AN ACT to create and enact a new section to chapter 27-05 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to district court supervised treatment programs approved by the supreme court.
Summary
HB 1347 creates a new section in chapter 27-05 of the North Dakota Century Code to define roles and responsibilities within district court supervised treatment programs that have been approved by the state supreme court. The bill is focused on specialized court dockets that combine judicial supervision with treatment and compliance services, and it assigns each participating agency a distinct function.
Under the bill, the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation is responsible for supervising offenders sentenced to supervised probation, following its own policies and procedures. The Department of Health and Human Services is assigned oversight of treatment services, also under its policies, procedures, and best practices. The district court is directed to provide judicial direction, guidance, and coordination for approved treatment and compliance-related specialized dockets.
Impact
The bill adds a new statutory provision governing district court supervised treatment programs and clarifies agency responsibilities in those programs. It does not create a new criminal penalty or expand eligibility for treatment court participation, but it does formalize the operational structure for probation supervision, treatment oversight, and judicial coordination in specialized dockets. The affected parties are the courts, the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, the Department of Health and Human Services, and offenders placed on supervised probation in approved treatment programs.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have broad bipartisan support and little visible opposition. It passed the House 89-0 and the Senate 45-1, indicating strong agreement that the roles of the court and executive agencies should be clearly defined for supervised treatment programs. The near-unanimous votes suggest the measure was viewed as an administrative or organizational clarification rather than a controversial policy change.
Contention
There is little evidence of substantive contention in the available record, and no committee transcript was provided. The only notable point of possible disagreement is the allocation of authority among the district court, the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, and the Department of Health and Human Services, but the overwhelming vote margins suggest any concerns were minor. The single Senate dissent indicates at least one legislator had reservations, though the record does not show the basis for that objection.