State Court Administrator Tom Boyd told the House Appropriations Subcommittee that the judiciary's multi‑year budget boilerplate to study oral‑fluid prescription‑compliance testing has not been spent and that, while initial testing demonstrated oral‑fluid swabs detect specific drugs, the method so far cannot determine compliance with treatment‑court orders that require taking the correct dose.

"None of that money's been used at all," Boyd said of the $500,000 item created in last year’s budget. He described three years of pilot testing showing oral‑fluid swabs can detect the presence of certain prescription drugs but said the tests cannot reliably measure how much of a drug a person took or whether a person followed dosage instructions — the specific compliance standard many treatment courts require.

Why this matters

Problem‑solving courts and other treatment courts use drug testing to monitor compliance with court‑ordered treatment. The committee asked whether the oral‑fluid testing program had fulfilled the budget's requirement to assess whether the method can measure compliance and whether it provides a net benefit compared with urine drug‑screening, the more common test.

Key details

Boyd said the budget language in section 404 asked the judiciary to do more than simply show presence of a drug; it asked the judiciary to determine compliance with treatment orders and to appraise the benefit to the state. "Under the test for the three years, we can't do that," Boyd said. He added that the judiciary issued an RFP to hire an independent evaluator; the RFP set an upper cap of $200,000 for a proposal, but no vendor submitted a bid.

Boyd said the judiciary intends to reissue the RFP and pursue the evaluation. He said that if a properly designed study shows oral‑fluid testing is not superior to established urine testing, the judiciary will not spend the appropriation and will lapse it back to the general fund.

Discussion versus decision

Committee members sought clarification about how much of the budgeted amount had been spent and whether the current pilot programs met the boilerplate's standards. Boyd answered that $0 had been spent to date and that additional evaluation work remains to be done. There was no legislative change or reallocation voted at the hearing.

Background and next steps

Boyd said the pilot projects had practical benefits — oral swabs are convenient and easy to administer — but that the pilot could not answer two remaining questions: whether oral‑fluid testing can demonstrate dosage/compliance, and whether it yields a measurable benefit to the state compared with urine testing. The judiciary plans to reissue the RFP for an independent evaluation and use the results to decide whether to expend the $500,000 appropriation.

Ending

The committee did not require immediate action. Court officials said they will republish the RFP, pursue an independent evaluation, and report results; if the test does not show a state benefit, the appropriation will not be spent.