Senate Judiciary Committee recommends ‘treatment court’ name change for drug courts
Summary
After a staff study and stakeholder input, the Senate Judiciary Committee gave House Bill 1030 a do-pass recommendation to replace the term “drug court” with “treatment court,” citing destigmatization and broader focus on recovery and access to services.
The Senate Judiciary Committee recommended a do-pass on House Bill 1030, which would replace the term “drug court” with “treatment court” in North Dakota law. The committee voted to advance the bill after a hearing that included findings from a legislative study and testimony from judicial and human-services stakeholders.
The bill is based on a study requested in “section 55 of Senate Bill 20 12,” which asked the Supreme Court to evaluate replacing the phrase “drug court” with “wellness court” and to identify statutory changes needed for implementation. Scott Johnson, who presented the committee’s study, said a work group surveyed judges, drug court staff, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation personnel, Department of Health and Human Services representatives, and adult participants in specialized dockets. “Those surveyed preferred the term treatment,” Johnson said, adding that participants were more concerned about access to treatment resources than the label itself.
Kim Jacobson, director of Agassiz Valley Human Service Zone, told the committee that human service zones frequently partner with corrections and treatment providers to assist returning citizens and families. “Accurate and destigmatizing language, such as proposed by House Bill 1030, is a critical driver of individual stability, family reunification, and recovery,” Jacobson said in support of the bill.
Travis Fink, executive director of the North Dakota Commission on Legal Counsel for Indigence, also spoke in favor, saying the renaming “indicates to the participants in those programs the support of the North Dakota legislature” for recovery.
Committee members questioned who was surveyed and were told the group included adult drug court participants, judges, drug court staff, and representatives of state agencies. Senator Castaneda asked whether the survey included the interim judiciary committee; Johnson replied that the surveyed participants were the practitioners and participants listed above, not the interim committee itself.
Senator Meerdal moved a do-pass recommendation; Senator Castaneda seconded. The committee recorded affirmative votes and the motion carried.
Because testimony emphasized that access to treatment resources, not only naming, is the primary concern, proponents urged that the change be paired with efforts to increase treatment availability. The bill now moves from committee with a recommendation to pass.
Ending: The committee named Senator Corey as the bill carrier after the vote. No opposition or neutral testimony was recorded during the hearing.
