Content uploaded by Matt Collinson
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Matt Collinson on May 29, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
An Equity
and Inclusion
State of Mind
A Statewide Approach to Addressing Racial
and Ethnic Disparities in Treatment Courts
by Karen Otis, Alejandra Garcia, Taylor DeClerck,
Preeti Menon, Zephi Francis, and Matthew Collinson
Center for Justice Innovation
520 Eighth Avenue
New York, NY 10018
p. 646.386.3100
f. 212.397.0985 innovatingjustice.org
Acknowledgements
This project was supported by Grant No. AFA 15PBJA-23-AG-
00233-MUMU awarded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance.
The Bureau of Justice Assistance is a component of the
U.S. Department of Justice’s Oce of Justice Programs,
which also includes the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the
National Institute of Justice, the Oce of Juvenile Justice
and Delinquency Prevention, the Oce for Victims of
Crime, and the SMART Oce. Points of view or opinions
in this document are those of the author and do not
necessarily represent the ocial position or policies of the
U.S. Department of Justice. The authors would like to thank
the many court system ocials from states that participated
in the statewide RED project. Their support made it possible
to administer the RED Tool and collect the data needed
to identify recommendations included in this paper. The
authors appreciate their willingness to examine their
treatment court data with an eye toward racial equity.
February 2024Authors
Karen Otis
Center for Justice Innovation
Alejandra Garcia
Center for Justice Innovation
Taylor DeClerck
Center for Justice Innovation
Preeti Menon
American University
Zephi Francis
American University
Matthew Collinson
American University
For More Information
Karen Otis
otisk@innovatingjustice.org
Zephi Francis
zfrancis@american.edu
3
Introduction 04
Background 04
Racial and Ethnic Disparities Program
Assessment Tool 04
Who We Are 05
American University 05
Center for Justice Innovation 05
American University and the Center's
RED Statewide Collaboration 06
Methods 07
Key Results and Policy
Recommendations 08
A Variety of Treatment Courts Completed the
RED Tool 09
Include Racial and Ethnic Equity Language in
Court Documents 09
Oer Non-English-Speaking Participants
Translations Services and Court Materials in
their Native Languages 10
Make Trainings Widely Available on Strategies to
Reduce RED and Cultural Competency 11
Regularly Review Termination and Graduation
Data by Race and Ethnicity 13
Conclusion 14
References 14
4
CENTER FOR JUSTICE INNOVATION
Introduction
Background
The criminal legal system has a long,
well-documented history of racial dispari-
ties and mistreatment of minoritized racial
and ethnic groups. Treatment courts are a
part of this same system and unfortunate-
ly, have not been exempt from racial and
ethnic disparities in its programs. Research
has shown that disparities exist regarding
program access (Ho et al., 2018) and comple-
tion (Gallagher et al., 2023) for minoritized
individuals. Given the disparities that are
present in some treatment courts, the Adult
Drug Court Best Practice Standards include
a section on Equity and Inclusion, which en-
courages courts to monitor equivalent access,
retention, treatment services, sanctions and
incentives, and dispositions (National Asso-
ciation of Drug Court Professionals, 2018). It
is important for courts to detect disparities
and then to implement remedies. When ra-
cial and ethnic disparities (RED) are rectied
in treatment courts, minoritized participants
should have better access to programs, higher
graduation rates, and increases in their levels
of program satisfaction. As a racial reckoning
was happening in the United States (US)
during mid-year 2020 following the death of
George Floyd, teams at American University
(AU) and the Center for Justice Innovation
(the Center) joined forces to begin assisting
treatment courts within several states in
tackling RED.
Racial and Ethnic Disparities
Program Assessment Tool
Hearing a call from the eld to eliminate
disparities in treatment courts, faculty and
sta from AU along with subject matter
experts convened to create the Racial and
Ethnic Disparities Program Assessment Tool
(RED tool), which was subsequently released
in 2019. The RED tool helps treatment court
professionals identify and examine areas
where RED may exist in their programs
and policies. There are a series of open and
closed-ended questions on eight sections:
1. Court Information,
2. Intake,
3. Assessments,
4. Demographics,
5. Team Members,
6. Training,
7. Drugs/Treatment/Support Services, and
8. Evaluation and Monitoring.
Using a scoring rubric and algorithm, the
RED tool provides treatment courts with an
overall score, scores for seven out of eight
sections, and recommendations on alleviat-
ing racial and ethnic disparities. The tool is
a method for courts to proactively research
and address RED in court programs and is a
resource to assist in adherence to the Equity
and Inclusion Adult Drug Court Best Prac-
tice Standard.
5
AN EQUITY AND INCLUSION STATE OF MIND
Who We Are
American University
Since 1989, faculty and sta in the School
of Public Aairs at American University
(AU) have conducted technical assistance,
research, training, and evaluation projects
for local and state governments, federal
agencies, and international organizations.
Through research, policy development, and
training and technical assistance, AU is
committed to providing leadership in the
criminal legal system and building capacity
to address emerging issues that allow for
innovation. Currently, faculty and sta at
AU are leading several initiatives related to
identifying and rectifying racial and ethnic
disparities (RED) in treatment courts. AU is
dedicated to creating a culture where every-
one feels empowered, heard, and valued.
Center for Justice Innovation
The Center for Justice Innovation (the Center)
promotes new thinking about how the justice
system can respond more eectively to issues
like substance use, intimate partner violence,
mental illness, and juvenile delinquency.
The Center achieves its mission through a
combination of operating programs, original
research, and expert assistance. For over two
decades, the organization has been intensive-
ly engaged in designing and implementing
problem-solving courts, and each year, it
responds to hundreds of requests for training
and technical assistance and hosts hundreds
more visitors at its operating programs. Its
sta includes former prosecutors, defense
counsel, probation ocials, senior admin-
istrators of major criminal justice agencies,
social workers, technology experts, research-
ers, victim advocates, and mediators. Un-
der the Bureau of Justice Assistance’s (BJA)
Statewide Adult Drug Court Training and
Technical Assistance Program, the Center
provides training and technical assistance to
statewide treatment court systems, helping
state-level treatment court coordinators and
other ocials enhance the operation of drug
courts and other treatment courts throughout
their state.
6
CENTER FOR JUSTICE INNOVATION
American University's and
the Center’s RED Statewide
Collaboration
American University and the Center part-
nered to deploy the RED tool and a multi-
phase strategic planning implementation
model to address RED in treatment courts.
The partnership began in 2020. Below is a
snapshot of how RED statewide eorts are
typically structured and executed.
1. Pre-tool engagement
AU and the Center engage with statewide
treatment court administrators to inform
them of the statewide initiative. Once
a state agrees to engage, the statewide
treatment court administrator noties
treatment courts in the state about the
statewide RED project and schedules an
introductory webinar.
2. Introductory webinar
A live webinar for treatment court
practitioners is held to discuss the
usability and functionality of the RED
tool, future training and technical
assistance (TTA) opportunities, and to
answer questions. After the webinar, the
statewide treatment court administrator
gives AU a list of courts that voluntarily
signed up, along with a court point-of-
contact. Statewide administrators do
not get access individual court data. AU
follows strict Institutional Review Board
(IRB) protocols and only shares aggregate
statewide data.
3. RED Tool completion
Courts have about a month to complete
the tool. Once a court completes the tool,
a “local report” with recommendations
is generated to alleviate RED based on
specic program data.
4. Data aggregation and statewide
report preparation
Using courts’ submitted responses to
the tool, AU aggregates and analyzes the
data, and creates a statewide data report.
The Center then produces statewide
policy recommendations based on the
aggregated data and the analysis. The
recommendations are added to the
statewide data report and then shared
with court personnel.
5. Rening the report
AU and the Center meet with court
administrators to review the report,
answer questions, and discuss next steps.
6. Carrying out the recommendations
The Center provides training and
technical assistance and works with the
statewide court administrators to carry out
the recommendations from the report.
This may include facilitation of a series
of statewide RED trainings including
sessions comprised of modules on the
history of racial and ethnic disparities and
drugs in the criminal legal system and
7
AN EQUITY AND INCLUSION STATE OF MIND
the impact on treatment courts, cultural
awareness, humility and responsiveness,
and statewide RED data collection,
analysis, and performance measures.
7. Decision points workshop
Finally, the Center holds an action
planning workshop where Center sta
and treatment court practitioners identify
decision points within treatment court
operations that aect racial and ethnic
disparities. Center sta use the Adult
Drug Court Best Practice Standards to
pinpoint operational interventions that
reduce RED. This workshop results in a
practitioner friendly action plan that can
be implemented by local and state level
practitioners.
Methods
Between 2020 and 2023, ve states partici-
pated in a statewide RED initiative. There
were 137 jurisdictions that completed the
RED assessment tool from the ve states
over the past three years. Those states and
local treatment courts engaged in the RED
project methodology listed above. Each
state prioritized the report’s recommenda-
tion and developed a training and technical
assistance plan to implement change at a
statewide level.
8
CENTER FOR JUSTICE INNOVATION
Key Results and Policy
Recommendations
A Variety of Treatment
Courts Completed the
RED Tool
Any treatment court type can utilize the RED
tool, however, many of the components of
the assessment were structured around the
Adult Drug Court Best Practices. In this proj-
ect, nine types of treatment courts complet-
ed the RED tool. Unsurprisingly, the most
common court type was adult drug court
(57%). On the other hand, co-occurring dis-
order court was the least frequent court type
(less than 1%). The team at AU is working on
adding additional tracks (Family Treatment
Court, Juvenile Drug Treatment Court, and
Mental Health Court) to the tool which will
include treatment court type specic ques-
tions. With the addition of the new tracks,
there is an expectation that there will be an
uptick in assessments being completed by
these court types. Figure 1 provides a com-
pletion break down by court type.
RED TOOL COMPLETION BY COURT TYPE
COURT TYPE FREQUENCY PERCENTAGE
Adult Drug Court 79 57.66 %
Adult Hybrid Drug/DUI Court 8 5.84%
Co-occurring Disorder Court 1 0.73%
DUI/DWI Court 64.38%
Family Drug Court 8 5.84%
Juvenile Drug Treatment Court 2 1. 46%
Mental Health Court 17 12.41%
Veterans Treatment Court 10 7.30%
Other 64.38%
Total 137 100%
FIGURE 1
9
AN EQUITY AND INCLUSION STATE OF MIND
Include Racial and Ethnic
Equity Language in Court
Documents
For many treatment courts, there are several
documents that outline the program’s goals,
structure, and operations. The language
utilized in these documents matter and have
implications for everyone involved in the
program. As a result, we wanted to investi-
gate to what extent treatment courts include
language about racial and ethnic equity in its
documents. After conducting our analysis,
we found that less than half (48%) of courts
reported discussing racial and ethnic equi-
ty in policy and procedure manuals. It was
less common for courts to include language
about racial and ethnic equity in its written
participant handbooks (28%) and mission
statements (16%). Treatment court teams
can demonstrate their commitment to racial
and ethnic equity through these materials,
so that participants can see that the court
is committed to creating an equitable and
inclusive environment. Figure 2 illustrates
the prevalence of courts including racial and
ethnic equity in their operational documents.
RECOMMENDATION
Statewide administrators can craft statewide
racial equity mission and vision statements in
collaboration with local stakeholders. Local
courts can include this language in policy and
procedure manuals, local communications
with stakeholders, community partners, and
marketing materials. This language can also
be added to each treatment court’s website and
participant handbook.
FIGURE 2
TREATMENT COURT DOCUMENTS
No
Ye s
N/A
DK
Mission
Statement
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Staff Policy
and Procedure
Manual
Written
Participant
Handbook
73%
16%
6% 5%
40%
48%
6% 6%
65%
28%
3% 4%
10
CENTER FOR JUSTICE INNOVATION
Offer Non-English-Speaking
Participants Translations
Services and Court Materials
in their Native Languages
Many communities in the US are becoming
more racially and ethnically diverse. Con-
sequently, treatment courts can expect to
engage with participants who do not speak
English or when English is a secondary
language. Having translation services and
materials in diverse languages is crucial to
ensure that diverse language participants
have procedural fairness as they matriculate
through the court system. It is imperative for
treatment court participants to understand
the legal implications of program participa-
tion in their spoken language. Additionally,
participants should have an opportunity to
voice their input on the decision-making pro-
cess and there should be sta who are able
to interpret and understand their comments.
Of the courts that indicated interacting with
diverse language participants, approximately
two-thirds (67%) “often” or “always” pro-
vide translators/translation services. On the
contrary, many programs (56%) “never” or
“rarely” oer treatment court materials in
languages other than English.
RECOMMENDATION
Statewide administrators should ensure that
treatment court team members are aware of
available interpreter services. All statewide
materials (written, audio, and video) should
ideally be available in each participant’s
native language and/or an interpreter should
be available, and local courts should consider
employing a community-based outreach spe-
cialist (e.g., cultural broker, community liaison,
participant outreach, peer-support) to support
diverse language participants.
TRANSLATION SERVICES AND MATERIALS
FIGURE 3
Rarely
Sometimes
Often
Always
Never
50%
30
0%
10%
%
60%
40%
20%
Translators/
Translation Services
Treatment Court
Materials in Native
Languages
11% 9%
13%
8%
59%
47%
9%
20%
7%
17%
11
AN EQUITY AND INCLUSION STATE OF MIND
Make Trainings Widely
Available on Strategies to
Reduce RED and Cultural
Competency
Training is a common and eective method
to support treatment court team members
skill building and enhance their perfor-
mance on the team. It is vital for treatment
court professionals to learn about strategies
to reduce RED and gain cultural awareness
and responsivity to make treatment courts
equitable. It was promising to see that most
courts oer training on strategies to reduce
RED (58%) and training on cultural compe-
tency (60%). However, only 16% of respon-
dents indicated that training on strategies
to reduce RED are mandatory for all team
members, whereas for cultural competency
training, the percentage was slightly high-
er at 20%. In addition, few courts reported
making any changes to the programs follow-
ing training, with 38% for RED training and
25% for cultural competency training.
RECOMMENDATION
Statewide administrators should develop and/
or coordinate training programs for every
team member focused on reducing racial and
ethnic disparities in treatment courts. Local
treatment court teams should debrief after
these trainings and create a plan to implement
strategies on reducing racial and ethnic dispar-
ities within their treatment court. These train-
ing(s) on reducing racial and ethnic dispari-
ties can be made mandatory for teams on an
annual basis.
Statewide administrators should also imple-
ment formal training on cultural awareness
and cultural humility to educate sta on
engagement with cultures other than their own.
These trainings should also be debriefed, and
next steps should be identified within each team.
TRAININGS OFFERED FOR TEAM MEMBERS
FIGURE 4
RED Strategies
Cultural
Competency
40%
50%
30
0%
10%
%
60%
20%
No Ye s Don't Know
25%
20%
58% 60%
17%
20%
12
CENTER FOR JUSTICE INNOVATION
MANDATORY TRAINING FOR TEAM MEMBERS
FIGURE 5
%
%
60%
10%
50%
40%
30
0%
20
No Yes, Some Yes, All Don't Know
51%
39%
26% 28%
16%
20%
7%
13%
CHANGES IMPLEMENTED AFTER TRAINING
FIGURE 6
%
60%
10%
%
50%
40%
30
0%
20
No Ye s Don't Know
52%
59%
25%
38%
10%
16%
RED Strategies
Cultural
Competency
RED Strategies
Cultural
Competency
13
AN EQUITY AND INCLUSION STATE OF MIND
Regularly Review Termination
and Graduation Data by Race
and Ethnicity
Monitoring data and conducting evaluation
activities are crucial to the operations of
treatment courts. Collecting and analyzing
data allows courts to identify what is going
well or areas that can be improved. If some-
thing is going poorly, data gives the court an
opportunity to brainstorm ideas to make im-
provements to operations. For courts to know
if disparities exist, the court must regularly
review race and ethnicity data on a regular
basis. Less than one-third (30%) of courts
regularly review graduation and termination
data by race and ethnicity. If courts do not
monitor all aspects of data, they are noncom-
pliant with the Equity and Inclusion Adult
Drug Court Best Practice Standard.
RECOMMENDATION
Local treatment courts should regularly ex-
amine aggregate and disaggregate graduation
and termination data to determine the rates
of retention of participants of dierent ethnic
and racial groups. Statewide administrators
can help local courts identify an evaluator to
evaluate disparities in program outcomes at
each phase of the program.
REGULARLY REVIEWING TERMINATION AND GRADUATION DATA
%
%
60%
50%
10%
40%
30
0%
20
No Ye s Don't Know
60%
30%
10%
FIGURE 7
No
Ye s
DK
14
CENTER FOR JUSTICE INNOVATION
References
Gallagher, J. R., Menon, P., Francis, Z., Collinson, M., & Odili, P. (2023). Color in the Court:
Using the Racial and Ethnic Disparities (RED) Program Assessment Tool to Promote Equitable
and Inclusive Treatment Court Practice. Alcoholism Treatment Quarterly, 41(2), 149-161.
https://doi.org/10.1080/07347324.2023.2173037
Ho, T., Carey, S. M., & Malsch, A. M. (2018). Racial and Gender Disparities in Treatment
Courts: Do They Exist and Is There Anything We Can Do to Change Them? Journal for
Advancing Justice 1, 5-34.
National Association of Drug Court Professionals. (2018). Adult Drug Court Best Practice
Standards Volume 1 Text Revision. https://allrise.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Adult-
Drug-Court-Best-Practice-Standards-Volume-I-Text-Revision-December-2018.pdf
Conclusion
Treatment courts are eective interventions,
however, there is always room for improve-
ment. Our research highlighted the need for
more treatment courts to craft operational
documents with racial and ethnic equity lan-
guage. Although many courts oered diverse
populations translators/translation services,
treatment court materials in languages other
than English was less prominent. Regarding
training on strategies to reduce RED and cul-
tural competency, trainings should be oered
annually for all team members and changes
to programs ought to be implemented fol-
lowing training participation. More courts
should regularly review their graduation
and termination data broken down by race/
ethnicity to uncover disparities. As treatment
courts implement strategies to enhance
minoritized participants’ access, retention,
and program satisfaction, equity and inclu-
sion must be a key priority. When treatment
courts complete the RED tool, implement
policy recommendations, and participate in
training and technical assistance opportuni-
ties, programs will become more equitable
and inclusive. We commend each jurisdiction
and state that participated in this study and
we encourage additional statewide adminis-
trators and local courts to address racial and
ethnic disparities in treatment courts.
innovatingjustice.org
Activating ideas.
Strengthening communities.