Problem Solving Courts Coordinators & Committee

The Idaho Drug Court and Mental Health Court Act requires the Supreme Court to establish a Drug Court and Mental Health Court Coordinating Committee. Supreme Court Justice Daniel Eismann serves as Chair of the Drug Court Coordinating Committee. The committee has representation from each judicial district consisting of judges, court administrators, drug court coordinators, prosecuting attorneys, public defenders, state and county probation officers, treatment providers, legislators, and drug court graduates and also includes representatives from key partner state agencies.

• Current Coordinating Committee Members [1]  (link to roster updated 05/16) 
• Drug & Mental Health Court Coordinators Roster [2]  (updated 08/16)

The charge of the Drug Court Coordinating Committee is to establish a drug court implementation plan and oversee ongoing drug court programs. The implementation plan includes a strategy to forge partnerships among drug courts, public agencies, and community-based organizations to enhance drug court effectiveness. The committee is also charged with responsibility to develop guidelines for drug courts addressing eligibility, identification and screening, assessment, treatment and treatment providers, case management and supervision, and evaluation.

During 2003 the Committee worked for several months to develop useful guidelines for the adult drug courts. The Guidelines were adopted September 26, 2003 and the committee will be overseeing implementation efforts throughout the state during 2004, as well as the development of juvenile drug court guidelines.

Another important accomplishment of the guideline development process was the development of a model Consent for Disclosure of Confidential Information, to assist drug court teams assure appropriate adherence to federal confidentiality requirements while carrying out the interactive interagency teamwork of the drug court.

The coordinating committee is also required to solicit specific drug court plans, and recommend funding priorities and decisions per judicial district; pursue all available alternate funding; provide technical assistance, develop procedural manuals, and schedule training opportunities for the drug court teams; design an evaluation strategy, including participation in the statewide substance abuse evaluation plan; and design an automated Drug Court management information system, which promotes information sharing with other entities.