court shall develop and observe written policy and procedure for

administering incentives, sanctions, and therapeutic adjustments to participants, including:

(1) The range of behaviors which may result in incentives and examples of incentives awar-

ded by the problem-solving court, including;

(A) Behavioral criteria for phase advancement and graduation are objective, realistic

and clearly defined based on clinical achievements, and

(B) Focus on pro-social behavior to reduce undesirable behavior.

(2) The range of behaviors which may result in sanctions, up to and including termination,

and the range of sanctions that may be imposed by the problem-solving court, incor-

porating;

(A) Proximal and distal goals and behaviors,

(B) Progressive disciplinary action, and

(3) The circumstances under which a therapeutic adjustment, as determined by the problem-solving court team in consultation with a treatment provider, may be imposed by the

problem-solving court and the behaviors which may elicit these actions.

Section 28. Discharge Procedures

Effective April 7, 2021

(a) The problem-solving court shall develop and observe written policy and procedure for processing the discharge, successful completion or termination, of all participants under the

problem-solving court’s jurisdiction pursuant to IC 33-23-16-13(3). Written notice shall be

provided to the referring court or agency after the participant has successfully complied with

the participant’s participation agreement and case plan or been terminated from the problem-solving court.

(b) Termination proceedings shall include the following participant rights:

(1) written notice of the alleged violation(s);

(2) a hearing in open court before the problem-solving court judge or another judicial

officer;

(3) representation by counsel;

(4) disclosure of the evidence against the participant;

(5) an opportunity to be heard and present evidence;

(6) confrontation and cross-examination of witnesses; and

(7) a determination that the participant violated one or more conditions of the participant’s participation agreement or case plan by a preponderance of the evidence.

Commentary Section 28(b)

Termination is appropriate if a participant can no longer be safely managed in the community, repeatedly fails to comply with treatment or supervision requirements or is not

amenable to available treatment options.

Provenance

Source: rules.incourts.gov
Retrieved: 2026-10-02
Edition: supplied-in-20-2021-04-07
Content hash: 1292528fbc96af40b24e36f7380ddce1bb7490b3209d5e7241940f90cff4b2bc

View the official source →

The link goes to the issuing authority’s own document — the one we read to produce this record. Where a source publishes whole titles rather than sections, your browser may need a moment to jump to the provision.

Unofficial copy of government-published law, reproduced from official sources with full provenance. Not an official publication; verify against official sources before relying on it in a filing. Records in the 'guidance' corpus, and only that corpus, are sub-regulatory (interpretive guidelines, survey procedures) and are not binding law. Validity bounds follow each jurisdiction's declared temporalBasis.

Coverage · API docs